Why He Won

Ever since the 2016 election, pundits and others who follow politics have been trying to answer two basic questions: What happened? Why did he win? My personal attempt to answer these questions has been shaped by my time at a college where the student body and faculty lean left. What follows here is a collection of experiences I’ve had that make me think: “this is why he won.” They are presented briefly, with minimal analysis. I don’t believe they provide the whole picture of President Trump’s 2016 victory, and I’m not even certain they are too significant. But they have seemed true enough to me.

On election night, I watched the returns in the basement common room of North Residence Hall with some friends. The reactions ranged from confidence in Secretary Clinton’s victory to an uneasy feeling that a surprise might be in the making. One acquaintance left to scream and cry outside the building. I understand strong emotions, but this struck me as verging on the absurd. News coverage described a Clinton campaign that was hesitant to concede even in the face of apparently long odds. Clinton did not give her concession speech until late the following morning. Those reactions by the campaign and the candidate struck me as arrogant: an extreme disbelief that Clinton could have lost to Trump. They also highlighted what seemed like a complete inability to understand why anyone might find even a little redeeming value in Trump.

A friend later described Hamilton as a liberal blue dot “in a sea of red racism.” While he is probably right that Hamilton is more liberal than its general surroundings, I was put off by the broad brush stroke, calling the area racist so easily. No evidence was presented, not even a single anecdote which might be extrapolated to the population. Just “a sea of red racism.” Painting one’s political opposition as racist or sexist or homophobic, as so often happens, is an easy way to explain away more complicated factors. It reduces people’s opinions, emotions, and experiences to a single dirty word which can easily be dismissed. This story, like others, makes me think “this is why he won” because it displays an inability to delve into the roots of others’ political convictions.

I heard an argument that old people should not be allowed to vote because they won’t be around long enough to see the effects of their votes. I strongly disagree with this, but I didn’t think “this is why he won” until I heard, as an aside, that it was even more OK because older voters are Trump voters anyway. Silencing a group by disenfranchising them in the political process which is supposed to foster agreement out of discord is not the way forward for a society. Like the previous story, it gives people an out: don’t listen or find agreement, just remove the right to vote in the first place.

In a conversation about West Virginia, a friend was dismissive to the extreme. As he discussed the opioid epidemic ravaging the state and the rest of the Rust Belt, he was cool to the suffering and the lack of opportunity in these areas. He described people living there as hicks and idiots, and questioned why they didn’t just learn to code, as if getting such a job was a magic wand which can fix all such ills. In a separate discussion, he exuded great compassion for illegal immigrants and the challenges those communities face. I wondered why he was able to display such compassion for only one group of people and not another.

A professor asked a class for thoughtful, fact-based reasons why the United States should not have states. A number of well thought-out, rationally debatable answers followed. But one student responded simply, “Alabama.” It was humorous, sure, and I chuckled, but it was also a sign. That answer was neither thoughtful nor fact-based, but it also wasn’t an attempt at humor. It played off of a preconceived notion (mostly northeasterners’) of the South. (A later show of hands showed that nobody thought of him- or herself as a southerner.) The answer displayed a sizable amount of elitism and a disdain for those hillbillies down there who vote Republican. Rather than a plausible argument against having states, it served as an argument for them, since it might be good that the attitudes behind such snide comments cannot be imposed on other states, including Alabama, as long as they exist--especially since the disconnect between so many of the people in the different parts of our country is extreme.

Each one of these vignettes can be discussed, perhaps for hours. I also completely understand that these stories are divorced from the context that might add nuance. That, however, is less important than thinking about how each of them makes people feel. For if voters think the small experiences they encounter in their daily lives should influence their votes, then those are part of what decides elections. I know I will keep on gathering these stories as we ramp up into the 2020 election cycle. Without trying to build a grand thesis about what happened in 2016 and why, I think it's important for me and all of us to understand how the little situations and comments we experience in our lives may not only reflect, but also affect, the broader political environment.

Super Bowl Ads

The Super Bowl has always been known for excess. Be it the huge amounts of pre-game hype or the massive prices for commercials during the game, the Super Bowl is one of the flashiest events of the year. Part of the hype this year was the anticipation of two political ads that aired during the game: one from President Trump, one from former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. A striking thing about them was their similarity in some respects.

One common vein was their break from the otherwise rancorous debate surrounding the 2020 election. Trump’s ad focused on the story of Alice Johnson, a nonviolent drug offender sentenced to life in prison, whose sentence was eventually commuted by Trump after the intervention of socialite Kim Kardashian. The ad, featuring white text on a black background interspersed with images of Johnson reunited with her family, was a departure from the standard Trump playbook, which calls for being loud, boisterous, and spontaneous.  Bloomberg’s 60-second spot told the story of George Kemp, a 20-year-old football player from Houston who was killed in a shooting in 2013. The ad was somber but hopeful. It was narrated by Kemp’s mother, who has advocated for gun restrictions since his death and praises Bloomberg’s record on gun control. Neither candidate was willing to air a divisive attack ad on America’s biggest sporting stage, but both were willing to air sensitive, emotional political issues in a stirring way.

