Why did Trump win?
I keep reading commentary asking why it was that Trump won the US presidential election, and by corollary, why Harris lost?
Lots of answers are being provided by those making comment, and I am well aware that I am simply contributing to that heap of analysis by writing this post. But, what I want to do is to reduce this to its most basic elements, which I think to be really important, because as far as I can see the explanation for what happened is really quite straightforward.
Let's start with Harris, because there is no doubt that the Democrats lost this election. It is almost always the case that incumbents lose elections, and the oppositions do not win them, and the polling data in this election makes that look likely. So, what was it that made Harris lose?
The simplest, and therefore I think best, explanation is that Harris had no compelling story to tell. There was no narrative that could justify the continuation of neoliberal power in the USA. It has obviously failed to deliver for the majority of American people. As such it could never have provided her with a narrative to justify support for its continuing power, which is what she was offering. This became very obvious during the campaign, when she would do anything but explain just what it was that she was offering the electorate.
The simple fact is that you cannot win in an election without a story, and that which Harris had to offer was too uncomfortable for her to relate it, and the consequence was inevitable. The neoliberal story is over.
In contrast, Trump did have a story. It might have been riddled with lies. Large parts of it were unpalatable. It might have glossed over the reality of the man he is, and what he wishes to do, and the consequences of those actions. But he did, nonetheless have a story to tell.
What is more, he had the support of a media who were more than willing to relay what he said without critical analysis being applied to it. The consequence was that his tropes became accepted as if they might become policy. Perhaps most worryingly of all, even Trump now believes his claims, and he will try to deliver policy based on them. That's the power of a story.
What I have done by reducing my explanation to something so basic is to cut my analysis right back to the bone. That, however, is what I think needs to be done. There was a fundamental story failure on the part of Harris, and a fundamental tale of successful storytelling by Trump. That was the difference between the two. Well, that plus the fact that Harris knew that her story was unpalatable, and so did not tell it, whilst Trump, also knowing that his story was unpalatable, lied about it, creating a more palatable fiction as his story, instead.
So why is it that I am interested in relating the story in this way? That is because unless I can make things this basic, I will struggle to work out how I can create a better narrative, which is what we undoubtedly need.
The story of neoliberalism is all about providing power under the guise of liberal freedom to a few in a way that denies most the opportunity to partake in society in the way that they would wish. It is designed to ensure that wealth shoots upwards whilst denying those responsible for creating most of that wealth any of the gains over periods of decades. Of course no honest politician can now say that. No wonder Harris (and Starmer) prevaricated. A story where the inevitable winner pre-ordains that outcome by dealing themselves all the cards is never going to work with the electorate.
Trump‘s story is that he will restore the power of America to deliver that wealth to those who want to claim it, which he represents to be the American people, although there is no chance that they will participate in the way that he claims. He conned them once, and they became disenchanted. Now he is conning them again. The reality is that in his game the wealthy won't even deal the cards. They've cancelled the game. His politics is all about perpetuating the gains they have already got.
So what's the story got to be? It's in three parts.
First, everyone has to be in the game. The table has to be open to all.
Second, everyone must get a return from the game. The returns might not be equal, but they must always be sufficient, with a differential on regard that is never going to be disruptive.
Third, no one should have the right to either fix or rewrite the rules. Checks, balances and limits must be unalterable so that even if minor nuance might need to change as society develops, the stability of opportunity for all to partake in what that society has to offer, without fear, has to exist.
Neither Harris or Trump offered this version of the game of life. Nor have Labour, the Tories or any other major party here. This game is not on their agenda, apparently. They'd almost prefer the impression be given that the game is cancelled - being unaffordable according to fiscal rules to which no one consented - than talk about what might be possible.
And that's why the rules need rewriting, so that everyone can take part without fear of losing, wherever and whoever they are.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Story is everything. I can’t remember anything that Biden/Harris either stood for, or said that would benefit Americans. On the other hand, Trump claimed that he would:
1. Make America Great Again
2. Make America Healthy Again.
It is ironic that neo-liberalism is also very good at painting pictures (also based on lies): freedom, free markets, land of the free, land of opportunity.
What does the Left have? The best I recall: For the Many, Not the Few.
But it needs more.
