Columnists give insight into Trump’s victory

A packed Hesburgh Center Auditorium was evidence of the success of the Constitutional Studies department’s event, “What Does Trump’s Election Mean: A conversation on free speech, the media, and political correctness in the age of Trump.” Ross Douthat, a columnist for the New York Times, and William Galston, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, spoke on Thursday, March 23 about Trump’s victory and the future of political parties in America.  

Douthat began his remarks by explaining three national tensions that proved advantageous for President Trump’s campaign. The first tension Douthat cited was that between “ideological conservatism and populism.” According to Douthat, this tension has extended decades, contrary to contemporary belief. However, this election featured populism’s triumph over ideology, courtesy of the distinctive personality of Trump and a variety of ever-widening cultural tensions. Douthat illustrated that the populist faction of the Republican Party was interested in the “right-wing welfare state that Donald Trump ran on,” while the ideological conservatives maintained a quasi-libertarian posture.

According to Douthat, the second tension Trump exploited was that between egalitarianism and cosmopolitanism within the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has tried to accommodate both ideologies because of a perceived potential coexistence. Douthat remarked, however, that evidence from Europe and America suggests otherwise. He elucidated on Robert Putnam’s sociological work, suggesting that as diversity increases in societies, so does distrust of institutions and fellow citizens. Consequently, increasing distrust breeds opposition to liberal egalitarianism. Douthat posited that the Democrats’ failure to combine both egalitarianism and cosmopolitanism was their demise. Trump’s egalitarian and anti-cosmopolitan message proved to be what the electorate wanted.  

The final tension Douthat cited was within Western civilization. One view is that liberal democracy will continue indefinitely while the other is that “natural human discontent or even boredom with comfortable stagnation” will lead to its downfall. Despite the absence of a catastrophic political and economic landscape, Trump’s message proved attractive to voters by exploiting this covert tension.  

Following Douthat, Galston spoke about his recent investigation into the pre-World War I era. Despite its troublesome nature, he said he had learned that, “even successful bourgeois societies develop antitheses.” Although 2016 was different than the pre-World War I era, there were reminiscent antitheses that aided in Trump’s victory.

While American exceptionalism was still recognized in the 2016 presidential election, America’s shortcomings were amplified, particularly its economic shortcomings. Galston remarked that the U.S. economy has been in recovery since the middle of 2009 and median household incomes have not made a full comeback to pre-recession levels. Glaston referred to what he calls the “lost generation,” a period of time spanning one generation in which median household income has not improved. These difficult economic realities translated into a decrease in the credibility of the American dream. As a result, disillusioned Americans “bought a lottery ticket with Trump” to avoid policy stagnation.

Furthermore, Galston argued that Trump promulgated the notion that foreign countries were exploiting America’s power, prestige, and wealth. Trump used international trade and international relations as examples of his belief in America’s overextended role in a world in which America’s input of energy and money does not reap equal benefits. Galston also expressed belief that racial and ethnic tensions stemming from surging immigration acted as a factor in Trump’s victory.

Lastly, Galston remarked that the Republican electorate was satisfied with Trump’s emergence because he represented what they were “trying to say all along, and no one was listening.” He suggested that Trump further solidified the white working class’ support of Republican social and political policies while gaining its support for Republican economic policy as well.  

Junior Rohit Fonseca told the Rover, “While the discussion wasn’t as contentious as one would expect between [Wall Street Journal] and [New York] Times columnists, everyone in attendance came away with the deeper understanding of the current situation but remained faced with an uncertain future.”

John Henry Hobgood is a first-year student majoring in the Program of Liberal Studies and Spanish. He enjoys sports, politics, and drinking coffee and sweet tea. You can contact him at jhobgoo1@nd.edu.