Voters wanted change,
but they won't like what they'll get with Trump
Trump often derides the United States as a Third World
country. Now he will start to transform us into one, Mona Charen writes.
By Mona Charen
“It isn’t a hard
choice,” we said. On one side was a candidate who would abide by the
Constitution and laws of the United States and accept the outcome of elections.
On the other was a candidate refusing to accept a 2024 defeat even as memories
of his attempted coup in 2020 remain fresh, vowing to punish the “enemy
within,” and promising that mass deportations will be “bloody.”
That was what we meant
by democracy being on the line.
Some are coping by
pointing out that when an incumbent president is as unpopular as Joe Biden,
it’s a near impossibility for his party to retain the White House. Perhaps no
Democrat could have escaped the Biden undertow, but it was particularly
challenging for his vice president.
As to why Biden was so
unpopular, some of us (myself included) wrongly attributed it mostly to his
age. But exit polls suggest that the economy and the border were also anvils
shackled to his — and then Kamala Harris’ — ankles. As David Dayen of the American
Prospect noted, 2024 saw half the world’s population head to the polls, and
“with a few notable exceptions ... virtually every party that was the incumbent
at the time that inflation started to heat up around the world has lost.”
Could Harris have done a
better job of blunting the inflation issue? In 2012, the economy had not yet
fully recovered from the Great Recession of 2008-2009. In his reelection bid,
Barack Obama shifted blame for the lackluster performance backward, toward
George W. Bush. Perhaps Harris would have been well-advised to tell a similar
story about inflation. Then again, recessions are not as politically lethal as
inflation.
As for the border, how
could Harris separate herself from Biden? Should she have declared that Biden’s
approach was a mistake that she would correct once in office? That’s a dicey
proposition politically. Why would voters upset about the border choose a reformed
dove over an aggressive hawk? She might have had a rule-of-law argument — that
the Congress must reform asylum law, and until they do, the president lacks the
power to address the issue. But when Biden imposed executive orders in June,
dramatically reducing border crossings, he vitiated that case.
According to this coping
mechanism, the voters were in a sour mood (just consult the right track/wrong
track polls) and did what voters always do: punish the incumbent by voting for
the change candidate. Nothing more to see here.
But those of us who see
a second Trump presidency as a hinge moment of history — a fateful departure
from what made us a great nation — think there is a great deal more to see
here. To follow Trump’s behavior closely is to feel that this election is not like
any other. It’s not as if his policy chops somehow counterbalance his
vulgarity, cruelty and self-absorption. His campaign promises consist of
ludicrous proposals to magically balance the budget and eliminate the income
tax through tariffs, to round up and deport 11 million or more people, and to
solve foreign conflicts through his supposed power of intimidation (even as he
contradicts this by constantly abjuring war).
The voters have chosen
to elevate a cartoon character to the highest office in the land. From that
perch, he will pardon the Jan. 6 “hostages” or “political prisoners” or
whatever he’s calling them these days; appoint toadies, fantasists and lowlives
to lead other agencies; and then set about firing most of the government’s
capable, responsible civil servants to replace them with the likes of Steve
Bannon and Stephen Miller.
Trump often derides the
United States as a Third World country. Now he will start to transform us into
one.
To be sure, many of the
people who voted for Trump were not voting for what they will get. And still,
it’s their fault for not doing their duty to shun him.
Perhaps the voters have
never prioritized democracy, the rule of law or fair play. What, then, has
changed? This is an elite failure of the first order. The opinion shapers have
signally failed to perform their function. In a healthy polity, it falls to entities
like political parties, churches, newspaper editorial boards, radio hosts,
business executives and news analysts to shape public opinion, not follow it.
If not for the excusers and explainers; the whataboutism at places like The
Wall Street Journal and National Review; the craven capitulation of Wall Street
wizards and Silicon Valley prima donnas; the cowardice of 95% of elected
Republicans — ordinary voters would not have felt comfortable voting for a
clown with a flamethrower.
If he imposes tariffs
that spark inflation and a trade war; if his deportations, firings, abuse of
the justice system, corruption of law enforcement and degradation of the health
care system cause America’s quality of life to decline, what then? Will the
voters vote for the change candidate next time? Perhaps. Or will the elites who
greased the skids for Trump’s second election also excuse and explain away
every failure as the work of the “deep state” or “saboteurs”? We are about to
find out.
Mona Charen is policy
editor of The Bulwark and host of the “Beg to Differ” podcast.
