Does it even matter?

And did Trump win in 2020?

Photo by MARK ADRIANE on Unsplash

Yes, elections matter. But not in the way that you might think. Matt Yglesias gets annoyed when reporters say something “isn’t what you think”, so let me be more specific:

1. Elections are much more about vote margin than about win/loss.

2. Policy is less impacted than many people assume.

3. The passion people feel is mostly not about policy.

4. There has been a shift in power toward the presidency, but that doesn’t fully explain why people care so little about Congress.

In 2020, Trump lost the tipping point state by a very narrow margin. The next day, my gut reaction was that this was actually bad news, as it meant 12 years of Trump instead of 8. Today, I feel even more confident in that claim, even though I admit that it might be wrong.

If Biden had won somewhat decisively in 2020 (as polls predicted), then I thought there was a chance that the GOP would return to its Reaganite approach. The moment I saw that it was a close election, I realized that the GOP was likely to make a semi-permanent shift toward authoritarian nationalism and populism. Trump’s a long way from Reagan. Vance is even further away. And the people after Vance will be still further away. The GOP is gradually evolving into a European right-wing party (socially conservative and economically statist.)

Of course this sort of gradual evolution has being going on from the beginning of the country, and will continue for as long as we have a democracy. The Democrats are also evolving.

It’s useful to think of politics in terms of three ideologies:

1. Strong government with left wing aims.

2. Strong government with right wing aims.

3. Weak government.

After 2020, I realized that my ideology would likely be marginalized for at least a few decades—in other words for the rest of my life. That made me cynical and apathetic about politics.

When I was younger, I had an interest in politics which (even if I didn’t admit it at the time) was based on an idealistic belief that reform was possible. I could root for Carter/Reagan deregulation, Reagan’s amnesty for illegals, Reagan/Bush/Clinton NAFTA project. Supply-side tax reform. Welfare reform.

Now there’s no one to root for, just people to root against. But it’s inevitable that in a world of three ideologies and two major political parties, one ideology will be sidelined. For many years it was the angry George Wallace/Ross Perot/Pat Buchanan right—now it’s the neoliberals. Younger neoliberal readers should not get too discouraged; the wheel of politics will come back in your direction at some point.

My subtitle is clearly intended to be provocative. No, Trump did not literally win. But the outcome could have been far worse for him. The election was close enough for Trump to maintain control of the GOP. Every GOP politicians now must kiss his ring for 12 years, not just 8 years. That’s not so bad for Trump!

Even if Trump were to again lose by a narrow margin in the tipping point state, I would not regret my prediction. My predictions are more about the zeitgeist that the specific outcome. It’s the zeitgeist that determines the future direction of American politics. And I’m more certain than ever that I got the zeitgeist right. Consider that the election is razor close despite:

1. An inept and senile Biden (who clearly would have lost) stepping aside.

2. Harris running a far more skilled campaign than I expected, including a big win over (inept and senile) Trump in their only debate.

3. For a time, even Trump’s supporters were saying that January 6 had ruined his reputation, and that he could never be taken seriously in the future. This caused Trump to fall close to zero in the election prediction markets back in January 2021.

Despite all those factors working against a Trump victory, all those headwinds faced by my November 2020 prediction, we are still in a very close election. I’m calling that a win in terms of my prediction of the zeitgeist, regardless of which side comes out ahead.

(BTW, If Trump wins, it should put the final nail in the coffin of the “campaigns are important” hypothesis.)

A recent WSJ article said that things are so polarized in senior living communities that fist fights are breaking out among the elderly.

WALNUT CREEK, Calif.—As a place to retire, it doesn’t get much more idyllic than Rossmoor, a hillside gated community boasting 27 holes of golf, eight tennis courts and clubs spanning bunco to bocce.

Yet even here, political rancor has erupted. Demonstrations, dueling columns in the weekly Rossmoor News and a brawl on a pickleball court following former President Donald Trump’s near assassination have roiled the enclave of 10,000 seniors.

In response, Rossmoor has curtailed protests and suspended the columns, igniting backlash. “They are treating us like ‘we’re the grown-ups and you’re the children,’” says Michael Goldberg, a 74-year-old retired philosophy and religion professor and a protest leader. Rossmoor also launched a “Civility Task Force” to address general unrest.

They’re treating you like children because you’re acting like children.

I find this kind of comical, as I’m also old. I have no doubt that, like me, these people can recall a time when politics in America was far less polarized. So what exactly are they fighting about?