Recommended reading:
The Death of the Left: Why We Must Begin from the Beginning Again (2022)
by Simon Winlow and Steve Hall https://amzn.eu/d/6GzCuex
“Module 3: Framing and Language” in Training the MMT Trainers (2019)
by Professor William Mitchell
https://gimms.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Bill-Mitchell-Training-the-MMT-Trainers-September-2019.pdf
YouTube video: https://youtu.be/wm8OEIJy48A?si=koOd85EPkm7He8_r&t=3875
Thanks
Good post Richard
What is your view on how we arrive at this level playing field of which you write
Is it asset redistribution?
Better rules on representation
Better regualtion
Better taxation
Anti-monopoloy riules that are enforced
Media controls
There is a whole book in answering that question
I have long maintained that a key part of fixing democracy is criminalising “deliberately or recklessly misleading the public”. (‘Recklessly’ needs to be included to avoid the defence ’I didn’t know’ when the truth is easily ascertained.)
For those who object that this requires the courts to decide what is true, I offer two rebuffs: firstly, courts already do that successfully in cases involving defamation, libel or slander; secondly, marginal cases are unlikely to come to court… if the law just stops the most egregious lies, it will make a massive difference.
If voters are not told the truth, their votes are meaningless and democracy is dead.
I’m going to add my 2 cents worth:
No political donations so you can’t buy access and influence.
+ Why was Bill Gates meeting with Keir Starmer?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/bill-gates-parliament-microsoft-melinda-gates-foundation-prime-minister-b2211267.html
+ Why is an “ex-director for tobacco giant advising UK government on cancer risks”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/10/revealed-ex-director-for-tobacco-giant-philip-morris-advising-uk-government-on-cancer-risks
Wealth redistribution
+ If they created jobs, they wouldn’t be millionaires.
+ They tend to buy assets and live off the passive income
Watch Gary Stevenson. https://www.youtube.com/@garyseconomics/videos
Replace First Past the Post
Thanks
Isn’t it a fact that Harris had millions fewer votes cast by trad Dems, and Trump had far fewer trad Reps hold back their votes. Biden’s support of the Israeli Genocide damaged the Dems much more that Trumps extremism scaring traditional Republicans.
It is worth bearing in mind that in some parts of the US there were signs in polling stations saying that a vote cast for any party other than Republican or Democrat would not be counted. The Greens had to run the gauntlet of Democratic lawfare, funded to the same level as their entire campaign budget, that sought to keep them off the ballot paper. So the US does not, as far as I am concerned, have a functioning democracy.
How do we get the rules rewritten if those in power don’t want to do it? We are trying our best at AllianceNowUK.
I agree, that is the question
But you have to frame the question before you can formulate the answer
I’m remembering my great -grannie on Clydeside saying in broken scots yiddish “A wealthy man is not a man of justice” (Der oysher iz nisht keyn bal-yoysher).. Can’t for the life of me remember any wise-sounding sayings she had about ‘Necessary Evils’, but that’s what I think many people thought when they gave their vote to Frump.
Biden/Harris and the (neo)liberal establishment brought this on. themselves.
Really good analysis of what happened. The devil is in the detail, as ever. How to be inclusive and how to share out the spoils are difficult questions along with how we can get from where we are to where we want to be. All chewy but a path that must be trod if we want to preserve and extend democracy and not end up as a totalitarian Russianesque state.
” a totalitarian Russianesque state”? – u mean the Yeltsin/Putin- created neoliberal entity that Mrs. T and Pres Reagan “could do business with” (they were talking about Gorbachev, I believe). That post-soviet entity that produced more, bigger billionaires in one year than the US (and British Empire, before it) had managed in 400+ years?
I’d say neoliberalism necessarily causes a concentration of wealth and (thereby?) a weakening of democracy, Keith, so the proper/relevant adjective here is ‘neoliberal’ , not ‘Russianesque’.
We’ve reached the point where the billionaires feel they can dispense with the trappings of democracy.
Any attempt to strengthen democracy will be trashed by billionaire-owned media and therefore will fail – because our education systems don’t give us even the basics of critical thinking.
The only way this situation can change is via civilisational collapse, because the billionaires are too powerful and their opponents too fragmented for any other pathway.
That collapse is on the way; climate and nature collapse are almost inevitable now. This will be devastating for most of us. And the only hope for us, non-billionaires, is to organise in our communities to minimise the effects. It’s likely that governments won’t be in a position to do much, and local government may be similarly disempowered.
