Fifty Million Frenchmen

Many of us thought we were living in a progressive society that was eventually going to leave behind racism and misogyny

A hit song in 1927, “Fifty Million Frenchmen Can’t Be Wrong” compared the free attitudes in 1920s Paris with censorship and prohibition in the United States. Two years later a Broadway musical of the same title opened, and two years after that a film with that title was released. The obvious sentiment is that when millions of people believe something, it must be true, correct, good. But that sentiment is simply wrong sometimes, and nowhere is that more true than politics, as we have just witnessed.

It used to be that populism — the assertion that virtuous citizens are in conflict with their country’s elite and privileged — was a political left tenet in the U.S. and a political right one in Europe, but in this country it is now as much or more a right-wing belief found primarily in the angry, largely rural white working class (and more educated, affluent but racist rural middle class). Although mostly a non-college-educated, male-driven phenomenon, there are surprising numbers of non-college females in this large group. The Republican presidential candidate leveraged this into a winning strategy, aided by a far more qualified Democratic candidate burdened with a largely undeserved reputation for a lack of honesty. But while populism is driven by the personal realities of these voters, it’s not attached to the actual reality they despise.

In other words, fifty million American voters can absolutely be wrong. They don’t want what they think they want. Replacing stability with volatility undermines economies, it makes trading partners and corporations nervous and reactive, it triggers recessions or worse, it creates not jobs but job loss because instead of investing in growth there is reductions of costs. The so-called establishment and elite work to avoid volatility because the economic and social costs are significant. The vast majority of job losses and much of the lack of job growth has been and is the result of automation, and that is only going to accelerate in the coming years and decades.

There are now two Americas, and those who live in the white populist, conservative, angry one do not understand that “making America great again” isn’t possible by turning back the clock because it can’t be done. Trying to do so will only make things worse. I was surprised how many white females voted against their own self-interest by supporting the candidate who doesn’t believe in the minimum wage, is disinterested in equal pay, would simply end health care insurance for 22 million citizens and considers climate change to be a hoax. They say he’s a business man and will get things done. Wrong. Governance and business have nothing in common, with vastly different goals and purpose. He has zero experience in governance.

Now, it may be that the successful candidate has essentially used his deplorable campaign as a marketing ploy and in reality is going to be far more cautious and restrained, particularly given that he does not have the intellectual capacity for complex issues and multiple combinations of policy choices. He might pick talented cabinet members and heads of agencies, but he might equally pick ideologists who have no more awareness of reality than he does. All those who didn’t vote or voted for a third-party candidate, and who ignored that they were thus voting for him and not his opponent, will come to regret their lack of wisdom, much as many who voted for Brexit regret their protest votes.

Many of us thought we were living in a progressive society that was eventually going to leave behind racism and misogyny, and embrace democracy and the rule of law, but we were wrong. White citizens, the majority living outside of metropolitan regions, do not like a rainbow society or smart, powerful women, they do not like globalization and certainly don’t have passports, and they live where the new economy is not active and their children go elsewhere to find it. For those of us who are older, economically secure and live in metropolitan places, the new administration will not have much effect on us personally, but for young immigrants (particularly in college), for minorities, for women of child-bearing age and for those who can’t afford health insurance or even obtain it without the affordable care act…things may be much worse over time.

Journalists who travel the country report that the anger, bitterness and disdain for twenty-first century America is widespread outside of major cities and their suburbs. That 80 percent of the population lives in ~125 metropolitan regions of varying sizes means that some citizens within them voted for the president elect, but his opponent won the popular vote in these regions. The levels of polarization and divisiveness have never been higher between rural and not rural. But the president is such for all citizens (assuming we don’t simply ignore him), so why should the civil rights and equality of some be subservient to those who refuse to accept cultural change in their small towns and isolated villages.

From my pragmatic place in the world the greater good is better for everyone when it is inclusive and shared. But economic disruption is part of the economic growth and prosperity we want, and those who truly are at a disadvantage as a result deserve support from our government through programs and targeted help. Why these same people vote for the candidates of the political party that doesn’t support such help is a mystery to me. Many who voted this election haven’t voted in years, but they seem unable to recognize where their self-interest actually is.

Protesting the election of someone by demonstrating in city streets, while well meant, it hardly as effective as voting for that candidate’s opponent. Some characterized the choice in this election as the lesser of two evils conundrum, but that’s quite inaccurate. The president elect’s opponent isn’t evil at all, whereas one could reasonably question if he is. No pragmatist had a problem determining that there was only one rational choice, unlike those who claimed that not voting or voting for a (marginal) third-party candidate was an act of conscience. That mechanism is neither reliable nor pragmatic. The results of the election proved this, and the inevitable unintended consequences are to come.

In the end, while so many are shocked that such an unfortunate candidate accumulated sufficient electoral college votes to win the election (which apparently wasn’t rigged after all), what would one expect when the committed angry white voters cast their ballots, but half of all eligible voters did nothing. Their indifference, lack of motivation and disinterest make them ineligible to complain about the next four years. Their pathetic claim that their votes don’t matter is an insult to those who did vote and to the privilege of being allowed to vote. Not voting is voting, and no argument changes this. If you didn’t vote, regardless of which excuse you chose, you voted for him. Thanks for nothing.