The 2016 Election Was No Fluke
In "The 2016 election was not a fluke" (2017), Eugene Robinson asserts that Donald Trump's surprising victory in the 2016 election was not simply the result of Comey's investigation, the media, and the Russians, but rather due to a much larger situation. Robinson develops his assertion by putting Trump's victory in perspective, discussing people's mistaken views on why he won, and showing how Trump and Sanders' similarities reflect why Trump defeated Hillary. Robinson's purpose is to change the public's views on the 2016 election, by demonstrating that there were larger issues beneath the surface that were behind Trump's victory. Robinson establishes himself as a thoughtful and informative columnist to the intellectual American searching for perspective on an interesting topic.
I mostly agree with Robinson's assertion, but would have liked him to focus on one point more clearly and in greater depth. His assertion that it was not Hillary's character flaws, Russia's involvement, Comey's investigation into emails, or the media's negative portrayal of Clinton that caused her loss, is something I agree with. The post election discussions that tried to grapple with this shocking and unpredictable result focused too much on small details in the election that had much less of an impact than the larger issue at hand. For example, those who refused to accept that America really elected Donald Trump were quick to blame Russia completely, and thereby question the legitimacy of the results altogether. Others focused on fake news and the media's obsession with Clinton and her emails, which all surely influenced voters to some degree, but were not the reason why this election ended in the way that it did. As Robinson points out, however, these issues should not have impacted the election enough to give Donald Trump, "a reality-television star who had never before run for office, displayed near-total ignorance of the issues, broke every rule of political rhetoric and was caught on videotape bragging of how he sexually assaulted random women...." the victory over the experienced and knowledgeable candidate that was Hillary Clinton. Likewise, argues Robinson, the minor issues that people focus on should not have been enough to give Bernie Sanders, "an aging socialist from Vermont who wasn't even a Democrat until he entered the race" the near victory over Clinton in the primaries.
Rather, it was the shared views of Sanders and Trump, that didn't fit under the standard political platform of Clinton and the Republican candidates, which were the driving factor in Clinton's loss.
I concur with everything stated above. However, I believe that Robinson overlooked two attractive things that Trump and Sanders shared which allowed them to be so successful and win over voters. The first is authenticity. Trump and Sanders did not stick to teleprompters and did not appear to be pretending to be someone they were not. I think that to so many voters, Clinton embodied the unauthentic, standard, sellout that represents the "Washington elite." While Robinson briefly touched on this, he did not elaborate on it and emphasize it enough. Beyond certain policy views they shared, Sanders and Trump spoke to the people because they appeared genuine, authentic, and unique. Simply put, voters were tired of the same old experienced politicians in office who make promises and don't come through with anything. People were willing to take a risk with two unconventional candidates in the hopes that their lives would actually be better. The second thing is change. Both promised change, while Clinton did not have any major promises for change, and instead focused on continuing the "progress" made by President Obama. People unhappy with their lives under Obama simply wanted change, and overlooked Trump's character and lack of experience in the hopes of actual change.
At the end of the day, Robinson makes an important point that sheds some light on the election that shocked the world. While I would've liked Robinson to focus on authenticity and change, I agree with his general assertion.
I mostly agree with Robinson's assertion, but would have liked him to focus on one point more clearly and in greater depth. His assertion that it was not Hillary's character flaws, Russia's involvement, Comey's investigation into emails, or the media's negative portrayal of Clinton that caused her loss, is something I agree with. The post election discussions that tried to grapple with this shocking and unpredictable result focused too much on small details in the election that had much less of an impact than the larger issue at hand. For example, those who refused to accept that America really elected Donald Trump were quick to blame Russia completely, and thereby question the legitimacy of the results altogether. Others focused on fake news and the media's obsession with Clinton and her emails, which all surely influenced voters to some degree, but were not the reason why this election ended in the way that it did. As Robinson points out, however, these issues should not have impacted the election enough to give Donald Trump, "a reality-television star who had never before run for office, displayed near-total ignorance of the issues, broke every rule of political rhetoric and was caught on videotape bragging of how he sexually assaulted random women...." the victory over the experienced and knowledgeable candidate that was Hillary Clinton. Likewise, argues Robinson, the minor issues that people focus on should not have been enough to give Bernie Sanders, "an aging socialist from Vermont who wasn't even a Democrat until he entered the race" the near victory over Clinton in the primaries.
Rather, it was the shared views of Sanders and Trump, that didn't fit under the standard political platform of Clinton and the Republican candidates, which were the driving factor in Clinton's loss.
I concur with everything stated above. However, I believe that Robinson overlooked two attractive things that Trump and Sanders shared which allowed them to be so successful and win over voters. The first is authenticity. Trump and Sanders did not stick to teleprompters and did not appear to be pretending to be someone they were not. I think that to so many voters, Clinton embodied the unauthentic, standard, sellout that represents the "Washington elite." While Robinson briefly touched on this, he did not elaborate on it and emphasize it enough. Beyond certain policy views they shared, Sanders and Trump spoke to the people because they appeared genuine, authentic, and unique. Simply put, voters were tired of the same old experienced politicians in office who make promises and don't come through with anything. People were willing to take a risk with two unconventional candidates in the hopes that their lives would actually be better. The second thing is change. Both promised change, while Clinton did not have any major promises for change, and instead focused on continuing the "progress" made by President Obama. People unhappy with their lives under Obama simply wanted change, and overlooked Trump's character and lack of experience in the hopes of actual change.
At the end of the day, Robinson makes an important point that sheds some light on the election that shocked the world. While I would've liked Robinson to focus on authenticity and change, I agree with his general assertion.
Comments
Post a Comment