I disagree
I accept the task will be hard
But if collapse is required I should definitely give up and you are wasting time caring
Peter’s first paragraph is correct, though the conclusions he reaches are too extreme. It’s up to us to prove that the billionaires are wrong — democracy still applies.
I think that is fair comment
The task will be hard, indeed; but will be fruitless, if ‘we’ don’t have a shift of mindset, at scale across populations (plural: globally, but our task is in the UK, mostly). The neoliberal or Trumpian stories succeed because one way or the other they promise ever-rising prosperity, based on success measured in material consumption and wealth or assets. This is the “imperial mode of living” on the earth (per the book of that title by Ulrich Brand). And that is patently unsustainable: we’re already in overshoot.
Redistribution, horizontal equity and vertical justice in taxation, government spending not constrained by money men, limited only by resources (but with those limits based on sustainability not simply immediate availability)… are part of the new story. But there must be more.
In some sense, we do need ‘societal’ collapse: but the collapse of the extractive institutions; and the replacement of consumerist and extractive culture with something better, based on meeting needs; and in which success is measured in quality of relationships, care for others (human and beyond) and a sense of meaning and worth not based on materiality.
Billionaires should be taxed out of existence, period. The politicians won’t do it, of course; they were bought long ago.
https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/trade/why-we-cant-afford-the-rich
It is more complicated than slogans like this
Being trite solves nothing
For once, Richard, I don’t entirely agree with you. The Harris campaign was actually based on the biggest lie of all… that the ‘economy’ was booming. From the point of view of the ordinary family, struggling with inflation and low wage rises, their own economic situation is definitely not booming. Only the top layer of American society has benefitted from the Biden/Harris ‘success’. The administration has done little to address inequality, and the Democrats have rightly been punished for that.
That is the real lesson that Labour should take from the Trump victory, but I fear they won’t, which means we are probably heading for a similar right-wing resurgence at the next election.
I think I allowed for that in what I said
It is also why Harris would never explain what she was about.
Kim
This is 2016 but it shows the divide is also geographical and that impacts on votes.
Clinton won 500 counties wich produced 64% of GDP. 2600 odd -usually smaller admittedly- the other 36%.
I think we see something similar in Europe and in the UK. High income areas and many which are struggling.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/another-clinton-trump-divide-high-output-america-vs-low-output-america/
Thank you Ian,
A fascinating study that underlines this issue perfectly. Politicians would do well to take note!
Narratives are important. I worked in broadcasting for many years. Even the news, from broadcasters who genuinely strive for impartiality, is telling a story, a narrative. The pictures you see, from property adjusted cameras, do not fully convey reality. From a detailed technical perspective (sorry, I couldn’t resist), the colours are wrong, enhanced to look better. More generally, whilst what you see may be broadly accurate, what’s out of shot? Add to that that many media sources have a particular perspective, which is not necessarily bad provided there is a plurality of perspectives, and it is clear that the media should be considered with a critical eye.
But, in the case of the US, whilst the narrative was important, I think Bernie Sanders was right (https://static.poder360.com.br/2024/11/bernie-sanders-eua-comunicado-6nov2024.pdf). I think the key fact is that the federal minimum wage is $7.25. Clearly the neoliberal regime in the US is excluding a large part of the population from the growth that has occurred over the past 4 or 5 decades. Inequality has grown outrageously. With that in mind, and whilst acknowledging the importance of narrative, it is difficult to see (in retrospect) how the outcome could have been different.
Thank you and well said, Richard.
I don’t disagree, but must add that in 2016, 2020 and 2024, Trump campaigned in areas like East Palestine and Bethlehem that his opponents ignored.
Richard and readers may be interested in:
https://jacobin.com/2024/11/election-harris-trump-democrats-strategy
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/exit-right/
If / when John S Warren reads my comment, I have thought more about his recent comments about Brexit and will write more soon. I’m at Amsterdam HQ and, further to Philip Maughan’s comment, utterly stunned by the industrial scale lying about the so called pogrom, as unbelieveble as when Johnson, amongst other chicken hawks, was at the cenotaph and disgusted my war hero and lifelong socialist RAF veteran dad. Philip is on the money.
Not entirely off topic, readers who understand French may be interested: https://blogs.mediapart.fr/pr-djamel-labidi/blog/280723/une-monstruosite-mediatique-.
Link doesn’t work for me. I get error 404 “Cette page d’existe pas”.
Thank you, A.
Let me try again. The article is at Mediapart.
