The Wednesday morning quarterbacking is in full swing. Journalists and pundits are pontificating what each campaign did right or wrong and the challenges facing both major political parties. Being a political junkie, that was my first instinct. This morning I woke up with a different perspective.
This shift in mindset comes not from the questions posed the day after the election, but those raised during the campaign. Here are just a few.
- Can Hillary Clinton hold the Obama coalition together?
- Are there enough disenchanted white voters to secure a Trump victory?
- In reference to various campaign decisions, is this strategy or event designed to solidify the candidate’s base or broaden it?
Tuesday night, analysts, using data from the exit polls, addressed these queries and mostly confirmed the conventional wisdom that we are a nation divided by gender, race and age.
Then, as they always do following a contentious election, commentators quickly shifted to the topic of “healing the deep divisions among the American electorate.” And equally sad, just as THEY always do, the candidates followed the script. In his acceptance speech the president-elect said:
Now it’s time for America to bind the wounds of division; have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.
In her concession speech, Hillary Clinton urged the country to come together.
Last night I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans.
What neither candidate did was take responsibility for creating what I have coined “the basial divide” during the campaign. Microsoft Word does not recognize the term “basial.” It is a derivative of the non-word “basism,” which, draws on the definition of racism.
A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among various political groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own political affiliation is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular political group is inferior to the others.
Race, gender and age are accidents of birth. How individuals in these three categories migrate to one party or another’s base of support is the result of political discourse. Therefore, it is the message from each candidate or party, in hopes of solidifying its base, which creates the political and cultural divide.
For argument sake, imagine each presidential candidate followed their post-election call for unity during the campaign. What would it have required? Please keep in mind, I am going to use extreme examples to make this point.
Donald Trump could have held a campaign event in a field of migrant workers instead of on the border. He could have explained how undocumented workers are exploited when employers know they can pay lower wages without fear of their employees filing complaints with the Department of Labor. He could have asked his supporters, “How many of you, given the opportunity to spend eight hours a day in the sun picking strawberries, would take that job?” At the Republican convention, they could have shown a video of the nominee’s encounter with migrant workers. Trump could have asked, “Shouldn’t a GREAT AMERICA reward a hard day’s labor with a fair wage?”
Hillary Clinton could have shown how her theme of economic justice applied to all Americans. She could have said, “I do not condone what the Bundy’s did in Nevada and Oregon, but I understand it. If I were a rancher, I’d wonder why government subsidizes private ventures, but charges me fees if my cattle graze on public lands. STRONGER TOGETHER means we have to put ourselves in other people’s shoes, even when we disagree with them.”
Or how climate change is about more than rising oceans or more violent storms. Clinton could have said, “Farmers in the grain belt should be just as concerned about the impact of rising temperatures on their assets as beachfront property owners on the two coasts.” I don’t recall seeing a Democratic rally in the heartland or a television spot which made that point.
Why are these scenarios unrealistic? Because bringing America together is hard. Because it requires taking the time to make well-reasoned and well-articulated arguments as opposed to campaign slogans or thirty second sound bites. Because candidates would rather spend their time in arenas, being cheered by thousands of supporters who were always going to vote for them (i.e. their base). Because they fear being rejected if they venture into hostile political territory.
I believe there is a chance to re-unite Americans. I believe this because I saw it happen. And the individual who helped me see this is often characterized as one of the most divisive figures in national politics, filmmaker Michael Moore. On October 6, he traveled to Wilmington, Ohio, an overwhelmingly Republican town which was devastated when DHL shuttered a major regional processing center. He called his one-man show, “Michael Moore in Trumpland.” For 73 minutes, he talked with a largely hostile audience. He empathized with their economic plight and their fears. And then made the case why Hillary Clinton’s policies would do more for them than Donald Trump’s.
We’ll never know what impact Moore’s experiment had. After all, there were only a few hundred people in attendance. It does not matter. What does matter is there was no name-calling or violence and after the performance, Moore joined many in the audience at a neighboring bar. Next election cycle, maybe the candidates should try this.
For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP
