The DNC Blunder

At the time of this post going to press, it has only been 11 days since Donald J. Trump was elected President of the United States. Oil and water doesn’t seem like an accurate enough metaphor to describe how those things fit together. But as much as I or other might not like it, this has happened and is now a part of world history and it is our duty as citizens to examine how it happened and hypothesize as to why. There have been many examinations done by some who have more exhaustive resources than I , but there is one more angle that keeps coming up in conversations that not many consider. What contributed to the downfall of the Democratic party in the 2016 election was an overindulgence into the effect and personality of Barak Obama as President.

            I have lived through a very small part of American history and American presidents but I had always loved studying it through high school and college. The founding fathers had been especially interesting, separating the myth of the cherry tree and saint-like honor to the reality. Make no mistake, what happened in Philadelphia and the 13 colonies was a remarkable and incredibly unlikely situation, but they were all human and had their faults just like the rest of us. Every country has their legends when it comes to the founding and all are no better than a wolf suckling babes in the forest. But as with all history, there are patterns that can be detected and brought to bear on current situations, this election is no different. During my studies I had always noticed a common trait among what most consider to be the most successful presidents, Washington, Lincoln, FDR, they all had a general ability to take a complicated situation and make it easily understood and digestible to the common man.

Though it might be considered a bad word now, the term ‘elite’ is an appropriate way to describe those who hold the highest office in the land. As our country has grown and the world has become more interconnected, so has all that the president has done. They have needed a bigger staff and larger allocation of resources than ever before because every choice the make affects the entire world. And although some might think otherwise, I would never want a ‘regular guy’ to by my President. But in the way they communicate, I believe that is something that makes people not only trust you and relate to you, but also allow you to garner support from those who would not normally do so, ensuring that you can push through your agenda without push-back from the people. It makes people feel like it is their President rather than the President.

Now, what the hell does this have to do with Trump? This understanding of what was a factor in making great presidents was going into the election of Barak Obama in 2008. But when he took office something fundamentally different happened: off the campaign trail President Obama was continuously quoted making complex arguments and archaic references that seemed to resonate with the people more than I had ever expected, and I think more than everyone had expected, including the Democratic Party. Did the population suddenly become more intelligent overnight, shedding off passions and emotion for logic and practicality? Unlikely.

It was when the raced finalized itself between Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump that my hypothesis finally changed. With public servants, you generally get candidates that are either intelligent or Charismatic, and those who are very good at both are rare and successful e.g. Lincoln, FDR, Obama. I think that this dichotomy was no better exemplified than the 2016 Presidential race. Hilary Clinton was very intelligent but not charismatic while Donald Trump was quite charismatic but dumb as a post. I think that the DNC misinterpreted the acceptance and enthusiasm towards President Obama as new voter trend rather than a temporary response to his skill as a President.

There was definitely a certain air of inevitability when it came to Hilary Clinton. The DNC saw her has the shoe-in for President until it became clear just how exceptional Barak Obama was in 2008 and 2012. Again, it was recognized that while she was a strong candidate politically and intellectually, he was a strong candidate all around, people were excited to vote for Obama. This excitement was not at the same level when it came if Hillary Clinton.  I think that this lack of excitement, combined with the general air of being ‘left behind’ by politicians made her case of intelligent policy and sweating the details a much weaker platform than Trump’s populist views or even Bernie Sanders’ message of accountability and equality. People were not ready for the rational, policy driven approach to politics, despite what was indicated by the term of Barak Obama.

This was a tough election season, as anyone with a computer can tell you. It was long, vicious, and I believe has changed the way elections will be executed in the US from now on. But I don’t think this election represented a fundamental shift in voter trends or ideas. It more represented an organization that overestimated a candidate and misinterpreted the signals that were all around them. Voters did not become more racist, more sexist, or less intelligent from 2008 to 2012, they only became more afraid. The resentment bubbled under the surface just enough that the electoral college math worked out for Trump in the end. Make no mistake, the majority of people do not feel the way Trump does. But Democratic voters are becoming more concentrated in blue states, and Republican voters are becoming more concentrated in red states. As the Midwest, rust, and bible belt is abandoned for more wealthy, and educated states on the coast, those who are left are more easily isolated and convinced the world is out to get them.

Things are always 20/20 in retrospect, but it is now up to the DNC to not let down the rest of the country when the vet new candidates for 2020. And believe me, the process has already started.

@FitzFile