The second similarity between these two ads was what was left unsaid. Trump’s touted his record on criminal justice reform, but needs more context. Trump did sign the bipartisan FIRST STEP Act in December of 2018. The law eased mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for nonviolent drug offenses, weakened the “three strikes and you’re out” rule, expanded credit for good time, and implemented some lesser justice-system reforms. Johnson wasn’t actually a beneficiary of the act, because her sentence was commuted by the president the previous summer. Furthermore, critics rightly said that clemency should not occur because of celebrity intervention but rather through comprehensive policy.

Bloomberg’s ad focused on gun violence affecting children, but would have been better had it described the fuller magnitude of the gun problem. A person viewing the ad, with its images of Kemp as a young child in oversized football pads and of mourning after the Sandy Hook school shooting, might believe he was killed as a child, obscuring the fact that he was shot at the age of 20. Here lies the tragedy in the shooting statistic Bloomberg cited: While 2,900 0- to 19-year-olds are killed each year due to gun violence, that number is 1,500 for 0- to 17-year-olds, and it doesn’t really tell the story of the thousands of deaths, uncovered in the news, that occur--like Kemp’s shooting death--between teenagers after altercations. Bloomberg should be lauded for bringing these stories into the limelight, but should focus more on the scourge that is everyday gun violence.

Finally, both ads made a pitch to black voters. Trump’s messaging has evolved from 2016 to highlight accomplishments for the black community during his administration, rather than just asking: “what do you have to lose?” While Trump cannot claim sole credit (no administration could) for record-low black unemployment rates or for criminal justice reform (however preliminary), his pitch is intended to show progress for the black community. His argument in this respect in 2020 will certainly be based on the claim that the Democratic Party has always taken the black vote for granted without delivering material improvements in their lives. Whether Trump succeeds in winning over much of the black vote remains to be seen, but it should be remembered that he won a greater share of it than both Mitt Romney and John McCain (although this can also be attributed to low black turnout).

Bloomberg’s ad had a broader audience, since it included memories of school shootings which caused universal outrage. In focusing on Kemp’s story, however, it was targeting the scourge of shootings committed by young men against each other. According to the Giffords Law Center, the roughly 12,000 fatal shootings, and 80,000 non-fatal shootings, that largely comprise interpersonal gun violence often include teenagers of color shooting one another. Bloomberg’s ad did make a pitch to minority communities, in an acknowledgement that the constant gun violence this nation faces is not primarily in the tragic mass shootings which always draw headlines, but rather in the thousands of individual tragedies which go largely unreported every day. If Bloomberg wants to win the Democratic nomination, he must sway anyone he can to his side, and stressing this issue to the black community may be the place to start.

Against Fossil Fuel Divestment

The noticeable increase in Climate Change awareness this semester has led to a number of policy proposals from students, faculty, and staff. One of these, divesting the Hamilton endowment from fossil fuels, seems particularly popular among students. Proponents of divestment, however, play down divestment’s cost to our institution and overestimate its environmental benefit.

First, to understand the issue as it relates to Hamilton: About 3 percent of its roughly $1 billion endowment is invested in the fossil fuels industry. Ending our investments in fossil fuels -- “divesting” -- will undeniably harm the college’s financial situation. In fulfilling its fiduciary obligations, the college’s Investment Office aims to maximize the risk-adjusted returns of its portfolio in order to provide a consistent stream of income to fund operations. Our endowment’s assets will always be allocated in ways and amounts that the Investment Committee deems to deliver this best possible return. Since an investment in fossil fuels is, in its professional judgment, a part of the best possible allocation which the endowment can achieve, exiting from these investments would, by definition, reduce the endowment’s financial performance and thus the money available to the college. Here lies a perfectly rational decision for Hamilton to make: Do we divest from fossil fuels and cut funding to a college program, or not?  

This raises a necessary question and my second point: Does divestment meaningfully reduce climate change? Short answer: No. Long answer: Divestment is supposed to work by increasingly denying fossil fuel companies access to capital markets, from which those firms may need to raise cash for various projects. In the short run, a low share price (resulting from fewer investors being interested in a firm, and thus a lesser demand for its shares) will not reduce a firm’s ability to do business. In the long run, a sustained low share price may make funding more expensive for it. By looking at historical precedent, however, we can see that this long-term pressure is unlikely to occur. A 1998 economic study of the divestment movement that targeted apartheid-era South Africa found there was only a minute discernible effect on South African companies’ ability to do business even when many universities and businesses divested from such companies. Divestment campaigns will create opportunities for other investors to enter the market cheaply, thus maintaining fossil fuel companies’ access to the capital markets. Since fossil fuels are still crucial to the functioning of our world (and will be for a long time), it is highly unlikely that these firms will be cut off from the capital markets. Divestment would be emotionally gratifying to some students, but would not bring about the environmental change they are advocating.

