It was a weird and wild Election Night, and many of us are bleary eyed from watching the coverage of one of wackiest events in American history. We now live in a world in which a man with no record in political office and no military service, and whose only accomplishment in the last ten years is hosting a tv game show, is the most powerful person on the planet.
Since this isn't a political blog, what can an English Champion take away from this interesting cultural turn?
One of the daily battles I face with my students when they write papers is to avoid making generalizations. I find that my students, who abhor labels in their personal lives, often, with complete obliviousness to the irony, love labeling others, particularly those with whom they tend to disagree. "Older generations fight against equality and want America to return to the past." That is an actual quote from a recent student paper. Such a claim assumes all older people (without defining what "older" means) behave monolithically and that all young people hold the implicit righteous position. Offering prejudgments and broad presumptions about people is a bad way to go through life, and it's a terrible way to be a research writer. And this election was filled with sweeping assumptions about the candidates themselves and about how voters would actually respond on the ballot at crunch time.
We were all so wrong in so many ways, myself included. I assumed that people would get in the polling booth and, even though they didn't particularly like either candidate, turn to someone they at least recognized as having political experience. Though some of the polling appeared to be close, I thought the Trump support was mostly hype, and Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide. We all make guesses, but it's when we view the world entirely by way of those guesses that we can get ourselves into trouble. Being an ideologue is a tricky habit to break, and it leads us to view our fellow humans without their innate complexity. It lumps everyone together and leads to accusations and assumptions. We think we know people when we probably don't.
Here are some things we generalized about in this election:
Donald Trump is a misogynist. (read: Women should hate him.)
Most assumed women would not only support Clinton as a show of female unity, but that they would never vote for Trump, who has said and done truly vile things toward women. The facts? America's largest voting bloc, white women, voted as a majority for Trump. While Clinton won women as a whole, she basically won by the same margin as Obama--the female candidate didn't extend the female vote. Ultimately, women didn't much care that Trump is a pig as much as we thought they would.
Donald Trump discriminates against Latinos. (read: Latinos should hate him.)
Trump ran his campaign on building a wall on the border, deporting millions of illegals, and seeming to push away Latin voters as often as possible. The facts? Trump actually did better with Latinos than Mitt Romney did four years ago. Yes, Clinton still won by a wide margin, but Trump is not as despised as everyone thinks.
Donald Trump is a racist. (read: Blacks should hate him.)
Trump tried desperately to appeal to African Americans, but no one thought it would make a difference. But, as above, Trump did better among this group than Romney did. Again, minorities have long been committed Democrats, but Trump cut into that discrepancy more than anyone would have guessed.
Republicans are the party of the rich and elites. (read: Working-class people should hate him.)
Trump is a billionaire, and he acts like it. But what does "elite" really mean and who is included in that group? The facts? Clinton won wealthy voters, and she also won highly educated voters (those with graduate school experience). This, to the surprise of many, is a common trend that no one talks about. "Elites"--often those who are smart and rich--tend to vote Democrat, and that once again held true this time around. Though Clinton did well with working class people, Trump did enough to pull out the win.
Money ruins politics. (read: Cronies control elections and government policy.)
Hillary Clinton and her husband are the most influential, connected, and wealthy people in the world of politics. That is not an exaggeration. They are the essence of cronyism. She had the richest donors, the most famous celebrities, and the strongest super-pacs at her disposal. And she just got beaten somewhat handily by a guy who had a fraction of her resources and staffing. Perhaps people speak louder than money.
Christians are moralists who dislike those with differences. (read: Religious people should hate Trump.)
Trump is a casino-owning, gay marriage-supporting, thrice-married, foul-mouthed bully who should have no appeal for Christian voters. The facts? Evangelicals voted for Trump at a higher rate than they did for Romney. That's right--the most clean-living guy to probably ever run for president (solid family man who doesn't drink, swear, or speak ill of anyone) did worse than Trump with religious value voters. Christians proved in this election that they judge major values more than personal character flaws. They considered more deeply issues like abortion and future Supreme Court nominees than the superficialities of the candidate. Turns out Christians might be quite accepting of people who don't agree with them all the time. We'll have to see if that was a wise decision on their part, but it's interesting nonetheless.
And the most incorrect generalization of the election:
Republicans won in 2016. (read: Blame them for the results and the consequences to follow.)
Yes, there were a lot of red states on the map last night, but here's the thing: Republicans did exactly what they've always done, and in fact, they even did less. The numbers are still coming in, but it looks like Trump will end up short of Romney's total in the popular vote. That means there wasn't a groundswell of energized Republicans who slammed the door on Hillary Clinton. Republicans turned out less than they did four years ago. The deciding number in this election wasn't Trump's total; it was Clinton's. Clinton received several million fewer votes than Obama did in 2012, especially in those vital swing states. If Democrats would've simply supported her the way they did Obama, she would have won big. Republicans didn't win this election; Democrats lost it.
Like many Americans, I don't have much respect for the winner this year, and I will go through the next four years wondering how in the heck it came to this. But the world will go on, and my life probably won't be overly affected by this election. The lesson here, for the country and for students out there, is don't make broad assumptions, and definitely don't let them govern your daily lives. Don't allow your worldview to be distorted by vague generalities. You don't know as much about people as you think you do. And you shouldn't disregard the incredible uniqueness of each individuals by judging them as faceless blocs who can't make up their own minds. Perhaps being so wildly wrong this election will encourage journalists, pundits, and other media voices to tone down the rhetoric and generalizations, and simply let people make decisions they think are best for their own lives.
