It's the Economy Stupid May 2017

It's the Economy, Stupid                              Gerry O'Shea

James Carville, who was in charge of President Clinton's so-called war room during the 1992 presidential election, insisted that the campaign should focus on the economy - his memorable mantra was: It's the economy, stupid!

This belief that bread and butter issues decide elections is commonplace political wisdom. Most pundits are convinced that voters are moved, first and foremost,  by pocket book issues.

The prices that families pay at the gas pump and the grocery store drive voting preferences more than any other consideration. In recent elections, college and university fees also figured prominently because dramatic increases in tuition costs resulted in major financial strains among middle-class families.

Were economic factors pivotal in the 2016 election? Was it Donald Trump's economic policies that resulted in the unexpected defeat of Hilary Clinton in November?

A brief recap of the economic and fiscal policies presented by both candidates would strongly suggest that many people at the polls were not driven by the usual mundane considerations related to money and benefits.

Mr. Trump stated early in the campaign that he felt that workers' wages were too high, and he opposed any increase in the minimum wage. By comparison, Mrs. Clinton strongly supported raising salaries at the bottom, and she proposed mandating some profit-sharing for workers employed in successful businesses.

Mr. Trump made no bones about his belief that the richest people in the community should pay far less in taxes, with lower earners getting much less of a break. Hilary Clinton took the very opposite position, promising to bolster the treasury by taxing the affluent more and providing substantial reductions in  tax liability for those earning in lower brackets.

Both candidates proposed tax adjustments to pay for childcare, but the Clinton proposal was weighted in favor of "ordinary" workers. She also proposed free tuition in public colleges for families earning under $200,000.

So, it is clear that Hilary lost the presidential election to a candidate whose economic policies openly favored the rich.  It was not "the economy stupid" because if the election reflected that formula we would have very different political dynamics in Washington these days.

What then caused this aberration? Why did so many people - many identified as blue collar - vote against their own apparent economic interests?

Luke's Gospel tells us that "man does not live by bread alone," and this wise saying applies to last year's presidential election. I suggest that there were strong cultural issues influencing voters.

In the last decade we have seen major legal changes governing sexual roles and behavior. Two stand out in my mind. First, gay marriage, which less than twenty years ago was frowned on even by many liberals. The Supreme Court in June 2015 ended legal wrangles about this issue by declaring that partners in  same-sex marriages have the same rights as those in male-female unions.

This decision was associated with the liberal justices, nearly all Democrats, and they were blamed much more than their Republican colleagues. Later decisions about transgender people and heightened roles for women in the military left many religious people from traditional families dissatisfied. This was a new world for everyone and these changes in sexual mores, viewed by many as part of a liberal agenda, were deeply unsettling for some voters and benefited Republican candidates.

Mr. Trump assailed political correctness in many of his speeches, and the finger was pointed at Mrs. Clinton as the person pushing this hated PC. I heard examples of non-white people allegedly getting undue consideration by government bodies because of this tendency, but it seems to me that political correctness is really a kind of amorphous expression that allows people to vent against whatever is annoying them. However, this perception of a liberal elite dictating what is culturally acceptable was a major irritant for many people and polls show that it did influence their voting preferences.

The culture clash extends to race relations. More than 80% of Black men voted for Hilary, but around 70% of their white male counterparts chose Trump. Large numbers of whites think that non-whites got all the breaks during the Obama years while African-Americans feel that multiple killings of young people in their communities by police officers were not dealt with seriously. These clashing perceptions among the two races highlight a big cultural divide and influenced ballot box preferences, especially among blue-collar voters.

America First provided an important theme in Trump's campaign. While some of this appeal was promoted in terms of lost jobs and poor trade deals, there was also a major stress on immigrants as a serious negative influence across America. He claimed that Mexicans were responsible for a rash of crime, including rape in Texas, and when the Towers came down, Mr. Trump stated that Muslims cheered the horrible tragedy from their homes in New Jersey. These claims do not hold up under serious scrutiny, but in this world of voodoo rhetoric and alternative realities, truth is frequently defined by what is most convenient to believe.

No doubt, economic considerations played an important role in the 2016 Presidential election, but other issues of race, culture and political correctness probably determined the result. The Carville rule did not apply last November.