What's Happened to America?

HERE'S MY TAKE

Raydio Pennings

Have you ever wished you could listen to Ray, as well as read him? Well, now you can, by hitting play on the audio version of Insights below.

Now, whether you're on a walk, cooking in the kitchen, or even commuting, you can hear Ray's Insights on demand!

You can also look back at previous issues of Insights by visiting the dedicated Insights blog right here.

David Brooks’s analysis of the US election on the Conversing podcast seems as helpful as any I’ve encountered. He offers a three-part explanation for “what just happened in America.” Superficially, affordability and inflation issues caused voters to reject the incumbent government as other electorates have done around the world. This takes place in a context in which there is a class divide among educated elites and less-educated rural and suburban voters who believe the systems are not working for them. At a more profound level, Brooks suggests that our low-trust, high-anxiety climate, which creates social isolation and a growing mental health crisis, adds a spiritual layer to our present moment. Taken together, affordability issues, a class divide, and existential uncertainty are three ingredients of a voting cocktail that certainly has changed the flavour of American politics.

What is significant about Brooks’s answer is that the three factors he describes take place on very different timelines. Inflation is tied to political and economic cycles which move by months and years. Generational class divides develop over decades and take time to change. Existential questions are, well, existential. Lasting change here isn’t subject to usual calendar rules.

I listened to this podcast on my flight to Washington DC, on Tuesday, so this frame was in the back of my mind as I went through my series of meetings. The two dozen conversations I had (which, as far as I could tell, included Trump, Harris, or none-of-the-above sympathizers in approximately equal proportions) tended to define this election as a consequential “change” vote. What was promised may not be what gets delivered but there’s no going back to what was before.

While Brooks looked at motivations, the various conversations I had suggested there were at least five distinct categories of Trump voters leading to his electoral success. They overlap somewhat but each does have some unique characteristics that distinguish it from the others. Here’s my list:

• Many evangelicals - or Christians more broadly - are Trump supporters. This is a significant group motivated by moral and Christian identity issues. Their involvement in abortion and gender identity debates gets a lot of attention, but more basic was the fact that Trump explicitly included Christians in his coalition in an era where many politicians don’t. Some of those I engaged with espoused Christian nationalism, while others avoided it. Let’s skip the label. There’s a significant group of Trump voters who cast their ballots because they thought it was the “Christian” thing to do.

• The “anti-woke” crowd is another group that sees Trump as their guy. Many of them are more nominally religious than the evangelical crowd I just described. They are less pro-Trump than they are anti-Democrat, perceiving the Democratic Party to be taken over by radicals who are out of touch with the concerns of everyday Americans. Since Trump takes on the folks they see as the bad guys, he becomes a “good guy” for them.

• There is also a techno-utopian crowd. Some of them tried the diversity-equity-inclusion agenda in their businesses, but have since rejected it. They are represented by the Elon Musks of this world. This group counts on technology to be the answer and wants the government to get out of the way. They have more confidence in algorithms than media institutions. Their binary mindset of ones and zeros translates into a world of friends and enemies. Theirs is a world of capitalism, techno-creativity, and science. They’re optimistic that the next discoveries of artificial intelligence and tinkering with the human genetic code might just create a better human race. It sounds like sci-fi, but if we just get red tape and regulation out of the way, they would say, the unbridled market and human ingenuity might just solve our problems.

• The so-called “bro-culture” is part of the mix as well. By day they are reading Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life and listening to three-hour podcasts urging them to be men. (After all, this crowd is disproportionately young and male.) They are eager to fight battles and stand up for what they believe (especially if it’s counter-cultural). This group signs on to the performative element – hence the appeal of Dana White, Hulk Hogan, and the WWF culture. They know the performance stuff is fake, but it is entertaining and provides energy. If a bit of porn and libertarian “do whatever you want” comes with the package, it’s there for you to take or leave. Their cry is, “Liberty! Freedom! America!”

• Finally, there’s a working-class crowd, much of it made up of immigrants. They resist being labelled and perceive the American dream being taken from them by elites who think they know better. They are spurred by a resentment of the existing establishment, not just for the radicalism the anti-woke crowd rejects, but more for economic and cultural reasons. They believe in the dignity of work, strong families, and the importance of local communities. They perceive that governments are standing in the way of their opportunities. They expect Trump to remove the roadblocks in their way.