Thank goodness it's all over. But then again, I'm assuming the race for 2020 will begin by the end of the week. Has Elizabeth Warren declared her candidacy yet?
Since this isn't a political blog, what can an English Champion take away from this interesting cultural turn?
One of the daily battles I face with my students when they write papers is to avoid making generalizations. I find that my students, who abhor labels in their personal lives, often, with complete obliviousness to the irony, love labeling others, particularly those with whom they tend to disagree. "Older generations fight against equality and want America to return to the past." That is an actual quote from a recent student paper. Such a claim assumes all older people (without defining what "older" means) behave monolithically and that all young people hold the implicit righteous position. Offering prejudgments and broad presumptions about people is a bad way to go through life, and it's a terrible way to be a research writer. And this election was filled with sweeping assumptions about the candidates themselves and about how voters would actually respond on the ballot at crunch time.
We were all so wrong in so many ways, myself included. I assumed that people would get in the polling booth and, even though they didn't particularly like either candidate, turn to someone they at least recognized as having political experience. Though some of the polling appeared to be close, I thought the Trump support was mostly hype, and Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide. We all make guesses, but it's when we view the world entirely by way of those guesses that we can get ourselves into trouble. Being an ideologue is a tricky habit to break, and it leads us to view our fellow humans without their innate complexity. It lumps everyone together and leads to accusations and assumptions. We think we know people when we probably don't.
Here are some things we generalized about in this election:
Donald Trump is a misogynist. (read: Women should hate him.)
Most assumed women would not only support Clinton as a show of female unity, but that they would never vote for Trump, who has said and done truly vile things toward women. The facts? America's largest voting bloc, white women, voted as a majority for Trump. While Clinton won women as a whole, she basically won by the same margin as Obama--the female candidate didn't extend the female vote. Ultimately, women didn't much care that Trump is a pig as much as we thought they would.
Donald Trump discriminates against Latinos. (read: Latinos should hate him.)
Trump ran his campaign on building a wall on the border, deporting millions of illegals, and seeming to push away Latin voters as often as possible. The facts? Trump actually did better with Latinos than Mitt Romney did four years ago. Yes, Clinton still won by a wide margin, but Trump is not as despised as everyone thinks.
Donald Trump is a racist. (read: Blacks should hate him.)
Trump tried desperately to appeal to African Americans, but no one thought it would make a difference. But, as above, Trump did better among this group than Romney did. Again, minorities have long been committed Democrats, but Trump cut into that discrepancy more than anyone would have guessed.
Republicans are the party of the rich and elites. (read: Working-class people should hate him.)
Trump is a billionaire, and he acts like it. But what does "elite" really mean and who is included in that group? The facts? Clinton won wealthy voters, and she also won highly educated voters (those with graduate school experience). This, to the surprise of many, is a common trend that no one talks about. "Elites"--often those who are smart and rich--tend to vote Democrat, and that once again held true this time around. Though Clinton did well with working class people, Trump did enough to pull out the win.
Money ruins politics. (read: Cronies control elections and government policy.)
Hillary Clinton and her husband are the most influential, connected, and wealthy people in the world of politics. That is not an exaggeration. They are the essence of cronyism. She had the richest donors, the most famous celebrities, and the strongest super-pacs at her disposal. And she just got beaten somewhat handily by a guy who had a fraction of her resources and staffing. Perhaps people speak louder than money.
Christians are moralists who dislike those with differences. (read: Religious people should hate Trump.)
Trump is a casino-owning, gay marriage-supporting, thrice-married, foul-mouthed bully who should have no appeal for Christian voters. The facts? Evangelicals voted for Trump at a higher rate than they did for Romney. That's right--the most clean-living guy to probably ever run for president (solid family man who doesn't drink, swear, or speak ill of anyone) did worse than Trump with religious value voters. Christians proved in this election that they judge major values more than personal character flaws. They considered more deeply issues like abortion and future Supreme Court nominees than the superficialities of the candidate. Turns out Christians might be quite accepting of people who don't agree with them all the time. We'll have to see if that was a wise decision on their part, but it's interesting nonetheless.
And the most incorrect generalization of the election:
Republicans won in 2016. (read: Blame them for the results and the consequences to follow.)
Yes, there were a lot of red states on the map last night, but here's the thing: Republicans did exactly what they've always done, and in fact, they even did less. The numbers are still coming in, but it looks like Trump will end up short of Romney's total in the popular vote. That means there wasn't a groundswell of energized Republicans who slammed the door on Hillary Clinton. Republicans turned out less than they did four years ago. The deciding number in this election wasn't Trump's total; it was Clinton's. Clinton received several million fewer votes than Obama did in 2012, especially in those vital swing states. If Democrats would've simply supported her the way they did Obama, she would have won big. Republicans didn't win this election; Democrats lost it.
Like many Americans, I don't have much respect for the winner this year, and I will go through the next four years wondering how in the heck it came to this. But the world will go on, and my life probably won't be overly affected by this election. The lesson here, for the country and for students out there, is don't make broad assumptions, and definitely don't let them govern your daily lives. Don't allow your worldview to be distorted by vague generalities. You don't know as much about people as you think you do. And you shouldn't disregard the incredible uniqueness of each individuals by judging them as faceless blocs who can't make up their own minds. Perhaps being so wildly wrong this election will encourage journalists, pundits, and other media voices to tone down the rhetoric and generalizations, and simply let people make decisions they think are best for their own lives.
Thank goodness it's all over. But then again, I'm assuming the race for 2020 will begin by the end of the week. Has Elizabeth Warren declared her candidacy yet?