I’m not certain it’s possible to understand what happened in
the 2024 election this close to it, beyond the undeniable outcome: Donald Trump
will be the next president of the United States. For two weeks now, people have
been trying to assemble the pieces of how we got here, but it’s like the old
proverb about blind men feeling different parts of an elephant. Depending on
where you’re situated, you might feel a trunk, or a leg, or a patch of hide,
but you don’t really get a sense of the whole thing.
Still, it’s hard not to want to try and understand. For one
thing, that’s critical for the midterm election, which is painful to think
about right now, but could become a very real way of setting limits on the
damage Trump can do to democracy by installing a functioning legislative branch
to check him—as the Founding Fathers intended.
One good reason for trying to diagnose what went wrong is to
see if it’s possible to reassemble and strengthen what so many people were
convinced was a pro-democracy coalition assembled to defeat Trump. Putting it
back together, more successfully, in time to save the country at the midterms,
resulting in a Democratic-led House and Senate, would be a significant check
and balance on a bloated executive branch.
There are lots of attempts to explain the 2024 election. Many
voters said something along the lines of, they were unhappy with the government
and wanted to try something new. These voters were concerned about the economy
(although even The Wall Street Journal conceded it was the strongest in the world), the price
of gasoline, and other similar issues that amounted to little more than a
permission structure for voting for Trump.
It was all summed up for me a few days after the election, in
a conversation with an acquaintance who said they’d voted for Harris, but at
least “my portfolio is doing great this week.”
Voters who ignored the facts about the economy and used them
as an excuse to vote for Trump weren’t people who wanted a change. They were
people who, actually, didn’t want any change at all. They didn't like new
policies advanced by the Biden-Harris administration; a more inclusive vision
of America where traditionally marginalized people had equal opportunity.
They didn’t want a new generation of leadership. They wanted
the “old stability,” the patriarchy that has run the country for generations.
In many ways, that's what’s at the heart of the conservative coalition. It's
not a rejection of the established order; it's an embrace of it.
If that’s what Trump voters thought they were getting, they
may be sorely disappointed. As I wrote, in a piece about Trump’s coming plans
for mass deportation to be published later this week on Cafe.com, the Trump
presidency isn’t a pick-your-adventure experience, where you can get some parts
of Trump’s plan, but not all of it.
Steve Bannon, hosting his War Room podcast on November 15 said:
“Donald Trump and his revolution is in charge now. And that revolution is going
to make its way from Mar-a-Lago and from every part of the country, like Andrew
Jackson, it's going to converge on the imperial capitol in late January.
And yes, we're going to burn some of these institutions down
to the ground. Because you know why? They need to be burned down to the ground.
Metaphorically. As the process of creative destruction. The process of the
structure of revolutions, the paradigm shift has impact.”
Trump delegate and New Jersey Republican Mike Crispi tweeted: “Will RFK get confirmed? Will Gaetz get confirmed?
The answer is YES… as long as Johnson and Thune hold true to their word to
support the President’s agenda. Recess appointments solve all. It’s time to
WIN!”
Recess appointments, to the extent they “solve[s] all,” do so
at the expense of the Constitution, as we’ve been discussing this week.
Appointing people to run cabinet level agencies who are opposed to the work or
the people who do the work won’t help.
Trump doesn’t want to do the hard work of governing, and he
has expressed little interest in helping the American people—certainly not all
of them, and especially not the ones who didn’t vote for him. He has no
interest in remaking government, because he doesn’t understand it. Trump wants
to protect himself, not the people.
Thinking a vote for Trump was a rejection of “elites” is part
of the weak tea biography Trump sold to far too many Americans—the idea that
he, the guy who started out on third base, hit and would continue hitting homes
runs for them. Trump appeals to people who want to slide into home without
having to run all the bases; that’s his ultimate appeal, the cheat who somehow
manages to succeed, surrounded by his billionaire friends.
In her concession speech, Kamala Harris reminded us that
“Sometimes the fight takes a while. That doesn't mean we won't win. Don't ever
give up, don't ever stop trying to make the world a better place.” It was
a battle cry disguised as a concession speech. Although it’s taken a while, I’m
ready to get started.
Kamala Harris: The fight for our country is always worth it. Joe Biden: Giving up is
unforgivable
Is there a chance Trump has now consolidated all the power he
needs to become an autocrat, a dictator? Absolutely. When people tell you who
they are, believe them. But might we still find ways to limit the damage, to
make a midterm election and a democratic future possible? I’m counting on it.
I don’t know what that looks like yet. But what I want to say
to you tonight is, don’t give up. Trump is not inevitable. Good
people have found a way to defend democracy in other countries, and we will do
it here too. Many of the people who thought they were voting for
return-to-stability-Trump or I-will-fix-it-Trump are going to be in for a
shock.
People who voted their pocketbook without concern for their
children, or at least their ability to find someone to clean their house, are
going to be in for a rude awakening. We’ll get back on our game and be ready by
the time Trump is sworn into office.
We’re in this together,
-Joyce Vance