Dear  Friends,     For  those  trying  to  make  sense  of  the  electoral  outcome,  I  would  like  to  offer  a  few  thoughts.    The  following  -­   two  observations,  and  three  suggestions  -­  combines  some  points  that  are  well  established  in  the  social  science   research  with  some  subjective  reflections  that  will  hopefully  provide  some  food  for  thought,  even  among  those   who  may  disagree.     With  best  wishes,     Paul  Steinberg   Harvey  Mudd  College      

Making  Sense       1.  Given  that  Trump  embraced  intolerance  in  his  campaign,  and  most  Americans  voted   for  Trump,  does  that  mean  we  are  surrounded  on  all  sides  by  haters?       No.    If  the  US  is  comparable  to  most  industrialized  democracies,  we  should  expect  that   perhaps  8-­12%  of  Americans  blatantly  mistrust  people  of  different  races  and  ethnicities   and  are  willing  to  discuss  this  openly  with  friends  and  vote  accordingly.    For  this  rough   approximation,  I  am  using  the  percent  that  far-­right  parties  in  Europe  tend  to  win  in  their   better  years.    (In  those  systems,  which  are  friendlier  to  small  parties,  these  votes  are   easier  to  parse.)    There  is  obviously  a  lot  of  regional  variation  in  attitudes  in  the  US.    For   more  nuance,  see  the  World  Values  Survey,  run  by  Ronald  Inglehart  at  the  University  of   Michigan.  The  "hate  vote"  is  enough  to  matter  in  US  elections,  but  it  does  not  mean  that   progressive  forces  and  minority  groups  are  under  siege,  facing  a  hostile  majority  as  was   the  case  for  African  Americans  up  through  the  1960s.       For  anyone  tempted  to  loathe  America  for  its  racist  tendencies  –  a  temptation  that  I   share  –  I  recommend  spending  a  significant  period  of  time  in  other  countries.    My   research  specialty  is  one  of  comparing  politics  in  different  countries  around  the  globe,   but  my  impression  is  based  more  on  personal  experience.    Having  lived  for  a  year  in   Central  and  South  America,  two  years  in  Africa,  and  a  year  in  Europe,  I  am  firmly   convinced  that  racist  attitudes  are  no  more  common  in  the  US  than  in  most  countries  in   the  world.    Costa  Ricans  slander  Nicaraguans,  Mexicans  urban  elites  stereotype   indigenous  groups,  the  Liberian  Grebo  resent  the  Mandingo,  white  Spaniards  the   Algerians,  the  untouchables  suffer  discrimination  in  India,  and  so  on.    Many  of  these   countries  share  a  history  of  institutionalized  racism.    This  in  no  way  excuses  the  US;;  the   point  is  that  this  is  an  ongoing  global  struggle.    Rather  than  "move  to  Canada"  following   this  election,  we  need  to  continue  to  fight  the  fight  here  and  now.    This  is  more  important   than  ever,  now  that  Trump  has  given  permission  to  those  who  hold  racist  views  to  be   more  strident.       But  how  could  people  vote  for  someone  who  so  obviously  suffers  from  major  character   flaws  and  embraces  vulgar  attitudes?    Consider:    If  the  candidate  from  the  party  you   have  voted  for  your  whole  life  turned  out  to  be  a  major  jerk  –  would  you  actually  vote  for   the  other  party?    For  example,  if  you  are  a  Democrat  and  if  your  candidate  were   someone  you  find  personally  repugnant,  would  you  hand  the  election  to  the  