On many issues, there’s not that much difference between the Democrats and the GOP. Yes, Trump favors lower corporate taxes and Biden favors more clean energy subsidies. But is that actually what is causing these old codgers to come to blows? Back in 1970, old people had differences of opinion on the Vietnam War, but they got along perfectly fine with people holding opposing views. So what exactly is motivating the intensity of the current dispute? And why do people care so much more about the presidential election outcome than the congressional election outcome?

Some would point to the Supreme Court, particularly its abortion ruling. Personally, I am passionately pro-choice. But my anger is directed against the conservative states that don’t have referenda on abortion, not the Supreme Court or the president. (Voters in conservative states are pro-choice, which is why referenda are so important.)

Part 2: The opposing view

So what’s the argument that people are not overreacting? One possibility is that the presidency is becoming increasingly powerful at a time when the political environment is becoming increasingly corrupt. That doesn’t sound like a good combination! It is especially worrisome if the weak government faction is sidelined, and the fight is between two strong government parties that both wish to use government power for their own ends.

Recall that the Constitution says:

1. No laws restricting free speech.

2. No taking of property except for public purposes.

3. Only Congress can declare war.

4. Only Congress can enact tariffs.

5. And the Constitution does not say the president is above the law.

Whatever you think of the wisdom of this setup, it’s clearly not the country we live in today. Perhaps this is why voters increasingly care about presidential elections, and often don’t even know who represents them in Congress. We increasingly see the president (perhaps correctly) as an elected dictator.

Matt Yglesias keeps pointing out that Trump’s 10% tariff plan is likely to be riddled with loopholes. He’ll exempt every industry that supports him politically, or that helps out his businesses. But while that observation may explain why neoliberals are outraged by Trump, it doesn’t explain why the rank and file Democrat is outraged. Biden also uses tariffs to achieve his policy goals, such as winning union votes.

Think of America as a place where one third of the public favors a strong government advancing progressive goals, one third favor a strong government advancing conservative goals, and one third favor a weak government. Then the weak government group will align with whatever faction they find least objectionable.

The increased polarization also comes from a change in the style of politics. What might be called the “trollish style” was once mostly confined to the developing world. In the late 1990s, Berlusconi brought this style into the developed world, and since then it has spread like wildfire. If you have two strong government parties, and a trollish style of politics, then the only surprise is that polarization isn’t even more extreme. Policy is about corporate taxes and clean energy subsidies, but politics is about who “locks up” who.

Interestingly, the Libertarian Party has become a microcosm of American politics. There is a bitter split between the left and right wing factions of that party, and the right wing of the party has adopted a trollish style.

This is what I mean by the zeitgeist. When a political style spreads to both developed and developing countries on almost every continent, and even infects the supposedly small government Libertarian Party, you need to look for deeper explanations than merely which candidate wins this or that election by 1% of the vote. The smart way to study politics is to spend much less time focusing on who wins any given election, and much more time focusing on what the vote share of each side is telling us about the shifting plate tectonics of the political landscape.

Each party will win roughly half the presidential elections in the 21st century (as they did in the 20th century). That’s a given. What matters is this: What kind of party will they be?

I worry that people will misread this post. I certainly don’t wish to suggest that the rise of Trumpism doesn’t matter—just the opposite. It’s the worst American political trend of my lifetime. Rather, I’m suggesting that people put too much weight on whether a few thousand votes in a swing state go this way or that way. Suppose Trump had narrowly won in 2020. That would be bad, right? But that would also mean that Trump would have presided over the post-Covid economy, including the very high inflation. Trumpist economics (including high tariffs) would have become discredited in the eyes of most voters. By 2024, Trumpism would have been out of favor.

Instead, Trumpism is now stronger than ever. Be careful what you wish for. ( I give Trump a 50% chance of a comfortable win (including the popular vote), a 25% chance of a 2016-type narrow win, and a 25% chance of a 2020-type narrow loss.)

I’ll certainly vote against Trump, who seems even more unhinged than in 2016. But I believe my most effective role is to push back against Trumpist ideas, against authoritarian nationalism. Elections come and go—it is the zeitgeist that matters in the long run.

