Responding to “The Liberal Aloof”
Three days ago, Pensive Post writer Graham Glusman published an article called “The Liberal Aloof.” In many ways, I agree with him. He’s absolutely correct that the Democrats lost as much (if not more) than the Republicans won. In fact, I’m going to start this article by taking his argument further. However, I think he also misses a lot of other factors that colored in the 2016 election map. While liberal elitism has to be addressed (Glusman and I both aim to confront it directly), it is not the achilles heel of the party that he has made it out to be. It is instead just one of one thousand cuts.
A recent Pew survey illustrates the differences between Trump and Clinton voters. Simply put, each group is motivated by different fears and concerns. Trump voters are more worried about job opportunities, for both working-class people and Americans in general. They are also, according to exit polling conducted by the Washington Post, less likely to be college-educated. These people, the un-employed and under-educated, suffer from a lack of privilege. It may be hard to take — especially when the president-elect is a walking, talking, groping embodiment of privilege — but it is true nonetheless. Consider that, of the 10 states with the lowest median household incomes, only one (New Mexico) went for Hillary. Further, New Mexico had a much higher than usual proportion of conservatives voting for Gary Johnson, which could have something to do with Johnson’s old job as the state’s governor. Meanwhile, of the 10 states with the highest median household income, only one (Alaska) went red. Finally, amongst Americans who were doing worse financially in 2016 than in 2015, a full 78% voted for Trump.
Yet, the shifting electoral map is not so easily explained. It’s becoming increasingly common to hear talk about the rural/metropolitan (or rural/urban) divide, and for good reason. It is the biggest divisor between Americans, more important than North/South and currently replacing Democratic/Republican as the mark of partisan politics. While Mitt Romney beat Obama by a mere two percent in rural areas, Trump beat Clinton by an astounding 28 points.
Even more shockingly, while pundits claimed that Clinton’s loss was because of poor urban turnout, the raw data show a different story. Clinton actually out-performed Obama in cities across the country, even in swing states. In Miami-Dade County, Clinton got 623,006 votes, compared to the 540,776 that Obama received in 2012. In Philadelphia County, 560,542 people voted for her, which is similar to the 557,024 people that supported Obama in 2012. On the opposite end of Pennsylvania, in Allegheny County (home of Pittsburgh) Clinton earned 363,017 votes, besting the 348,151 that Obama earned. In Franklin County, Ohio (home of Columbus) Clinton outperformed Obama 60.6% to 60.1%. The other populous counties in these states (as well as in other swing states) tell similar stories: Clinton gained numbers that were similar to, and sometimes better than, her Democratic counterpart in the 2012 election. The notion that Clinton lost because of a lack of urban support is simply a false narrative.
Trump’s victory, therefore, may not be a question of demographics, but of geography. Two mornings ago, The New York Times highlighted the gargantuan disparity in landmass between “Trump Country” and “Clinton Country.” Imagining the electoral map as two different countries, the isolation of metropolitan-ites becomes clear. Trump’s map looks like something that was lightly nibbled-on. Clinton’s map is an Indonesia-esque archipelago. How could our country not be divided?
Returning to my county comparisons from earlier, there are a few notable exceptions to Clinton’s urban dominance. The most shocking is Milwaukee, where 39,104 fewer people turned out for Clinton than for Obama. Now, the prevailing theory is that this is due to Clinton’s failure to engage and excite Black voters. There is evidence for this. Nonetheless, there is also evidence that a lack of enthusiasm was not the only thing that kept Black voters away from the polls, especially in Milwaukee, which is home to well over half of Wisconsin’s Black population. Earlier this year, following a long series of legal battles, Wisconsin implemented a series of voter ID laws. These are considered some of the strictest in the country, and are currently under federal investigation.
Voter ID laws have appeared throughout the country since 2013, when the Voting Rights Act was gutted by the Shelby County v. Holder decision. These laws have been shown to impact voters under 23 and Blacks more than any other groups. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given that these restrictions were mostly passed by Republicans, those groups are two of the most important components of the so-called “Obama Coalition.” I’ll argue that it is not a coincidence that a number of states that flipped (Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan, specifically) have passed voter ID laws since the last election.
Any easy answers about this election should be rejected, or at the very least, mercilessly questioned. 130 million people voted on November 8th; to reduce the opinions of nearly half the country to one or two factors is both absurd and useless. Understanding why one candidate was chosen over another is a lot more instructive and constructive than leaping to assign blame. Obviously there is anger; there has to be, when a three-time accused rapist just appointed someone who has been accused of domestic violence and sexual harassment to his cabinet.
But anger can be constructive, too. It is what drove me to write this piece. Still, anger isn’t fear or hate, like Steve Bannon espouses. There is a hair’s breadth difference, but it is a crucial one. Unlike hate, anger can be informed and intelligent. Unlike fear, it can be productive and functional. The onus is on us to shape and wield our outrage for positivity. Taking anything for granted will render us ineffective and delay the progress this country yearns for.
