It's the Identity, Stupid

The Election of 2016 is not about economic anxiety.  It is about anxiety about American identity.

The vote on the British exit from the European Union clarifies what the 2016 election was about all along.    The pollsters look closely at working class white votes and income levels and education levels trying to tease out what the issues are.   They think it is about money and incomes.

The Brexit vote says it is about identity instead. 

Yesterday I posited that what some of us learned in Econ 101 is not just incomplete, but wrong.  The economic model of human behavior (people independently and rationally struggle for their own self interest) misunderstands their real motivation.   The world's first historian, the Greek Thucydides, attempted to explain the cause of the Peloponnesian War.  Athens and Sparta went to war for three reasons, he said: self interest, fear, and honor.  Britons voted to exit the EU in spite of economic self interest.  They did it because they felt fear that the self-worth of British people were being eroded.  The "Leave" vote appealed to their identity, not their pocketbook.  Fear and honor trumped self interest.

Trump's campaign is scattered and undisciplined but the big difference that is shaping up in his contrast with Hillary is all about identity.   Both Trump and Hillary assert identity as important.  When Trump said that Judge Curiel was "Mexican" and would be biased against him Trump was validating the importance of identity.   

Hillary says that the professional and business world is affected by gender, ethnicity, race, religion, and sexual orientation.  They are relevant, with is why affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws are essential.  Trump said essentially the same thing in his criticism of Judge Curiel.  It got him in trouble because he said it so plainly and acknowledging the ethnic biases of blacks and Hispanics needs to be handled carefully, which is not Trump's strong suit.   One can acknowledge the ethnic biases of whites and males because traditionally and historically they have been the beneficiaries of that bias.   Hillary says that the professional and business world is affected by gender, ethnicity, race, religion, and sexual orientation.  They are relevant, with is why affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws are essential.

Hillary can say things Trump cannot, a mixed blessing.   Trump says Judge Curiel is probably biased and is called "textbook racist" by Paul Ryan.   But a great many white voters note the hypocrisy and resent the notion that when whites acknowledge racism they are "racist" but when the disadvantaged classes do it they are heroes of social justice.  Hypocrisy feeds the resentment over "political correctness."

Trump and Hillary agree on the importance of identity although neither could acknowledge this publicly.   The actual disagreement is over who is on which side.   Trump is on the side of "regular" Americans who think that the non-regulars are getting too much special treatment because many of those non-regulars are rapists (Mexicans), terror-suspects (Muslims), or job-stealers (all immigrants, legal and illegal.)   Hillary sides with the non-regulars.

The case for Trump

Trump and Hillary Clinton are each largely locked into their positions and political bases.  Trump solidified his brand by saying newsworthy politically incorrect things, but did so with the cost (and benefit) of appearing out of the box hostile to non-regulars.   He could soften his tone to seem more presidential, so voters could vote for the American Pride movement without the loud and disputatious Donald Trump personality getting in the way quite so strongly.   The Brexit vote suggests the national pride movement may well be a majority vote so Trump may need to be carried along with it.  Trump's campaign has been about him--his wealth, his savvy, his fearlessness, his poll results--not about the movement.   This may be an impossible change for Trump to negotiate.

Hillary solidified her brand by a long history of attachment to women, blacks, Hispanics, gays.   Hillary beat Sanders soundly thanks to  those groups, but without them she lost to him.   Sanders won with whites.   

Hillary is about identity; Sanders is about economic class.   Hillary exemplifies the notion that politics and life generally is dominated by the web of entanglements.  

The Brexit vote is a warning for Hillary Clinton.   White "regular Americans" feel dissed by globalism and the pride and political consciousness of her gender and ethnic allies.   There are more of them than show up in the polls.   They could turn Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin red.

Hillary needs to make this something other than a zero sum game--good for women and blacks and Hispanics mean bad for whites.   Hillary needs to express white American pride. (Hillary is not above cheap pandering.   As a Senator she backed a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the American flag.) 

Republicans accuse Democrats of shaming whites and apologizing for America.  Romney's campaign book was titled No Apology and I frequently receive email chains from white male readers of this blog asserting that Obama "apologizes for America."  Can Hillary embrace American pride, without offending her base?   It is in her power.  The "immigrant assimilation" story is a good one for her.  The melting pot story can be said carefully--Hillary's strength--and it acknowledges both ethnic pride and American pride. 

Will she do it?  Possibly not.   Hillary has re-callibrated her political positions in the face of the Sanders campaign but she has won the primary by clinging even tighter to her affinity groups.  Melting pot blurs the edges and she has not been willing to do this.   She still represents zero-sum identity politics.   The current poll numbers suggest she can limp across the finish line with 30% of white male vote, 50% of white women vote, and 90% of the votes of black and Hispanic voters.   

There is a bigger undercurrent of white resentment than showed up in polls in Britain.  An electorate in which she wins only 30% of the white male vote represents a fractured America and portends implacable opposition in the Congress if she wins.   She could win white males votes if she re-callibrates her message.