Part 3: Nobody actually likes Trump

People sometimes ask me why I think Trump is so terrible. I have trouble even processing the question. AFAIK, everyone agrees with me, so why even ask? Don’t all the former leaders of the GOP hate Trump? Don’t the GOP congressional leaders like Mitch McConnell hate Trump. Doesn’t Trump’s own first term VP refuse to endorse him? Didn’t Trump’s current running mate call him a potential Hitler? Didn’t much of his former top staff say he had fascist tendencies and was unfit for office. Don’t emails prove that his strongest supporters in the press (like Tucker Carlson) privately despise Trump? Doesn’t even Trump’s own wife refuse to campaign for him? Didn’t all those tech guys now pretending to support him (in order to get lower taxes) publicly say back in 2021 that he was utterly discredited and unfit for the presidency?

As far as I can tell, no one actually likes Trump—except for the voters. And under our system, it is the voters that determine the outcome of elections, not all the people I mentioned above. Voters actually do support Trump, which explains why he’ll probably win. It’s the Influential People who only pretend to support Trump, but privately hate his guts. The average Joe actually likes him.

So please don’t ask me why I think Trump is terrible. Ask Vance. Ask Tucker. Ask Elon. Ask all those other guys who have described him in exactly the same way I have. Ask them why they think Trump is terrible. Don’t ask me.

Part 4: Advice for undecided voters

If you are truly undecided, and are reading this post, you are probably an idealistic Reagan Republican. [You certainly aren’t a liberal, or a Trumpist Republican]. If so, you should vote for Harris. Here’s why:

I have nothing good to say about Harris. That’s not the point. Your only chance to get back the old Reaganite GOP is if Trump somehow loses. In that unlikely event there might be a Republican backlash against Trumpism, as this election was obviously easily winnable for the GOP. (BTW, Trump is an incredibly weak/incredibly strong candidate. He’s super weak in the sense of hugely underperforming where any other GOP candidate would be right now, and incredibly strong in the sense of forcing the rest of the GOP to kiss his ring in a way that even Reagan could not do.)

If Trump does win, the odds are very strong that his second term will be a disaster. He lucked out the first time, but how likely is that to happen again? He has promised to be far more reckless the second time around, not relying on RINOs for advice. His advisors will be incompetent fools. Our fiscal situation is far worse. The Supreme Court has ruled that he’s above the law. No constraints. His mental health has dramatically deteriorated, and much of his speech is now completely incomprehensible. So how might things go bad from a Reaganite Republican perspective?

1. A Neville Chamberlain agreement with Russia on Ukraine.

2. Teapot Dome-style corruption.

3. A government attack on free speech.

4. Further slide toward the Alzheimer’s ward of an assisted living unit.

5. A “Nixon to China” deal with the Dems that ushers in a revenue stream big enough to finance a Euro-style welfare state. (Recall that Trump is actually a Clinton Democrat who only joined the GOP because it was his ticket to the White House.) Perhaps that 10% tariff will morph into a 10% VAT.

I’m not saying that any of these things will necessarily happen. But come on, you have two eyes. You can see that he’s becoming an increasingly unhinged politician. In his second term he won’t even have to worry about public opinion, or have the need to please future GOP primary voters holding him back. How can this possibly not end badly? You’d have to be really dense not to see how this is likely to end. Even skilled presidents usually have bad second terms.

If Harris is elected she’ll be held back by a GOP Senate, and the need to triangulate Bill Clinton-style if she is to have any chance of getting re-elected in 2028. But even if she does, she’d be easy pickings for a DeSantis or Nikki Haley, either of whom would be beating Harris by 10 points in this election. If you’re a Reaganite Republican wouldn’t you prefer watching Harris flounder for 4 years knowing the old Reaganite GOP will come roaring back in 2028? Or would you prefer to have your colleagues laugh in your face as you suffer one embarrassment after another for all the insane things that Trump is likely to do? And then watch helplessly as the Dems take Congress and the Presidency in 2028, with enough political power to GET THINGS DONE.

Politics is weird. Wokism got stronger under Trump and it’s getting weaker under Biden. Don’t obsess about your distaste for the liberals. Think strategically about what will advance your interests in the long run. You have a brain, don’t you? Then use it. If you are a Reagan Republican then Harris is the only sensible vote. Hold your nose and pull that lever. Contra Vance, emotional people are not being patriotic; rational people are patriotic. Don’t blow it.

Part 5: Lighten up

In civilized countries, people don’t take politics too seriously. Do you think that people in Switzerland, Singapore or Denmark lose sleep over elections? I’m currently in Japan, which didn’t seem torn apart by their recent election. Elections are really important in banana republics like Venezuela and Argentina. Is that what we want the US to become? Chill out.