The 2016 election exposed grave vulnerability and fragility in the American party system. One major party was successfully hijacked by an extremist outsider in the face of initial opposition from a huge portion of the party’s elites and elected leaders. The other party came surprisingly close (if still not objectively very close) to meeting the same fate
Pointer from Tyler Cowen.
My thoughts:
1. I would suggest that the Democratic Party was hijacked by an outsider in 2008.
2. It appears that being hijacked by an outsider works to a party’s advantage, at least in the short run. If the Republican elite had succeeded in putting in their candidate (Rubio?), the Republicans probably would not have picked up the Rust Belt states that went for Mr. Trump. In this alternate history, Mrs. Clinton becomes President. Given that Levy laments the weakening of the Republican Party elite, he implicitly prefers this alternate history. I do not. Yet.
3. As Levy points out, partisanship is high.
89% of Democrats voted for Clinton, 90% of Republicans for Trump. Those figures are down a touch from 2012—both major parties lost more voters to third parties than in 2012—but considering the year of headlines about how unpopular both candidates were, the result is stark.
Also, partisanship is correlated with knowledge.
4. What this means is that a Presidential election is “swung” by a tiny number of voters who are only weakly partisan. My guess is that swing voters probably have the least ability to articulate a connection between the policies of their candidate and the outcomes that they desire. I would guess that if you interviewed voters in the counties that “flipped” from Obama to Trump, you would not be very impressed with their rationales behind either choice.
5. Pause and consider just how random this is. A few yahoos switch their votes, and this causes about half the country to be somewhat pleased and the other half to be bummed out of their minds.
6. What Levy seems to want to do is strengthen the parties, so that the elites can choose the candidates. He is nostalgic for the era of “the party decides.” Going back to that era would presumably produce candidates who rely less on personal charisma and more on the ability to get along well with party leaders.
7. If we go back to “the party decides,” one result would be to limit the potential impact of “swing” voters. The worst that they could do is pick the “wrong” establishment candidate, as opposed to going for an unreliable novice.
8. The outsider Obama leaves behind an unusually weak Democratic Party. It is not hard to imagine something similar happening to the Republicans under President Trump.
9. If you believe Martin Gurri, then the currents at work weakening the insiders are much deeper than nomination rules or other party mechanics.
Regardless of which specific states would have swung, Rubio was fundamentally much more popular with the general electorate than Trump was and as far we we can tell he would have beaten Hillary much more convincingly with a majority of both the popular vote and the electoral college. The fundamentals were very much in favor of a Republican victory in 2016 and it’s remarkable that the race ended up being as close as it was.
It is a little more complicated. Hillary checked both boxed of incumbent party and establishment candidate and another that we might call continued gridlock. Rubio might not have been considered worth the risk as he was not differentiated from Clinton in ways Trump was.
I wonder yet whether Trump will reform the party or the party will reform him. Yes, he could take them down, succeed or fail.
I suspect his net effect will be to marginalize the do-nothing concern troll wings of both parties temporarily.
Political scientists don’t have a great standard for what makes a good or bad governing record, so they evaluate the next best thing, passing legislation. Any strong party is going to get lots done, by definition. So political scientists are always in favor of strong parties and systems that encourage strong parties. They don’t tend to favor systems that produce weak parties and divided government, like the US.
1) Barack Obama was outside the Democrats party machine, but not outside its ideology. If anything he was purer on that metric.
2) Trumps popular vote tally was up in the Rust Belt, which for electoral math reasons is the only place that mattered. Steve Sailer was right about missing white voters in the Rust Belt. It’s not just a story of being turned off by the other person. Turnout seems down only when you include coastal areas that don’t matter.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/12/29/2016-vs-2012-how-trumps-win-and-clintons-votes-stack-up-to-obama-and-romney/&refURL=&referrer=
3) I probably wouldn’t be very impressed with the rationals and understanding of the strongly partisan either.
The #1 issue of our day is immigration, as immigration is what will determine all future political policies since it determines the future electorate. Trump was right on that issue and elites were wrong.
