Lately, there’s been a spring in the steps of Hillary Clinton’s supporters. The Trump campaign has stumbled into a succession of controversies and his momentum is stalled. From his attacks on the Muslim family of a fallen marine to his unwieldy and condescending outreach to black voters, the last month has been a tough one for Trump. Recent polls suggest several battleground states are leaning towards Clinton and even traditionally republican territories like Missouri are now evenly split.
The race isn’t over, but with the election 73 days away, the odds are in Clinton’s favor. Assuming she wins the election, her first quiet moments in the Oval Office will be spent reflecting on the threat that Donald Trump almost was.
Throughout this election, Trump has proven to be a remarkably bad candidate. His campaign has raised fewer than half of the donations Clinton has gathered, he’s antagonized popular members of his own party and his quick temper has a habit of entangling him in damaging controversies.
But, what if Trump were different?
Imagine for a moment that all of Donald Trump’s bluster and braggadocio was replaced by tact and eloquence. Imagine if rather than alienating minorities, he’d instead brought them into the fold of his anti-establishment, down-with-the-politicians campaign. After all, they too have reason to be angry at the political elite. What if his demagoguery was characterized by wit rather than wrath, and cunning rather than clumsiness? If Trump, hindered as he is by these handicaps of character, has nonetheless been competitive against Clinton, a more skilled candidate with the same message might have soundly beaten her.
Luckily for Clinton, Donald Trump is Donald Trump. It’s worth remembering, however, that there were times when Trump seemed to pose a serious threat, occasionally even overtaking her in certain national polls.
It raises an important question. How does a candidate like Trump, the metaphorical equivalent of a back-alley brawler, compete with the highly trained, professional boxer that is Hillary Clinton? The answer lies with the white, working-class voter.
As The Atlantic reported in March, surveys show the two most significant identifiers of a Trump supporter are the absence of a college degree and the belief that he or she is “voiceless.” In fact, “for every 1 percentage point more college graduates over the age of 25, Trump’s share of votes falls by 0.65 percentage points,” making education the best predictor of whether or not someone will vote “Trump.” Contrary to their stereotype, not having a college degree doesn’t make his supporters unintelligent. It makes them outsiders in a modern economy.
The past several years have been painful for the white working class. Men without college degrees have seen their wages fall 13 percent over the last 25 years, compared to a 7 percent rise for men with a four-year degree. Blue collar manufacturing workers have also seen their wages decline dramatically, assuming their factories haven’t closed outright. Free-trade policies implemented in the 1990s triggered an exodus of good-paying jobs after 2000, and in just the last 15 years, 5 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared. At the same time, globalization has raised the demand for an educated, highly skilled workforce and what manufacturing jobs remain are increasingly automated.
Furthermore, Trump’s blue collar supporters have endured sharp drops in the quality of education, public services and health in their communities. Maps of the U.S. states by mortality rate, white poverty rate and college education bear striking resemblance to a map of Donald Trump’s support. Multiple administrations have failed to aid the working class through period of transition, or in many cases to even acknowledge the damage occurring in their communities. The result is a volatile cocktail of misfortune and neglect. For those still employed, like the 12 million American manufacturing workers, the fear of not being able to provide for their families is visceral and constant. The bitterness of those who have lost their jobs is obvious.
Too often, our conversations about the “Trump Phenomenon” are limited to discussions of nationalism, xenophobia and racism, all of which did play a role in Trump’s rise. However, if it weren’t for a set of economic conditions, his campaign wouldn’t be possible.
Subject anyone to hardship, make them feel invisible in the eyes of their government, and it is only a matter of time until their anger boils over. They will cling to the first demagogue that comes to them with open arms saying, “I see you.” This is certainly what Trump did, when he burst into the spotlight last year offering scapegoats and a bullhorn to Americans who felt abandoned by the political elite. The working class won him the Republican nomination and, had he deployed a real ground game, he might have even captured the blue-collar vote in Democratic territory. So if we’re going to generalize, Trump supporters are not fools, nor are they bigots. Much like progressives, they feel that the economy no longer works for them, and I can’t blame them for that.
A future Clinton administration will have no choice but to address the economic plight of the white working class, in addition to the many other challenges she will face. Politics is about investing in the future, and while populist candidates like Trump and Bernie Sanders might be held at bay in 2016 (though with very different approaches), this election season has exposed the power of the white working class to turn elections. There is blood in the water, and we can expect more and better populist challengers in 2020 if Clinton’s administration doesn’t bring help to the demographic that will vote against her this November.
But besides her own political survival, there is another reason that uplifting working class, uneducated Americans, especially those who voted for Trump, should be a national priority: compassion. These are good people, by and large, whose circumstances and experiences, fears and misfortunes have driven them to support a candidate that is entirely unfit to be president. Had I lived their lives, I suspect I would have made the same decision. We all probably would, and so we all share some measure of responsibility for the condition of neglect that pushed our fellow citizens into Donald Trump’s warm embrace.
As the proverb goes: “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”
Ian Burgess is a Trinity sophomore. His column, “from the mountaintop,” will run on alternate Fridays.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.