Republicans?    Many  of  us  might  at  best  do  what  George  W.  Bush  did  yesterday,  when   he  left  his  presidential  vote  blank.       By  the  way,  29%  of  Latinos  voted  for  Trump.    Which  brings  us  to  the  next  topic.       2.  What  do  we  make  of  the  working  class  (especially  whites)  who  constituted  Trump's   main  source  of  support?       Real  wages  in  most  industries  in  the  US  have  been  declining  for  years,  as  a   combination  of  foreign  competition  and  tax  policies  favoring  the  wealthy.    Robert  Reich   and  Paul  Krugman  have  written  excellent  analyses  of  these  phenomena.    People  who   are  not  blatantly  racist,  or  at  least  do  not  consider  themselves  as  such,  could  be   seduced  by  arguments  suggesting  that  their  troubles  reside  in  the  actions  of  foreigners   and  immigrants.    This  group  might  also  be  swayed  by  economic,  anti-­corporate   populism  of  the  left,  if  there  had  been  a  candidate  with  broader  appeal  than  Bernie   Sanders.    Working-­class  white  voters  were  convinced  by  Bill  Clinton's  incessant  focus   on  job  growth,  which  was  definitely  not  packaged  as  populist  economics  –  Clinton's   calling  card  was  to  move  the  Democrats  away  from  Sanders-­like  policies  and  toward  the   center,  embracing  free  trade  –  but  the  argument  was  presented  in  a  manner  that   seemed  genuinely  concerned  with  helping  ordinary  people.       Rather  than  resent  half  of  America  following  this  election,  we  should  take  seriously  the   underlying  economic  stresses  and  find  more  convincing  ways  to  meet  the  needs  of   those  groups,  pulling  the  rug  out  from  under  anti-­immigrant  rhetoric.    We  cannot   eradicate  intolerance  and  hatred  by  hating  Trump  supporters.       So  what  can  be  done?       3.    Act  locally,  then  scale  up.    The  United  States  is  one  of  the  most  decentralized   countries  in  the  world,  meaning  states  and  cities  here  have  far  more  power  than  is  the   case  in  most  countries.    California  has  its  own  climate  policy.    Maine  chooses  its   textbooks,  and  San  Antonio  gets  to  decide  whether  to  create  bike  lanes  or  more   roads.    In  our  own  backyard,  the  passage  of  Measure  M  in  Los  Angeles  County  is  a   huge  step  forward  for  sustainability.    So  there  is  considerable  progress  that  can  be   made  here  and  now.       Of  even  greater  significance,  when  enough  cities  and  states  make  something  a  fact  on   the  ground,  they  can  constitute  a  force  for  change  at  the  federal  level,  sustaining   congressional  funding  for  alternative  energy  (Texas  is  wild  about  wind  power,  for   example)  and  changing  the  political  discourse.    A  promising  approach  is  to  use  a  ratchet   strategy:    set  a  floor  with  federal  standards  –  every  university  must  provide  equal   opportunity,  no  state  can  have  water  pollution  worse  than  level  X  –  but  then  allow  states   to  surpass  those  standards.       4.  Think  in  terms  of  structures      

The  flurry  and  buzz  of  elections  attract  far  more  media  attention  than  do  the  quiet,  long-­ term  currents  and  structures  that  shape  social  outcomes.    We  must  keep  the  bigger   picture  in  mind,  which  includes  at  least  two  major  components:    culture  and  rules.           Culture:    Every  time  Trump  made  a  statement  that  outraged  the  country,  I  cared  less   about  Trump's  shortcomings  and  more  about  what  the  resulting  outrage  proved:    Our   cultural  norms  have  changed  for  the  better  in  recent  decades.    As  documented  in   Thomas  Rochon's  book  "Culture  Moves,"  sexual  harassment  was  unknown  as  a   concept  in  the  United  States  prior  to  the  1990s.    Michelle  Obama's  speech  condemning   the  taped  Trump  comments  was  in  many  ways  a  culmination  of  decades  of   progress.    You  know  that  a  cultural  norm  has  taken  hold  when  breaking  it  produces  a   public  outcry.    The  media  and  the  Republican  establishment,  with  few  exceptions,   distanced  themselves  from  these  comments.    