I agree with Andrew. The polls showed all GOP contenders more popular than Trump. And contrary to much of what is being said, the polls were right within their margin of error. And yes, Trump did get some the blue collar white votes another might not have, but he turned off a lot of soccer moms and lost their vote in a lot of places. And all the rust belt states have their share of suburbs full of soccer moms. Really, running as a dem these last 8 years, if your name was not Obama, generally meant you lost. I see not reason the Presidential race should have been different. Really, Trump ran a terrible race and still won. Not sure what happens from here, but if Trump increases economic growth, and the stock market is betting he can, he may end up helping the GOP.
What the vast election-analysis industry won’t see is that Trump convinced voters that he was sincere in his wish to make America great again – a simple heartfelt desire to which Clinton had no counter. Con-men have mothers, too!
That said, Trump is so utterly sui generis, politically, personally, and commercially, that placing him within some larger context is hard to do with any confidence. I would describe him as the head of the Monarchist party, allied for now with the Republicans, but a still nascent party yearning for Caesar.
Trump is the God-Emperor, and Vox
is his prophet.
“9. If you believe Martin Gurri, then the currents at work weakening the insiders are much deeper than nomination rules or other party mechanics.”
Each of the major parties has had an “establishment,” which are the oligarchies identified by Robert Michels’ Iron Law of Oligarchy.
The Republican has been dispersed regionally (possibly contributing to more favorable regional results, but subject to fracture (Tea Party and the “Blue Collar Shift” invasion).
The Democrat has become more and more centralized (rigid?) possibly due to the composition of particular (diverse/conflicting) constituencies making it more (fissiparous) vulnerable to fragmentation.
The broader public (not just the electorate) reviles both sets of oligarchies for the constraints of choices that have been allowed through the organizations. It has been a revolt against oligarchies – not against “elites.” There are NO elites, even by T S Eliot’s critique.
Sold. But do you have a funner word than oligarchies?
Here’s a fun thought: Suppose that Hillary Clinton had won the Presidency, and several months later people who’d voted for her were discussing the election in their blogs and Facebook pages. Do you suppose they’d be obsessively lamenting the nature of Clinton supporters?
“Oh, I wish there hadn’t been so many Latino voters in California!” “And all those gays. It makes me sick thinking about how Ell-Gee-Bee-Tee-Whatever’s there are always coming out to vote for Democrats.” “And all those damned colleges, I don’t know what’s worse, the undergraduates or the professors, I can’t stand them, but they all voted for Hillary!” “And the Jews. And the Moslems. And the Hindus.” “Athiests, Don’t forget the athiests!” “Yeah, Athiests. I go to Mass on Sundays and Father O’Brien just looks at me and I think of those Jews and Athiests and I feel like I’m two inches tall.” “And the blacks! Couldn’t we do all right in the south and east without so damned many blacks? All those speeches on Martin Luther King Day — makes me ashamed to be a Democrat.”
Funny thing. They aren’t sounding off like this. Listen for a while, read some of their blogs. People who voted for Democrats were mostly content with the other people who voted for Democrats. They generally see each other as public spirited, tolerant, good hearted.
Different thing being a Trump voter, eh?
I don’t think I agree with the fundamental nature of this piece. Let’s say we have two potential options: A, and B. 45% of the populace is for A. 45% of the population is for B. 10% of the population wavers between A and B.
Why is the 10% the irrational group? If both A and B are reasonable options, surely a rational person should be drawn to both options. And changing your vote as circumstances change for current circumstances is *more* rational than blindly voting for A or B, and insisting the other side cannot be right.
If one of the options is simply wrong, then everyone who supports that option is irrational. In which case, 65% of the population is irrational, not just that 10%.
A large segment of the populace may take an irrational action on any one matter, but that does not certify them as irrational.
As an observer such as Jacques Barzun would note much is NOT intellectual.
Well, this is the issue. (I like your comment BTW. I’m not saying all this stuff because I want to slap you down. I’m just saying all this stuff because I’m older and more cynical — and thinking of myself as a younger, less cynical person, I would really like you to stay interested in politics and economics.)
Go back to 1960, and there was a close election between Nixon and Kennedy. One could well imagine that they weren’t all that far apart, and the 5 or 10 percent of the voters who wavered between them were rational. Go to 2000, with the Bush-Gore election, and I think you can make the same argument — Reps and Dems and middle-of-the-roaders were all being reasonable.and whatever decision the Supreme Court got to would have given us a “valid” election.
1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2004 …. those were normal elections, and I’ve nothing to say.