This is quite an old clip (about 20 years old), of Sen. Rep. Bernie Sanders explaining how the Republicans “sell” their politics.
It is worth the 5mins. https://x.com/NickKnudsenUS/status/1854763532241584229
The full video from this X clip is available on youtube here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Db-7GHID7A&t=2230s
Bernie Saunders has been saying these things for literally decades now.
He has a very hard time getting the message out via the corporate owned media and that is one of many topics he explains to these college students.
Thanks
Thanks Richard, that’s a very useful analysis. I am, however, confused by:
“They’d almost prefer the impression be given that the game is cancelled – being unaffordable according to fiscal rules to which no one consented – than talk about what might be possible.
And that’s why the rules need rewriting, so that everyone can take part without fear of losing, wherever and whoever they are.”
Which rules? Do you mean the fiscal rules which can be ignored, torn up or re-written at will? Or something else. Or do you mean that the existing rules should be properly applied?
I would be concerned about re-writing the rules on representation because the result is not what some people wanted (and te wrold needed!) Doesn’t that interfere with the basic democratic process?
No, we need a constitution that stops politicians plying with the rules.
How exactly can such a constitution be achieved? We’ve seen in the US how anything written down can be corrupted & ‘interpreted’ to mean exactly the opposite of the original intent, even when those doing the writing we’re fully aware of that possibility, & thought they’d taken measures to prevent it. Anything written down requires those interpreting it to act in good faith. But if such people exist, nothing needs to be written down. The problem is not lack of a written constitution, but the presence of bad actors, which inevitably arise from excessive wealth inequality. Which, of course, makes democracy impossible. Unlike you I do not now see how the predator-class can be contained. In the US they will now control the executive, the legislature, the judiciary & the press. The populace are motivated primarily by greed & self-interest. They care not a jot about elevating a convicted criminal & sexual predator to the highest office in the land. And the rest of the world must grovel to him or face his spite. And Trump’s the best of them…Musk & his fellow billionaires who’ve put Trump in place have much darker plans, ‘written constitution’ be damned….
‘Such a lot to agree with.
One thing I have not mentioned in my responses here is the addiction our politics/democracy has got for cruelty – the making of ‘tough decisions’ that make life harder for people who already have it quite hard.
This seems to have become a badge of pride among too many politicians anxious to show their conviction based on some false impression that people need to be ‘nudged’ into doing stuff – the bedroom tax in particular – where in some areas there was no housing to downsize down to but households still got punished for ‘under-occupying’ anyway (like Stockport and Wolverhampton, two I know of).
This ‘public cruelty’ is the modern equivalent of being put in the stocks or hauled through the streets as punishment. It is more like entertainment than correction and is purely a distraction too.
It disgusts me to be honest. It is an abuse of power when power could be used to address the causes instead.
Again, much to agree with
I hate this term, beloved of Labour politicians. Hard decisions for them? No! They’re paid to take them and are immune from the impact. So, tough on others – and they do not care.
Being “tough” is a badge of pride. It’s opposite is “appeasement” – much used to justify brutality and making war. I remember a black and white propaganda film dating from 1940 which scoffed at Chamberlain (represented by plaster-cast busts smashed during one action sequence) while eulogising toughness. There is a long history behind Reeves and Starmer deploying that word with all its patriotic associations.
I think the story can be broken down to even simpler terms:
The Dems are in the White House and represent the status quo. 60% of Americans are underwater with the status quo and a right wing media conveyor belt that starts with social media funnels everyone they can snare into the conservative media silo where reality is shaped anyway their sponsors desire.
The Trump vote was a GFY to the status quo amplified by the conservative silo, just as it was in 2016. The option offered every election cycle is status quo versus GFY. Those that chose to vote, checked GFY.
The media, economists and government fetishize metrics like CPI, GDP, unemployment, that are garbage. Remember “vibeflation”? That’s was a period where economic and policy Illuminati insisted that the public was delusional, because all the numbers are in the right direction. They had no right to feel bad
With all due respect to leading heterodox figures, they too rely on fundamentally faulty math. It is not enough to debunk glaring defects of mainstream economics but cling to other equations with the same faulty mathematical foundation. Economic theory is really good at tracking the prospects of the financial sector but little else.
