The Politics of Resentment

Introduction

The politics of resentment are shaping the US election 2024, in what now looks like a replay of 2016.  Any group of voters which feels disappointed with living conditions is likely to vote against the governing political party.  Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016 was largely due to her failure to connect with voters in America’s ‘Rust Belt’, and Kamala Harris now faces similar challenges: how to avoid being seen as responsible for the hardship being experienced by those voters.

Rapid economic and social change

Many people in traditional Industries have lost their jobs due to globalisation, new technologies, and the transition to green technologies. As described in the Patterns of Power books, a political response is necessary to alleviate hardship in such circumstances (6.7.8). If the political establishment fails to provide this, voters might turn to populist politicians who promise solutions – as was the case in 2016, when they elected Donald Trump.

Donald Trump’s populist approach

Trump’s style, which has been consistent since 2016, has been described as authoritarian populism (6.3.2.6). His campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again”, is a heady mix of nationalism and nostalgia. He presents himself as a strong confident leader. His supporters want to believe him, regardless of rational arguments, because his message resonates with rust-belt voters at an emotional level.

His policies do not benefit most Americans, though:

●  The Preamble to the 2024 Republican Party Platform offers short-term benefits to States involved in fracking for natural gas, but it ignores the economic potential of new energy technologies. “We will DRILL, BABY, DRILL and we will become Energy Independent, and even Dominant again”.  This policy would delay, but cannot prevent, the eventual transition to low-cost renewable energy sources.

●  Robert Reich’s article, The horrendous truth about Trumponomics, points out that Trump’s tariff proposals will spur inflation, that his tax cuts “have disproportionately benefited America’s wealthy and big corporations”, and that putting Elon Musk in in charge of cutting economic regulations is equivalent to saying “big corporations ought to be able to wreak as much harm on the public as they want, if doing so enlarges their profits”.

Voting for Change

Rust belt voters continue to feel resentful.  Trump’s policies don’t offer genuine solutions, but that doesn’t seem to be very significant compared to the strength of his personal appeal at an emotional level – as a strong leader who can fix peoples’ problems.

The politics of resentment do not favour Kamala Harris.  Rust Belt voters blame the government for their discomfort.  She cannot present herself as a candidate for change by distancing herself from the policies of the Biden Administration.  She was his Vice-President – but she can defend his economic record.  Reportedly, The U.S. Economy Performs Better Under Democratic Presidents:

“Most recently, job growth has totaled nearly 16.2 million under the Biden-Harris administration as the U.S. economy has recovered from the pandemic recession. Conversely, there were 2.7 million fewer Americans employed when President Trump left office than at the beginning of his term, making him the first president in the modern era to oversee net job losses.”

President Biden’s policies will deliver benefits to the Rust Belt in the next few years, as renewable energies are cheaper than fossil fuels and there is a global race to exploit this opportunity.  The U.S. Economy Again Leads the World, IMF Says: “International Monetary Fund upgrades U.S. growth outlook as strong investment boosts productivity”.  The “strong investment” referred to here was Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act: “once-in-a-generation investments in America’s infrastructure and our clean energy future that are creating good-paying and union jobs, establishing and growing new industries in the United States, tackling the climate crisis, and helping lower costs for families.”

Trump’s unfitness for the office of US President

It is reasonable to argue that Trump is unfit to be the next President of the United States:

●  He is focused on boosting his self-image rather than serving the people. Ex-President Obama said in Madison, Wisconsin on 22 October, “I understand why folks are looking to shake things up. I get it. What I cannot understand is why anybody would think that Donald Trump will shake things up in a way that’s good for you,” Obama said. “That I do not understand, because there is absolutely no evidence that this man thinks about anybody but himself.”

●  He is showing signs of mental decline. In another quotation from the same speech: “You’d be worried if Grandpa was acting like this,” said Obama. “But this is coming from someone who wants unchecked power.”  And Chris Christie, a Republican, expressed alarm over Trump’s ‘significant’ mental decline: “Former ally’s comments came just hours before Kamala Harris shared her medical report in what marked a thinly-veiled challenge to Trump to do the same”.

●  He is a threat to democracy. He continues to assert, falsely, that he won the 2020 election.  And, as reported in the New York Times, “John Kelly, the Trump White House’s longest-serving chief of staff, said that he believed that Donald Trump met the definition of a fascist”.  Kelly had fallen out of favour with Donald Trump because he had argued that the US Constitution was more important than loyalty to any one President.

Kamala Harris ought to be seen in a positive light

Trump’s unfitness for office should persuade voters to support Harris.

She represents a change from the older generation: Trump and Biden are past their best.

Trump’s policies are backward-looking and aimed at benefiting the rich, whereas she is the candidate for hope.  She ought to be seen as the more competent candidate to take America forward into the future, with policies designed to help working people.

Reasons why Trump’s support remains solid

Oliver Bateman has explained How Trump Rewired the Rust Belt Voter.  He described how the “story of how Democrats lost their working-class base began well before Trump”, starting 50 years ago with Richard Nixon.  Now, in Pennsylvania, “traditionally Democratic strongholds like Washington County [have] become reliable Republican territory”.  Bateman makes some powerful points:

●  “The fracking boom …has reshaped Western Pennsylvania’s political landscape. In counties like Washington, Greene, and Fayette, the natural gas industry has created thousands of high-paying blue-collar jobs. Many of these workers view Democrats as hostile to their livelihoods, perceiving a party increasingly aligned with environmental activists and urban progressives.”

●  “The GOP’s gains in the Pittsburgh suburbs aren’t just about tax policy or regulations – they reflect a deeper cultural affinity between these voters and the Republican brand. …It’s a perception that the GOP has skillfully exploited, positioning itself as the defender of a way of life under siege from coastal elites and progressive activists”.

‘Alternative facts’ that persuade people to vote for Trump

Vance says Trump won the 2020 election, and many Americans still believe that.  They see the Democrats as a threat to democracy, not Trump.

The economy: a BBC report on the US economy noted that “Trump, the Republican nominee and former president, says he created the “greatest economy in the history of our country”, and the Biden-Harris administration has ruined it.”  This is untrue.  The war in Ukraine caused a temporary spike in inflation, but that is now returning to normal – and, as noted above, Biden has done far better in job creation.

The Democrats have performed better than Trump, for most voters – but the politics of resentment, combined with alternative facts, represent a formidable obstacle for Kamala Harris to overcome.  The election remains too close to call with confidence.

The numbers in brackets above are links to sections in the PatternsofPower books