1964. Normal election, no doubt about that, although it was a landslide for Lyndon Johnson. But it was noteworthy as an election in which one side — Democrats — could argue that the other side’s candidate — Barry Goldwater — was so far from the political mainstream, so vile, so evil, that something was wrong with the procedures that got him nominated, and wrong with everyone who voted for him.
(Parenthetical note: I rather liked Goldwater, I cheerfully admit. I handed out campaign literature for him. I was sorry that I was too young to vote for him, I might do it again, if I had access to a time machine — although as the years go by, I become increasingly appreciative of Lyndon Johnson. Goldwater would have made a really nice neighbor; LBJ was a slimy poltician from the get-go who just happened to back civil rights and medicare.)
Now consider 2008, 2012, 2016. This is the modern world. An absolutely vile immoral NON-CHRISTIAN FOREIGNER got elected President in 2008, according to Republican orthodoxy. This was a Goldwater-style election in which the vile, evil, unacceptable candidate somehow won the Presidency. The candidate was wrong, and anyone who who voted for him was WRONG. He was a SOCIALIST. He wanted a COMMUNISTIC health plan. Because of a minor financial blip, he BANKRUPTED the whole American government without the slightest excuse. His every act had to be opposed by devout God-fearing Republicans, every nomination to a court or other government post rejected.
Arnold’s the libertarian here. He can explain this better than I.
Bizarrely, Obama won re-election in 2012. This did not make him a more typical American president. This did not make his supporters “normal” or “ordinary.” They were all EVIL, all of them. Ask anyone who voted for a Republican.
So we come to 2016. There aren’t “ordinary” presidential candiates any more. There are only criminals — attested by the FBI — and corrupt businessmen. There aren’t any more “ordinary” voters — there are millions of unregistered immigrants casting ballots, there are KKK supporters who PRETENDED to be liberal when they voted for Obama 4 years ago and show their true nature now by voting for Trump, there are all sorts of sensible-appearing voters who don’t appreciate the HUGE AND ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES — which we must all OVERLOOK! — between cis and trans males and females.
And so on. 50 years ago, it made sense to assume voters for an opposing party were decent people, But government has taken over more of our existence — with social security, health care, unemployment compensation schemes, educational testing. etc, Our thinking about what government should do shapes our identity and what we perceive of our political opponents — who are no longer misguided mortals, but veritable fire-lashed demons searching for souls to destroy.
Arnold’s a libertarian. He doesn’t want to admit this is happening,
Other hand, He’s really happy that CRIMINAL HILLARY isn’t ever going to govern the wonderful free market American state,
i
Everyone is always irrational. Trump was never going to “lock her up” but that actually seemed like a viable option to some of his supporters and they are just as quick to let it go once that rhetoric served it’s purpose. The two party system is powerful, and far more powerful than our will to keep it rational.
As soon as I almost take things seriously, check #3.
“From 1968 until 2012, every non-incumbent presidential nominee was, in one sense or another, the next in line, as either
1. the most recent Republican vice-president,
2. the runner-up in a previous contested Republican primary, or
3. the namesake son of the previous Republican president.”
Aren’t all these also possible evidence that the system has been screwed up the whole time?
Well …. the fact that there weren’t many Republican presidential candiates was generally seen as proof that those who were candidates were legitimate. It didn’t really suggest to most folks that something was wrong with the nominating proceess … until, bingo! a dozen candidtates suddenly popped up.
OTOH, that either a prior candidate, a VP, or a namesake does not falsify that it is all Q score.
Several points:
1) Obama was not an outsider in 2008 and the Party rallied around him fairly quickly. The base never loved HRC so t was easy to move to Obama.
2) Trump was a weird center right candidate in that he broke on very hard Immigration and free trade. Most conservatives were against immigration and amnesty but his strong opinions against Mexican immigrants convinced voters. Otherwise, he campaigned on protecting Medicare and Social Security. So he turned the grand-children of the Democratic base into Trump voters.
1) In the sense Arnold means, he was. Obama did not have the pedigree of Clinton or Edwards. The ability to switch horses gives the party resilience. This election, the Republicans had greater resilience.
Is Trump really … Hitler?
Or are the Trump-haters “complete morons”, as Scott Addams suggests.
The “Trump is Hitler” movie that many people have in their head needs to be clearly taken off the reel, altho maybe some more Obama-like actions will be made to make the morons even more embarrassed later.