Trump and new world order (1)

The US Presidential election has been lost and won and post-election analyses have flooded the media and cyberspace. I have read some, which are regurgitation of the same old jibes that often trail a defeated candidate. But some are honest and unique insight to what actually happened.

When I wrote last week and warned of the prospect of a Trump presidency deep inside I hoped it never happened. But it was clear Trump took advantage of popular discontent to post an upset win, signs of which we completely missed, regardless of the Brexit hindsight, until it happened.

A former student of mine that went into gambling business confessed of losing millions of pounds on the night of Donald Trump’s defeat of pundits’ favourite Hillary Clinton. I jokingly told him if he had consulted me I would have advised him not to put his money on a Clinton win. He asked why, I said although no one but God was certain, but what happened when Leave won in Britain was too fresh for anyone to not recognise a similar trend. And all is now history.

On the day of the election I went to sleep early and woke up at 2 am UK time, not because of the results per se but because it’s a routine, and by impulse I reached for my phone and went straight to the BBC news page and what hit me first was the early lead Trump had built over Clinton. I was still confident Clinton would overcome the setback and take back control, which she only briefly did afterwards. But Trump’s lead was unassailable.

The question is what went wrong?

Contrary to what some analysts say that Clinton’s campaign was too elitist and ignored warnings or branded anyone with contrary views a racist, including Trump or she was Big Businesses’ candidate etc. my view is the election was swayed in favour of Trump by three major factors: (1) Trump’s hate rhetoric and promises of change that aligned nicely with popular discontent (like I warned last week); (2) the last minute FBI ‘coup’ that made Clinton appear less trustworthy in the eyes of the electorate; and (3) the voter apathy or lack of enthusiasm arising from a combination of the first and second factors (data show that voter turnout is lower than in 2012).

Trump recognised and took full advantage of the growing discontent of Americans, especially of the rising far-right population who wanted anyone that would give them back control at whatever cost. This category of Americans believes in America’s supremacy and considered all forms of ‘otherness’ a threat. And otherness, in their conscious and subconscious construct, refers to anyone but them, the far-right ideologues.

Clinton, to them, represents a moderation of this largely segregationist ideology, which is unacceptable. So, Donald Trump realised this and amplified his hate rhetoric and drew increasing ovations. And it was these cheerleaders that turned out in large numbers to cheer him to victory. Analysis of exit poll data shows interesting demographics.

FBI Director James Comey’s two letters to the Congress also substantially played a role in Clinton’s defeat. Before the first letter in which Comey said investigations into Clinton’s use of her private email during her time as Secretary of States were being resuscitated Trump trailed in opinion polls. But the polls were soon upturned and swung in Trump’s favour.

The FBI director’s second letter, a couple of days before the election, was even more damaging. Comey’s claim that nothing new was found to alter their previous decision (in July) drew suspicion, prompting Trump to suggest the FBI boss had been pressured. It was this charge that became his new campaign slogan, which he re-echoed and again to his supporters.

In both scenarios Clinton was presented as the less trustworthy, establishment candidate and threat that must be barred from the sacred seat. And the undecided voters, who had only hours to make their minds up, were perhaps spurred by this aspersion to massively turn to Trump, the lesser of the two evils, as one voter claimed after casting his vote.

(To be continued)