That  is  proof  of  a  change  in  culture.    We   have  of  course  seen  this  with  the  remarkable  shift  in  attitudes  toward  marriage  equality.       Ideas  are  strongly  linked  to  institutional  structures  that  promote  or  impede  them.    The   creation  on  college  campuses  of  units  like  our  Office  of  Institutional  Diversity,  or   women's  athletics,  has  the  effect  of  mainstreaming  ideas  that  were  once  considered   radical.    We  must  work  to  create  more  of  these  lasting  structures,  which  dampen  the   oscillations  associated  with  short-­term  trends  like  ever-­shifting  electoral  outcomes.     Structure:    We  must  pay  close  attention  to  the  rules  for  rulemaking  -­  what  I  call  "super   rules."    This  includes  ensuring,  over  the  coming  years,  that  no  group  is  disenfranchised   from  voting.    These  are  steps  that  can  be  taken  now  that  will  have  lasting  effects.       5.  Protect  the  constitution       The  only  thing  worse  than  a  Trump  presidency  would  be  for  half  of  the  country  to  reject   the  outcome.       There  has  been  a  troubling  trend  in  the  past  twenty  years  of  rejecting  the  legitimacy  of   US  presidential  elections.    We  saw  this  most  recently  with  Trump's  suggestion  that  he   would  not  respect  the  outcome  if  he  were  to  lose.    But  the  problem  goes  back  at  least  to   the  impeachment  of  Bill  Clinton,  as  well  as  the  Bush  vs.  Gore  election,  when  the  two   parties  were  arguing  that  their  sides  had  won,  like  parents  shouting  at  the  umpire  in  a   Little  League  baseball  game.    It  frightened  me  that  both  parties  cared  more  about   winning  than  about  ensuring  a  fair  outcome.    I  would  personally  much  rather  lose  an   election  than  lose  my  constitution.           Questioning  Obama's  citizenship,  creating  perennial  congressional  investigative   committees  to  harass  presidents,  and  refusing  as  legislators  to  compromise  and  work   with  the  Oval  Office  -­  all  of  these  trends  promote  a  culture  in  which  political  victory  by   opponents  is  considered  so  unthinkable,  so  morally  obnoxious,  that  we  must  do   anything  and  everything  in  our  power  to  overturn  it.     Now  it  is  liberals'  turn  to  decide  if  they  will  follow  that  pattern.  

    Aside  from  its  sheer  power,  America  has  two  unique  political  characteristics  that   distinguish  it  from  the  rest.    Not  democracy  -­  there  are  about  90  of  those.    Not  wealth:   there  are  plenty  of  rich  countries.    It's  freedom  and  stability.         On  freedom  as  a  defining  characteristic  of  the  US  system,  see  Hannah  Arendt's  work,   but  I'd  like  to  focus  here  on  stability:    There  are  only  a  half  dozen  countries  in  the  world   with  constitutions  that  have  lasted  more  than  100  years.    Most  democracies  last  less   than  20  years.    We  must  not  take  for  granted  the  importance  of  sustaining  a  structure   and  culture  of  peaceful  democratic  tradition.    Once  broken,  it  can  be  very  hard  to  put   back  together.       References       Hannah  Arendt,  The  Origins  of  Totalitarianism,  Harcourt  Publ.,  1951.       Paul  Krugman,  The  Conscience  of  a  Liberal,  W.W.  Norton  &  Co.,  2009.     Robert  Reich,  Supercapitalism,Vintage  Publ.,  2008.     Thomas  Rochon,  Culture  Moves:  Ideas,  Activism,  and  Changing  Values,  Princeton   University  Press,  1998.     Paul  Steinberg,  Welcome  to  the  Jungle:  Policy  Theory  and  Political  Instability,  in   Steinberg  and  VanDeveer  (eds.),  Comparative  Environmental  Politics,  MIT  Press,  2014.       Paul  Steinberg,  Who  Rules  the  Earth?  How  Social  Rules  Shape  Our  Planet  and  Our   Lives,  Oxford  UP,  2015.