The anguished post-mortems of the US election are a depressing record of how drastically liberal America misread the country’s outrage with the status quo. For many of the same reasons that pro-European Britons misjudged the strength of their opponents, Democrats refused to see what was in front of them because they were surrounded by reassuring media reports. During the last few months, for instance, the New York Times published daily predictions that all but guaranteed Mrs Clinton’s victory. Despite occasional dips when the campaign faltered, her wide-ranging rejection across the country never seemed more than a remote possibility.
With hindsight the hubris of the pollsters and the short-sighted complacency of the media seem to have fed off of each other. Occasionally, there were hints that the crowds at Trump’s rallies might see him differently. In September, for instance, Atlantic correspondent Salena Zito watched Trump in Pittsburgh and noticed an African American voter who was “blown away” by his affable demeanour. Tellingly, the man told Zito: “The man I just saw there talking to people, is nothing like what I’ve seen, day in and day out, in the news.” Later on, as she watched Trump misrepresent statistics about black youth unemployment, Zito concluded that “The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.” This was one reason why the media consistently overstated Trump’s vulnerability to gaffes and embarrassing disclosures, while failing to notice that tens of millions of Americans were willing to overlook, or ignore, what they saw day after day on the news.
As president-elect, Trump must now be taken literally and seriously. On the available evidence, he will struggle to live up to his radical promises. A new president can undermine his predecessor’s achievements with executive orders (Obamacare, most notably) but genuine accomplishments, especially the unprecedentedly broad ones that Trump has promised, will prove much less straightforward. Even a compliant legislature will baulk at the likely costs, political and financial, of attempting to ban Muslims from entering the US, building a wall on the Mexican border, or deporting illegal immigrants en masse. When, for instance, the American Action Forum carried out a careful analysis of what mass deportation would involve, it concluded that the costs (an estimated six hundred billion dollars) – made the plan hopelessly impractical. Likewise a border wall, as currently imagined, would take several years to build and probably cost at least twenty-five billion dollars. A ban on Muslims entering the US would face similar complications, quite apart from the inevitable moral and political resistance both within the US and abroad.
Two months ago, Evan Osnos of The New Yorker researched the likely agenda of President Trump’s first term. He identified three main trends: a wariness of foreign entanglements, scepticism towards trade agreements and a dislike of immigration. The American public broadly sympathises with the first of these but, as President Obama has learned to his cost, it also wants the country to look strong. Trump’s blustering opinion of NATO, his casual tolerance of Vladimir Putin and his blithe dismissal of China, will soon be tempered by the national security briefings he will receive during his transition. If nothing else, these will make him aware of the need to move beyond the contemptuous know-nothing approach he flaunted in the debates. As for the second and third of his principles, Britain’s post-Brexit experience has shown that it is much easier to stir up fear and panic around these issues than it is to take any practical steps towards addressing them.
What President Trump can do, with relative ease, is go after the American civil service, specifically by targeting the lifetime tenure that nearly three million federal employees have come to expect. Given his business record this will offer considerable attractions, but here again complications loom. When Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker tried to implement similar measures at a state level, five years ago, there was widespread and sustained popular resistance; facing off against federal unions would test the mettle of a new, politically naïve president in potentially unpredictable ways. Less problematic, at least on paper, are the Supreme Court vacancies – one immediate and perhaps three more within the next few years – but here too the Republican party’s relentless obstructionism during the Obama years has created resentments within the Democratic Party that will not be lightly appeased.
In short, having prevailed through the most divisive campaign in modern US history, President Trump will reap the distrust and anger he has sown. Having comprehensively undermined the democratic process, he cannot reasonably expect to enjoy its civilities. Sadly, this will likely prove to be his real legacy, that having debased America’s political culture President Trump will prove incapable of restoring it, or of getting much accomplished in the hostile atmosphere he has done so much to create.
