Page 3

The Rise of the Bullies

So, it’s looking like the establishment will have its revenge on Trump. Trump is no Hitler in an important respect: he has no party of his own, just the one that he seized during the election, and so he is reliant on Republican regulars to staff the federal government. That’s not a happy outcome for progressives—it is important to emphasize that today’s Republican Party is far to the right of where it was a few decades ago—but it’s not that different from what would have happened with any Republican president.

But Trump’s victory carries the stench of the 1930s in another sense: the increase in hate crimes since the election. This is what happens when a political candidate runs a hate-filled campaign and wins. The bullies feel liberated to say and do what they have been told for years that they cannot. Now, I’ll be the first to argue that many Trump voters are well-intentioned and generally good folk who voted for the GOP candidate only because he wasn’t Hillary Clinton, but that’s probably not the way that the guys painting swastikas on dorm-room doors see it. Their candidate won, and that justifies removing the shackles that society has placed on them.

In one important sense—that they have been shackled—the bullies are right. One of the functions of political and social institutions is to keep the bullies from exercising the same behavior as adults as they did as children. Biff Tannen may be the terror of the high-school cafeteria, but thirty years later he is just a cog in the machine. He chafes at his loss of power, but “political correctness” demands that he not act on his instincts.

Every once in awhile, these institutions break down. I saw it in Russia in the 1990s, when economic power was exercised by poorly-educated men with guns. The deeply irreverent expatriate newspaper The eXile provided restaurant ratings that, among other criteria, told you how likely you were to run into a “flathead,” that is, a violent man with a crewcut who earned more in a week than most Russians did in a year. As the Russian sociologist Vadim Volkov brilliantly documented, the emergence of this social class had much to do with the disappearance of the sports clubs that kept these men otherwise occupied, at the very moment that the norms of Soviet society were also melting away.

For November 2016 not to be remembered as such a moment, the bullies must be firmly reminded of the rules of American society. I have little hope that Trump himself will deliver this message, so it is going to have to come from others. That is the real test of the Republican establishment that looks ready to help Trump govern.

Update: To my surprise, Trump told the bullies to knock it off: “I will say this, and I will say right to the cameras: Stop it.” Words are important, and these are the right words. But so are actions, and none speak louder than the appointment of Steve Bannon as chief strategist to the president.

Trump’s Win, Putin’s Loss

Nice catch by Max Trudolyubov, who notes that the Kremlin may have mixed feelings about Donald Trump’s victory. As Konstantin Sonin and I discussed a couple of weeks ago, Trump’s campaign rhetoric of a rigged system played right into Putin’s hands. The goal of Kremlin propaganda is not to convince Russians that their elections are free and fair—they know that they are not. It is to convince them that elections everywhere are rigged. That’s just how democracy works.

screen-shot-2016-11-12-at-9-55-05-pmNow Trump has won. What inference should the Russian public draw from this surprising turn of events? That elections in the U.S. are not so rigged after all? But then if the Russian media were lying about U.S. politics, maybe they are lying about other matters as well. Or that it is possible to seize power even in a rigged system? That seems even more dangerous to the Kremlin.

Funny thing is, we’ve been here before. I remember when many Russians assumed that there was no way that a former community organizer—an African-American, to boot—could win the presidency. Barack Obama proved them wrong, and made American democracy look better in the process. Imagine if the election of America’s birther-in-chief had the same effect.

Why Donald Trump’s Election Could be Good for Democracy—And Why It Probably Won’t Be

What a day for my new blog to go live. Like much of the country, I have experienced a potent mix of anger, confusion, and anxiety over the past eighteen hours. In my case, there is also betrayal, as my home county in rural Illinois went overwhelmingly for Trump. The county seat is Lincoln—the only city named for Abraham Lincoln before he was elected president—and this part of downstate Illinois has historically been represented by such paragons of moderate Republicanism as Ed Madigan, Bob Michel, and Ray LaHood. And yet 66% of the voters in Logan County gave their vote to 2016’s version of George Wallace.

It is hard to be optimistic today, and yet I find a measure of support in democratic theory. Adam Przeworski famously argued that, for democracy to survive, all of the players must feel that they have a stake in the system—they must be willing to lose today, knowing that they have a chance to win tomorrow. Ironically, Trump’s victory has demonstrated to his supporters that the system is not rigged, or at least not so rigged that they can’t win. This could increase the stock of democratic capital, thus encouraging the continuation of American’s 240-year experiment with democracy.

This glass-half-full perspective rests on a couple of key assumptions. First, Donald Trump must govern differently than he has campaigned: no more dividing American along racial and religious lines, no more inciting violence, no more intimidation of the press. And no judicial attacks against Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump needs to be so presidential that we’ll be bored. If he doesn’t, democratic norms will further erode.

Second, Donald Trump has to actually deliver on some of his promises to voters in places like Logan County. If and when Trump’s voters feel betrayed by Trump, they may turn to even more radical alternatives, or give up on democracy altogether.

Thus the dilemma: It is very hard to satisfy both of these conditions simultaneously. Can Trump keep his promises without further undermining democratic norms? I can imagine a talented politician threading the needle, giving just enough to his supporters that they feel justified in having voted for him. Clearly Trump has more talent than most of us could have imagined eighteen months ago. Yet the campaign that he ran has left the eye of the needle exceedingly small—and it’s not even clear that Trump wants to thread it.