Come November 9th, I am certain to be disappointed by the outcome of the presidential race. Whether the electoral map plays into the hands of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, America will find itself retreating into illiberal, inward-looking policies, led by either one of the two least-inspiring candidates D.C. has ever managed to cook up.
And I will not be alone in my misery.
Nearly half of all Americans will wake up on that day feeling whole-heartedly unrepresented by the winner. If you consider the rise of third party candidates, with Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson picking up roughly 7 percent of the popular vote as of today, it is indeed possible that a majority of American voters will endure four years of a President they did not vote for.
And so, the great divide of America’s electorate, which has become so pertinent over the past two presidencies, is likely to move even further apart.
How does a nation so divided along two lines begin to heal? Here in the United Kingdom, we have watched 48 percent of voters prepare for a new political paradigm that they heavily contested: a UK withdrawn from the European Union.
While there have been murmurs of acceptance, major journalists, politicos and public figures remain in denial, and even seem hostile, not just towards the result but towards the voters who made it happen. Political parties are advocating for a second, even third referendum – or plan to ignore the result altogether.
But the UK may have a unique opportunity to heal through the process of division. “Brexitting” can pan out in a million and one ways, depending on what path Conservative ministers intend to pursue; and certain options – like joining the European Economic Area, at least in the interim – may help to counter-balance the tensions and uncertainty still felt by many Remain-supporters.
Furthermore, with international trade deals firmly back in the control of British politicians, there is an opportunity to signal through those negotiations that Brexit marks an era of prosperity and tolerance – embracing the free movement of goods and services, and keeping an open mind to the benefits of the free movement of people as well.
But what is already looking like an up-hill battle for unity in the UK may turn out to be a mole-hill compared to the political and social phenomenons occurring in the United States.
The “Never” movements – in which voters nail their feet to the ground and pledge to consider anything and anyone over a particular candidate – has grown especially strong this election cycle, fueled by the fact that Clinton and Trump poll as the two most unfavorable candidates in modern American history.
It’s easy to understand the resistance felt towards both party nominees. Trump’s comments range from unattractive at best to harrowing at worst, riling up past tensions between the majority and minority groups that America has fought – and continues to fight – long and hard to overcome.
And if you find Trump’s proposal to build a border wall with Mexico ridiculous, his almost-obsessive focus on race disturbing, and his attack on trade and global cooperation deeply damaging for those trying to rise out of poverty all over the world, then supporting Clinton presents may not provide a real alternative. After all, she turned her back on the benefits of trade almost as fast as Trump did to woo the Bernie Sanders’ populist contingent; the lobbying she and her husband did to bring in criminal justice reform in the 1990s is directly responsible for why a disproportionate number of minority groups are behind bars in the States; and she called for building a physical barrier along the border long before Trump made it a talking point.
U.S. politics has taken a turn for the worst, and voters are acutely aware of it. One of the major areas of agreement amongst Americans is dissatisfaction with elected officials, particularly at the federal level. In August, Gallup reported that disapproval ratings for Congress are sky-high — 78 per cent — a new norm in American politics, as the dissatisfaction rate has fluctuated between 69 and 86 percent since 2011. Americans put more trust in “The American people” (by a 14-percent margin) than they do in their “political leaders.”
But despite recognition that it’s not fellow neighbors, but a broken capital, that’s contributing to our sorry state, the deepening fears of an uncertain future allow politicians to wield identity politics in their favor. The squeezes felt by low-income Americans – due in large part to a lackluster economy that never fully recovered from 2008 – have people looking for someone to blame.
Clinton and Trump aren’t just outlets for blame; both candidates actively encourage blame of the other party – and its supporters. There has been no indication that either candidate will reach out across the aisle or usher in an era of bipartisanship post-election. Clinton’s reference to half of Trump’s supporters as “deplorable” sums up exactly how both of them would treat their presidency: political winner take all.
In tonight’s debate, we are likely to witness two dramatically similar candidates attempt to divide and conquer viewers at home in an attempt to win their votes, pledging more state intervention to help one side, at the peril of the other. Sadly, I suspect it will work. The American people may have far more in common with each other than they do with either candidate on stage tonight, but fear and uncertainty have a powerful way of alienating us further from solutions.