As I tried to absorb what I was hearing, it struck me that there are two significant challenges this motley coalition faces. First is the strange and even contradictory perspectives that drive it. The Republican convention provided an uncomfortable illustration. A pornography performer’s testimonial preceded prayer only to be followed by WWF trash talk from Hulk Hogan. On election night, the president-elect gave the platform to Elon Musk to talk about the amazing possibilities of space tourism. Trump provides space for each and describes it all as amazing. He understands his coalition and is putting something in the window for all parts of it. And, for a while, that can work. Voters can continue to cheer Trump, follow the advice of the “right” podcasts, buy the “right” stocks (preferably with bitcoin), have the “right” friends, and wave the American flag. They can dismiss those who disagree as un-American and enemies. For now, there seems to be enough there to carry a political movement for a bit and even achieve some significant parts of its agenda.

At some point, however, the very different timelines (and motivations) that David Brooks named will come into play. The high-energy action of a change-driven White House that isn’t afraid to use a bit of WWF branding pizazz will focus on the transactional stuff that can get done and that Trump is good at. But even pro-wrestling productions come to an end. The class and existential challenges Brooks raised require solutions that run much deeper than politics and will take much longer than short-term cycles. Building a coherent frame to help answer those questions requires a core consensus that will be a real challenge for this strange coalition to negotiate.

In the spirit of British Prime Minister Harold MacMillan’s warning from long ago, events will inevitably intervene to adjust the narrative. A Trump presidency doesn’t just face a challenge with the half of the population that voted for Kamala Harris. As time wears on, Trump will increasingly find it challenging to maintain the aspirations of the half that supported him. Some of these five groups are going to end up being more dominant, while others will end up being junior members of the coalition, urged to continue supporting out of loyalty, but not necessarily seeing their aspirations realized.

WHAT I’M READING

Reporting from Israel

Jen Gerson went to Israel and provided a compelling first-person account of what she observed. Accounts of this sort are important in sorting through the very real human dimensions and implications of the conflict. Jen does a good job of trying to wrestle with the difficult questions that emerge, coming to nuanced and not one-sided tentative conclusions. Agree or disagree, she does a good job of helping the reader better understand the tension.

Deadly Non-Compliance

Alexander Raikin documents the disturbing non-compliance with euthanasia laws and an Ontario Chief Coroner’s report that seems to suggest authorities know the law is being broken but are doing little in follow-up.

Religious Freedom's Pedigree

I had occasion to attend a gala honouring the good work of Thomas Farr whose career in service of religious freedom culminated in his being a co-founder of the Washington-based Religious Freedom Institute. Conversations around that event reminded me of the not-well-enough-known website that Cardus and RFI collaborated to create, which documents the history of religious freedom in the Anglosphere – an always current educational resource.

Linking with Scandinavia

An interesting report by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute makes the case that in a world where national boundaries are increasingly insecure, Canada has a common interest with countries like Norway, Finland, and Sweden. MLI urges Canada to collaborate “to counter both China’s efforts to dominate the mining of critical minerals and Russia’s efforts to dominate its neighbours.”

Online News from Canada

It was a week in which Canada’s Parliament wasn’t sitting and the news was dominated by speculation on what the US election might mean for Canada. It was all interesting and important, but not definitive. So, it seemed like a good time to update ourselves on what was happening regarding the implementation of the Online Streaming Act which certainly will have implications for us all. Michael Geist is one of my go-to sources on this file and it so happens he has an update blog this week summarizing recent events. As always, it’s a worthwhile read.

MEANINGFUL METRICS

Happy Measures

TAKE IT TO-GO

A Loose Moose

A wandering moose who meandered through a BMW repair shop in Sweden damaged three cars to the tune of over $20,000, according to a UPI story. The owner found it all a-mooseing enough to put together a YouTube video assuring his customers that BMW did not use animals to test the resiliency of their vehicles. The moose has no known name, so I suppose the animal is anony-moose. In any case, I understand that moose fights can be intense (not recommended for in tents, but then again, not in BMW dealerships either) so I think I’ll just leave it at that, wish you a wonderful week, and look forward to being back in your inbox next Saturday morning.