Article co-authored by Dr. Armin Rosencranz on "Surprise victory and what it may mean" - The Statesman

November 11, 2016 | Dr. Armin Rosencranz

Donald Trump’s victory brings together a strain of factors that merit analysis. It is a surprise because the media did not expect it and the opinion polls led us to believe otherwise. The citizens of America, however, thought differently.
The very first factor is the rise of what intellectuals are calling populism. It is also being called a lurch to the protectionist right, with Brexit as an added example. But really, Trump’s win is the successful culmination of a business project that involved alliances with unions, associations, caucuses, clubs, coteries, and a lot of money.

In the backdrop of the economic downturn suffered since 2008, this is a cry of the common citizen against the harsh realities of life faced on the ground. Jobs have allegedly been taken over by entry-level Mexican immigrants, causing lower employment among white working class Americans.
Despite the higher minimum wage and widespread health care, many white workers are hard-pressed. Many had to foreclose home mortgages, go on welfare, borrow money to live. This is a vote for gaining prosperity, and Trump seems a highly successful and prosperous man who knows all about how to make money.
Despite much evidence that has been published about his ruthless ways in business, his multiple bankruptcies and stiffing his workers, many American citizens do not see that as wrong and in fact revere the capitalist ethos. Trump has not denied that he used the tax system to his advantage and he did not reveal his tax returns. Taking advantage of the law is respectable: It shows you’re smart and resourceful, and that’s how you (Trump) became a rich, clever and successful entrepreneur.
Trump’s boast about touching women’s private parts should have taken away the entire women’s vote, but obviously many women in America see him as a forthright and straight person. In a nation with few taboos on overt sexuality, moral virtues are obviously less important than just being able to earn and live well.
There is also the strain of his megalomania, his grand self-obsession.  With no experience in running the government, this could prove dangerous. To the common man or woman, Trump’s narcissism could have come across as the confidence of a great charismatic leader.
Gloria Steinem, the leading feminist, describes Trump’s tactics of maligning Hillary as ‘swiftboating’, attacking the opponent’s strengths rather than her weaknesses. This was done successfully against war hero John Kerry in 2004. Steinem calls Trump’s act a big lie which if told often enough begins to sound true.  Minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels mastered this technique in Nazi Germany.
The popular vote favoured Hillary, who won two million more votes than Trump. But Trump won more electoral college votes. The winner takes all when he or she wins - even by a tiny margin – in several populous “battleground” states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. This anomaly occurred recently in the Bush-Gore election of 2000.  When Indian voters choose their MLAs or MPs, it is possible that a party loses many of its seats despite a larger number of total individual votes.
We have the technology today to take direct votes on every issue, and Switzerland leads in seeking direct polls on provincial or municipal issues. But even Switzerland leaves the election of the government to five-yearly polls. Robert Dahl once proposed Greek style minipopulouses and James Fishkin has developed methods for statistically correct referenda. But for the foreseeable future, the electoral college is all we have to run America’s democracy.
Opinion polls favoured Hillary consistently in the run up to the election. The polls were wrong, possibly because of Inherent bias in selecting questions and sample groups, or because of failure to account for respondents who claimed they were undecided and failed to admit their preference for Trump.
So where is Trump going to lead the nation to? He seems to favour protectionist and “America first” policies. In place of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Trump might call for a direct ban on goods from countries he thinks are harming American interests, the World Trade Organization be damned.
Undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America will likely be sent back to their countries of origin. There are likely to be policies that bestow greater control in the hands of the industrialist/ capitalist employers. In the area of defence, we may expect the use of America’s global might to crush offenders like ISIS. Great Britain can be expected to focus on gaining mutual benefits. The EU, with its liberal and collaborative orientation, might falter and need to rethink its relationship with the U.S.
China has the most reason to be wary and watchful. Cheap Chinese imports aren’t expected to be banned, but America might now use its naval and air power more aggressively in the South China Sea. India might get used in the new aggressive stance against China, and might order more weapons from American companies.
The Russia-China nexus may emerge to confront these strategies. China has the might of a rising power and Russia has the talent of a trained commando leader. Putin has said many times about the Ukraine and Syria that he should be granted a free hand to do what he needs to do, just like he does for the West. Trump may grant him a free hand and look the other way. Together, China and Russia could emerge as a formidable counter force against US hegemony.
America is going to get real and try to make profits at any cost.  And while we watch, we might have to coin a new phrase for this neo-liberal libertarian right turn towards a no-holds-barred path to riches and “greatness.”
(The writers are, respectively, at the Jindal School of Government and Public Policy and professor of law at Jindal Global Law School.)