Not all 74 million Trump voters can be racists
By Nikolaos Gavalakis
BERLIN, Nov 25, 2020 (IPS)
– Donald Trump will have to
leave the White House in January.
Although there will be a
few skirmishes in the US courts
in the coming weeks to sort out
whether some votes were legitimate
or not, the outcome won’t
change.
No sooner had the main US
broadcasters declared Joe Biden
the winner than some experts
began writing the epitaph of
the entire populist right. Sociologist
Ivan Krastev spoke of a
‘devastating blow for Europe’s
populists’. And former EU
Council President Donald Tusk
exulted that ‘Trump’s defeat
can be the beginning of the end
of the triumph of right-wing
populism in Europe too.’
But not so fast. First of all, a
look at the political map reveals
a few sobering facts. In France,
Marine Le Pen is already on the
starting blocks for the 2022
presidential elections. In Great
Britain Boris Johnson’s chaotic
government is still heading for
a No-Deal Brexit.
In Italy Matteo Salvini’s
nationalist Lega Nord is ahead
in the polls. In Poland the ruling
PiS (with the support of the
constitutional court) recently
restricted women’s abortion
rights. And in Hungary Viktor
Orbán continues to wreak
havoc unhindered.
Things don’t look much
better outside Europe either.
Despite his catastrophic handling
of the corona crisis and
over 150,000 deaths, Jair Bolsonaro
is, according to polls
from September, more popular
in Brazil than ever before.
There is no denying that
right-wing populists have
achieved unprecedented success
over the past decade and
have made it into the highest
offices. With the election of
Donald Trump as the world’s
most powerful man, this phenomenon
Contributing Writers: Azad Ali, Tangerine Clarke,
George Alleyne, Nelson King,
Vinette K. Pryce, Bert Wilkinson
GENERAL INFORMATION (718) 260-2500
Caribbean L 10 ife, Nov. 27-Dec. 3, 2020
probably reached its
peak in 2016. Four years later,
Trump has been defeated; but
what lessons can be drawn
from the election for the battle
against right-wing populism?
Trumpism is here to
stay
After an initial fright, as the
vote count progressed, the following
narrative crystallised
among many in the media and
on the centre-left spectrum.
Never before has a candidate
in the US presidential election
received as many votes as Joe
Biden.
His nationwide lead over
Donald Trump is more than six
million votes. Nor is the lead in
the electoral college a narrow
one. The tyrant is defeated. So,
everything is fine, right?
No; there are also downsides.
Donald Trump got over ten million
more votes in this election
than four years earlier. Just
how close the election was in
the decisive swing states can
be seen from the following:
according to the latest count,
in Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin
and Pennsylvania, the share of
the vote that went to the Libertarian
Party candidate Jo Jorgensen
was bigger than Biden’s
lead over Trump. If a few thousand
of these votes had gone to
Trump, he could have been in
charge for another four years.
Although the pain and anxiety
caused by Trump’s relatively
strong performance is quite
understandable, an explanation
based solely on racist structures
seems insufficiently complex.
The sobering and, for many,
shocking observation remains
that, despite a pandemic with
well over 200,000 dead because
of the Trump government’s
mismanagement, his abundantly
documented lies and
chaotic administration, his
cruel migration policy and his
destructive behaviour following
the death of George Floyd,
the voters have not turned away
in droves from the Republicans
after four years of Trump.
On the contrary, he was able
to win over millions of people
who in 2016 voted for another
candidate or did not go to the
polls.
It’s not just racism
How could this happen?
MSNBC presenter Joy Reid
put the election results down
to ‘a great amount of racism
and anti-blackness’. Charles M.
Blow took the same line in his
article, citing the ‘strength of
the white patriarchy’ as the
reason for the outcome.
The idea of the backward
white Trump voter is however
not accurate, as a look at
the structure of the electorate
reveals. The President succeeded
in significantly broadening
the Republican voter base.
Since 1960, no Republican
presidential candidate has been
able to win a higher share of
non-white voters (one in four
voted for him). Among Afro-
American men, it was almost
one in five, and among African
American women, Trump was
able to double his share of voters
from four to eight percent.
He gained ground among
Latino voters and white women,
more than a third of Asian
Americans put their cross next
to Trump’s name, and he was
also much more successful
among the LGBTQ community
(28 per cent) than four years
ago (14 per cent). Even people
of colour are not immune
to the lure of right-wing populism.