Political parties outside of the conservative sphere fail to grasp the existential threat media consolidation and cling to the town square illusion of recommendation algorithm platforms. They cling to an illusion of free expression and public debate, and don’t dare peek below the covers.
https://evonomics.com/the-truth-about-inflation-why-milton-friedman-was-wrong-again/
https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2019/04/29/real-gdp-the-flawed-metric-at-the-heart-of-macroeconomics/#fix_2019
I am not sure who the heterodox economist you are referring to is. If it is Steve Keen, he bases his work on double entry. Sure, he uses data, but the process is quite different.
Double entry for what I’m referring to is wholly irrelevant. There are many models which are internally consistent and consistent with a data set and its dynamics. If the data set itself misrepresents the nature of reality, I will emphasize here, all of economics uses these numbers, as far as I can tell, then the relevance of any model is open to question.
I would say that accounting identities are perfectly reasonable for the financial sector, because the financial sector ultimately is a creature of accounting. The problem is in the financial sector’s relevance to economic reality or that economy is chiefly defined as the prospects of the financial sector.
The “Vibeflation” talk several months ago is a case in point. There is a vast discrepancy between economic numbers and people’s sentiments.
You clearly have no clue about double entry or what it can do. It is most certainly not about the financial sector alone.
The rest of what you are saying makes no sense to me because it is stated entirely without context. To be useful here you have to explain what you mean and what you would do about it. You are not doing that.
The Democrats never ever delivered for the low paid
Biden campaign included a commitment to a $15 an hour minimum wage and it was the first thing he dropped as soon as he was in the white house.
They always talk the talk but never walk the walk as they say.
Labour have not delivered for the UK working class since 1970s and will eventually usher in a reform party government.
A really good summary of democrat failure is here on the young turks channel worth 10 minutes.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TMo_Mv8fiPM
I will take a look
I think the story can be broken down to even simpler terms:
The Dems are in the White House and represent the status quo. 60% of Americans are underwater with the status quo and a right wing media conveyor belt that starts with social media funnels everyone they can snare into the conservative media ecosystem where reality is shaped any way their sponsors desire.
The Trump vote was a GFY to the status quo amplified by the conservative silo, just as it was in 2016. The option offered every election cycle is status quo versus GFY, because there is no other option to deal with the status quo on the ballot. Those that chose to vote, checked GFY.
There are two fundamental issues, the first is the illusion that conservatives and the loyal opposition are substantially different in economic theory/policy. The second is a media landscape that is wholly useless, when it is not a well oiled conveyor belt into conservative media silos. All the recommendation algorithm corporate platforms (big platform/cloud capitalism) are the latter. They offer an illusion of a town square.
Economic consolidation has progressed to lethal levels. What is needed is an anti-gilded age response. We don’t have an FDR or Roosevelt, largely because the political parties, trade unions, and other social organizations (eg: normal churches) no longer exist as a base.
The political system ignores the death of the fourth estate. The Democratic Party continues to act as though the media functions like it did in the 1970s or 1980s, before nearly every outlet was consolidated into the hands of Sinclair broadcasting, Murdoch, or other giant media empires. We don’t really have a free press. Money defines the megaphone.
It’s noticeable that in the World Happiness Index (https://worldhappiness.report/) both Germany and America have called over the past couple of years – neither are within the top twenty countries in 2024 (for the states this is the first time since the report was first published in 2012 that it’s not been in the top 20, with younger people particularly more unhappy in America).
Given this unhappiness, the support for Alternative for Germany (AfD) (the first far-right party to win a state election in Germany) and Trump seem less surprising.
Countries with Social Democracy, notably Finland, create much more equal and happy societies.
Noted, and agreed
I apologize for the Spight the double post by the way this was a problem on my side.
Sorry for my (autocorrected) typo – ‘called’ should be ‘fallen’ in the above post.
FYI
Steve Keen repeating similar just before the US election:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jY8bO-HdYg
Hi Richard
I don’t like the game metaphor here, too aligned with competitive individualism for my liking. I think any progressive future has to focus on replacing competition with cooperation, representative democracy with more deliberative democracy. We are facing many crises, epic real change and responses will be required, economies will require focus, planning, cooperation and strong direction. We need to build a rational, scientific based and democratic alternative to the chaos and panic that will result in right wing/strong man non-solutions.
Life is a game
Good games are joyous
People want to play them
People do not want to spend their lives in committees
Perhaps the deciding factor was the theocratic religious right
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls
The exit polls show a startling fact
White born-again or evangelical Christians voted 82% for Trump