US debate shows up two sparring tribes

 

By Leon Hadar.

 

 

 

SO let’s say that you are a young, single woman, a lawyer working in a law firm in Manhattan, and let’s assume that you and your partner, who works in a financial company in the city, were watching on Monday evening the first televised presidential debate of 2016, together with 100 million other viewers.

As you were both watching the televised encounter, the two of you were applauding as Hillary Clinton was taking some jabs at her Republican opponent and articulating her proposed policies to create jobs in the United States and fight the so-called Islamic State (IS) abroad.

Yes. Mrs Clinton does sound wonky, boring sometimes and even a bit smug. But, hey, you have no doubt that when it comes to the economy or foreign policy, the former Secretary of State and senator knows what she is talking about. She did her homework and came prepared for the debate – and she is prepared to enter the White House next year.

And then you were laughing out loud as Donald Trump seems to be travelling nowhere in one of his stream-of-consciousness trips, explaining that he talks about how rich he was “not in a braggadocious way” but because “it’s time that this country has somebody running the country who has an idea about money”, and then lashing out at the Chinese, Mexicans and, yes, Rosie O’Donnell. He is complaining that jobs are “fleeing the country” at a time when, as you know, the unemployment rate is falling, while fabricating conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve that is supposedly (or so the Donald contends) scheming with President Barack Obama in lowering interest rates.

“Is this guy for real?” you ask your partner. “What a joke,” he responds. You cannot believe the Republicans have nominated this television celebrity, who practically doesn’t know what he is talking about, who seems to blow up every time someone tweets something against him, and who is so, so unqualified to be president, to run against an experienced and well-informed politician like Mrs Clinton.

And on Tuesday, when you go back to work you aren’t surprised to find out that all the lawyers in the firm share your impressions about the presidential debate.

“Hillary was the winner last night!” seems to be the general consensus among your highly educated and well-paid professional colleagues and of almost everyone you know in Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Washington, DC, who text to remind you that the Donald is also a bigot and a misogynist.

In short, in your social-cultural universe there seems to be no doubt. There is no way in the world that this ignorant and boorish man would be elected as the next president of the United States. As Mrs Clinton has pointed out, she should be beating him in the opinion polls by at least 50 per cent.

So you find it difficult to believe that so many Americans support Mr Trump. In fact, according to the results of some opinion polls online, the majority of television viewers thought Mr Trump had won the debate. Say what?

And then as you take your lunch break on Tuesday, and after checking your emails, you skim through New York Post, the local tabloid, and your eyes catch the following headline: “How Trump Won Over a Bar Full of Undecideds and Democrats”.

The dateline of the story is Pennsylvania, and it includes interviews with young men and women your age, most of whom are undecided and Democrats, including Kady Letoksy, who works as paralegal by day and as a waitress and bartender at night. New York Post wanted to report their reactions as they were watching the presidential debate on Monday at Tin Lizzy, a 270-year-old tavern in Youngstown, a small Westmoreland County town.

And guess what? After watching the 90-minute television exchange, most of the patrons of the bar declared Mr Trump the unchallenged winner. “Trump had the upper hand this evening,” said Ms Letoksy.

“By the end of the debate, Clinton never said a thing to persuade me that she had anything to offer me or my family or my community,” said Ken Reed, 35, a registered Democrat and small businessman. “Have to say Trump had the edge this evening, he came out swinging but also talked about specifics on jobs and the economy,” Mr Reed told New York Post.

Quite amazing, you say to yourself. You and Ms Letoksy are around the same age and you live in two neighbouring states. The drive from Manhattan to Youngstown takes only a few hours. Yet it seems that the two of you see the world in totally different ways, as though you reside in two different planets. In the aftermath of the presidential debate, we can probably refer to them as Planet Hillary and Planet Donald.

Over-educated, working in a high-skilled and well-paying job, and living in one of the world’s financial and commercial centres, you have benefited from the economic changes brought about by globalisation since Mrs Clinton’s husband served as president in the 1990s.

Indeed, the numerous trade deals that were signed through the years, the economic opening to China, the explosion in the financial industry and the rise of the high-tech information industries, have all helped grow your law firm and expand its operations abroad. Your friends who work in other knowledge industries, ranging from finance to entertainment, feel the same.

Moreover, you and your friends are also feeling very comfortable living in the multi-cultural setting of the big urban centres, and welcome the arrival of new immigrants whether they are high-skilled engineers from India or are legal and illegal immigrants from Mexico who clean the offices of your law firm late at night.

So it’s not surprising that you would prefer to have a prominent resident of your social-economic universe and who shares your values and perspectives, and one who wishes to preserve the status quo that rewarded you and your friends, be elected as the next US president.

And you find it hard to believe that there are other Americans who want to elect someone who questions whether globalism does benefit the American people and wants to tear up global trade deals and to place restrictions on immigration.

In Youngstown and the rural towns in the struggling areas of America’s Rust Belt, the sentiments shared by Ms Letoksy and others are quite different. Globalisation is being blamed for the collapse of the manufacturing industry and the loss of well-paying jobs. The values, traditions, skills, jobs and lives of those who live there are seen as under attack and what is replacing them is igniting a sense of insecurity. And Mr Trump is seen by many as the saviour.

When you listen to the Republican presidential nominee pledging to bring jobs “back home” or threatening a trade war with China or calling for the deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants back to Mexico, you recognise that these and other plans are at best unworkable; and at worst, that they would actually end up making things worse for the people of Youngstown.

But then there is very little communication these days between Manhattan and Youngstown, or between the residents of Hillary Planet and those who live on Donald Planet. They may share the same United States but they dream different dreams.

The 2016 presidential campaign has helped highlight this ongoing civil war between these two political tribes. And it’s doubtful that any election outcome would help to end it. At best, expect a ceasefire.

What Next?

Recent Articles