Although the pain and anxiety
caused by Trump’s relatively
strong performance is quite
understandable, an explanation
based solely on racist structures
seems insufficiently complex.
After all, it is only eight
years since Barack Obama
scored a landslide victory over
Mitt Romney.
The idea that almost 74 million
Americans are supposed
to be racist, or at least willing
to swear unquestioning blind
allegiance to a thoroughly racist
system, is in any event a
very bold argument. There are
four aspects that offer a better
explanation.
Social democracy
is popular among
Americans
First, it is often assumed
that members of minorities
who have personal experience
of discrimination automatically
vote for left-wing parties. However,
the reasons for individual
voting decisions are much
more complex.
Latinos often have very
conservative views on issues
such as the right to abortion.
Demographic groups cannot
be regarded as monolithic.
‘Despite what many progressives
seem to think, minorities
don’t just sit there stewing in
their Otherness all day,’ writes
Antonio García Martínez.
Voters are individuals with
different views and attitudes,
not mere representatives of the
population group they have
been ascribed to. And they
make decisions based on the
political choices available and
their personal preferences.
The critique of identity politics
is here explicitly not directed
at attempts to improve the
situation of disadvantaged people,
but rather at a world view
that sees social developments
and conflicts primarily through
the lens of group identity.
In the battle against rightwing
populism, sweeping generalisations
about electoral
groups are not helpful; what
matters is to address people’s
actual, and not their presumed,
interests.
After both Trump elections,
one thing is now finally clear:
the demonisation of right-wing
populists in purely moral terms
(‘If You Vote for Trump, You’re a
Racist’) doesn’t work.
Second, there is a common
misconception regarding the
reasons for people’s voting decisions.
The term ‘demagogue’,
which is often used for rightwing
populists, implies that
the voters support them out of
ignorance. However, this paternalistic
view fails to take into
account that there are often
rational grounds for their voting
choices. For example, the
PiS in Poland improved living
standards for millions of people
with an unprecedented welfare
state programme.
In their short essay, Eszter
Kováts and Weronika Grzebalska
set out with impressive
clarity the reasons why women
in particular, perhaps surprisingly,
support the Polish and
Hungarian right-wing populists.
And there are also rational
grounds for Trump’s election:
for example, during his
term of office, the unemployment
rate fell to a 50 year low
– which particularly benefited
those without a high school
diploma.
In the US, it is classic social
democratic issues that are
popular with voters. According
to exit polls conducted by
Fox News – not a source suspected
of pushing a left-liberal
agenda – 72 per cent want a
public health plan, also known
as Medicare for All.
Democratic Party candidates
for the House of Representatives
who support Medicare for
All did significantly better in
the elections than their party
colleagues who oppose it. In
Florida, a state Trump won, 60
per cent of the citizens voted
for a phased increase in the
minimum wage to USD 15 per
hour.
Colorado voted for paid leave
for childbirth and family emergencies.
This should come as no
surprise: measures that secure
or improve people’s standard of
living are widely supported.
Source: International Politics
and Society (IPS), Friedrich
Ebert-Stiftung (FES)
OP-EDS
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR are welcome from all readers. They should be addressed care of this newspaper to the Editor,
Caribbean-Life Publications, 1 MetroTech Center North, Brooklyn, New York 11201, or sent via e-mail to caribbeanlife@
schnepsmedia.com. All letters, including those submitted via e-mail, MUST be signed and the individual’s verifiable address
and telephone number included. Note that the address and telephone number will NOT be published and the name will
be published or withheld on request. No unsigned letters can be accepted for publication. The editor reserves the right to
edit all submissions.
Founded 1990 • Published by Brooklyn Courier Life LLC
Corporate Headquarters: One Metrotech Center North, Suite 1001, Brooklyn, NY 11201
PRESIDENT & PUBLISHER: Victoria Schneps-Yunis
CEO & CO-PUBLISHER: Joshua Schneps
ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER: Ralph D’Onofrio
EDITOR EMERITUS: Kenton Kirby
ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Kevin Williams
This newspaper is not responsible for typographical errors in ads beyond the cost of the space occupied
by the error. All rights reserved. Copyright© 2020 by Brooklyn Courier Life LLC. Caribbean
Life is protected by Federal copyright law. Each issue of Caribbean Life is registered with the Library
of Congress, Washington, D.C. The Caribbean Life, its advertisements, articles and photographs, may
not be reproduced, either in whole or part, without permission in writing from the publisher except
brief portions for purposes of review or commentary consistent with the law.
/schnepsmedia.com
