Sinclair Lewis’s 1935 novel, It Can’t Happen Here, was a dystopian warning against fascist influence in the US. In the story, the nasty con man, ‘Buzz’ Windrip, was elected President and ran the country for his personal benefit. To secure his power base, he ruthlessly set about dismantling democratic checks and balance. Lewis wanted Americans to realise however much they thought authoritarian rule could not happen in the US, it would take just one devious scoundrel, backed by a misled public, to gain enough support to take control.
If the first Trump presidency is not enough to validate Lewis’ admonition, the 2024 elections are reminding us that history can indeed repeat itself.
But how could this have happened? Many causes have been cited, yet there is one which ought to be getting more attention – namely, the Spread of Unenlightened Self-Interest.
The Trump message which resonated with many voters – enough to tip the balance towards Trump in the seven swing states – contains variations on a core theme:
· There will be big tax cuts – this will help you, and only hurt others who rely on bloated government programmes.
· There will be support for fossil fuel jobs over all that ‘climate change’ nonsense – this will help you, and only hurt others who bang on tediously about ‘global warming’.
· There will be lots of tariffs on imports – this will help you, and only hurt others in all those foreign countries getting rich off us.
· There will be mass deportation of illegal immigrants – this will help you, and only hurt otherswho have no right to be in our country.
· There will be more business deregulation – this will help you, and only hurt others who would damage our economy if we let them.
· There will be an end to funding expensive arms for Ukraine – this will help you, and only hurt others who are not serious about peace with Russia.
Trump’s ‘populist’ appeal thus revolves around big promises that sound as though they would help Americans on a range of major issues. Some may be tempted to counter this by taking the ‘moral high ground’, and telling people to stop being selfish and think more about the needs of others.
That would be a mistake.
When people are deeply concerned about making a decent living for themselves and their families, we need to connect with them by engaging them in discovering what would really help them, and what could actually hurt them. So the antidote to the ‘populist’ pill should take on board more the following formulation:
· Beware of tax cuts that will just mostly help the wealthy few; check if the tax burden on you is genuinely going to be eased; and look out for corresponding budget cuts that are going to end up hurting you and your family.
· The longer climate change is not tackled properly, the worse damages you will suffer from extreme weather with more frequent drought and flooding; by contrast, investment in green jobs will lead to much more sustainable employment for everyone, and prevent our country from becoming a backwater in green business globally.
· Higher tariffs means you will have to pay more for what you have previously been buying; raising tariffs on imports will provoke other countries to raise their tariffs on our exports, which means our country will sell less abroad, our businesses will be harmed, and you will end up with fewer job opportunities; and remember, if we could so easily make the things we’ve been importing, why isn’t anyone doing it? (Answer: we might be able to do it – but it would be more costly; so look out for higher prices and inflation hurting you).
· You know friends and neighbours who are kind and helpful to you, and they work hard, pay taxes, and boost the economy. If you wait until they are being dragged away for deportation before you protest, it would be too late. Do you really want to trust any agency with such sweeping powers when they could turn on you and question your ancestry?
· Don’t you want safe products for your family, clean air and water, acceptable working conditions? ‘Deregulation’ just means they will get rid of laws that are there to protect you and your family.
· Not supplying arms to Ukraine when it is attacked by Russia, when it is happening on the doorstep of NATO, which the US helped to establish after World War Two to prevent another global conflict from erupting? Are you going to be safer with a leader who prefers to appease a dictator who’s ordered the invasion of another country? Besides, if all this ‘peace’ talk is about saving money, why keep committing to huge defence spending everywhere else?
No electoral strategy can work by dismissing people’s legitimate self-interest. What it must do is work with people to identify what will truly serve their interests, and what threatens the things they desperately care about.