Our endowment will naturally divest from fossil fuels over time as they fade in economic importance to the world, but rushing this process would only harm our college. A weaker endowment return would jeopardize Hamilton’s ability to offer as much opportunity as it has been able to offer its students. Would students choose divestment, or maintaining or increasing current levels of financial aid? How about divestment or increased resources at the counseling center? The college is not “contributing to the environment’s demise in search of short-sighted profit,” as Eric Stenzel ‘23 writes in The Monitor‘s November 13 issue, but ensuring that the blessings of the Hamilton experience will be shared by generations of students to come, a decidedly long-term outlook. Many students don’t see the complex balancing of priorities the administration must undertake, but they would feel the pain of our college’s having fewer resources if it divested.

Divestment proponents should refocus their efforts and attempt to work with the administration to achieve their goals. Instead of vilifying Investment Committee chair Bob Delaney ‘79, Mr. Stenzel and others should understand the complex balancing act he leads for the college. Not caving to a request from a segment of the student body shows that Mr. Delaney is concerned with long-term priorities for generations of future Hamilton students, some of them not even born yet. Might I suggest, then, that divestment proponents push for other actions, with low costs and which will meaningfully effect change? The college could, for example, use some proceeds from the endowment to erect more solar panels on campus. While even this might cause short-term pain by diverting those resources from another project, it would benefit Hamilton in the long run by reducing its energy costs as well as carbon emissions -- clearly more effective than divestment.

In sum, divestment is merely a moral action which fails to effectively address climate change, delivering nothing but the short-term emotional gratification that is so rewarding to many of us. To the administration, then: Stay the course. Do not cave to calls for an ineffective solution which would reduce the college’s ability to provide the life-changing opportunities it has offered so many.

Free Speech and Corporations

The recent large-scale protests in Hong Kong, sparked by a proposed bill allowing Hong Kong to extradite people to mainland China, have led to a reexamination of political speech by American corporations and individuals. Recent capitulations by companies in the face of Chinese criticisms have exposed the reality that political speech by American corporations is not value-based, but rather tends to be a business decision based on the perceived political leanings of customers or the powerful.

As a quick refresher: in the midst of the Hong Kong demonstrations Daryl Morey,  general manager of the Houston Rockets, tweeted a brief message in support of the protesters. Though the tweet was quickly deleted, the damage to the franchise in China was done. The Rockets’ fan base there (especially large because of Yao Ming’s career in Houston) reacted in fury. Prominent Chinese citizens spoke out against Morey and the NBA, and major Chinese sponsors pulled their sponsorships of the Rockets. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has attempted to mend fences, so far with little success. Other firms have also run afoul of Chinese politics, with Nike removing a line of sneakers from China after its designer voiced support for the Hong Kong protesters.

Political speech by business enterprises has long been a topic of public discussion, but the debate intensified after NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick began kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality. In the uproar that followed, individuals and companies had to walk a fine line between supporting Kaepernick and keeping silent. A few firms, notably Nike and the NBA, went all-in on social justice, branding themselves as socially liberal and as standing up for these values as a business. In doing so, they made the calculation that either a certain line of political speech is beneficial to their businesses, or many of their customers, employees, or other stakeholders demand these political stances regardless of a possible negative business impact. 

But oh, how the mighty have fallen. Given the opportunity to take a corporate stand for very similar values in China and the United States, Nike, the NBA, and other firms have blinked. The NBA and many of its stars walked back Morey’s comments, while Nike pulled a controversial line of sneakers from Chinese stores. To be crystal clear, these firms have happily advertised themselves as against police brutality in the U.S., but remained docile when watching shocking images of police officers beating and shooting protesters in Hong Kong. How do we resolve this contradiction?

The hypocrisy shown by these firms suggests that business considerations play a significant role in deciding what a company’s values and positions are. It is much easier for firms to espouse a potentially controversial political opinion in a nation which guarantees the freedom of speech, and minimal government interference in a business, than in an authoritarian nation where the whims of one ruler can quickly sink years of a firm’s market positioning. This should also make us question whether corporations hold the values they say they do, or if almost all of their political speech is simply an attempt at branding to appeal to a perceived audience. In Nike’s case, the company clearly does not “believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything,” as their ads with Kaepernick are meant to suggest.

A perfect solution is nearly impossible. One start, however, would be for firms to minimize their political speech in the first place, especially since it is highly unlikely that a business’s employees and customers all share the same views. Instead of frequent political statements of their own, businesses should grant their employees wide latitude to engage in political speech. This would reduce criticisms that they are flaunting values for marketing purposes, and keep the company or sports league focused on producing high-quality products or teams as efficiently as possible, not appealing to people by lining up with the latest political trend. (Striking the right balance in regard to an authoritarian state, like China, is more difficult.) Morey tweeted as an individual, but his employer has received the brunt of criticism for what he said. If business enterprises were consistently apolitical organizations that let employees engage in political speech, this could help to prevent the kind of economic pain felt by the NBA right now. Although it wouldn’t solve every conflict that is involved when conflicting sets of liberties collide, it should help to foster a healthy norm of attributing political speech only to individuals, not their employers.