Voters Punish Trump by Electing Candidates Who Think Capitalism Is a Disease
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Sean Hannity’s warning about the political power of hatred may have become the most accurate economic forecast of the midterm elections. Democrats discovered that while Americans cannot afford groceries, rent or electricity, they apparently have an unlimited supply of resentment.
And unlike electricity, resentment requires no power plant.
Across America, voters furious with Donald Trump delivered victories to Democrats, proving that the fastest way to win an election is not necessarily to offer better government. Sometimes it is enough to point at the president and scream until somebody hands you a Senate seat.
Negative Partisanship Wins the Midterm Elections
Political consultants call this negative partisanship. Ordinary Americans call it Tuesday.
The Democratic campaign strategy was remarkably efficient. Candidates needed three things: a television camera, a photograph of Trump and sufficient lung capacity to express their disgust. Actual economic proposals were treated as optional accessories, rather like turn signals on a BMW.
A campaign memo circulated among staff at one Senate campaign instructed volunteers to “lead with Trump, follow with Trump, close with Trump.” A two-paragraph section on housing policy appeared on page six, under a heading that read “If Time Allows.”
One campaign’s unofficial economic platform could have fit on a cocktail napkin: hate Trump, tax somebody successful and promise the money will arrive before the rent is due.
The remarkable thing about hatred is that it never needs a feasibility study.
Want affordable housing? Hate Trump.
Concerned about inflation? Hate Trump.
Your daughter’s college tuition now costs more than a beachfront condominium? Hate Trump twice, preferably while making a donation.
What the Polls Say About Voter Anger and Economic Policy
A Tri-State Voter Pulse survey of 1,400 likely voters conducted in the final week of the campaign found that 61 percent could name the president they were angry at without prompting. Twenty-two percent could name a single policy proposal from the candidate they voted for. Eleven percent told interviewers they had chosen “whoever yelled the best.”
Economists have traditionally believed that economic growth requires investment, productivity, innovation and capital formation. Democratic campaign strategists have discovered a fifth ingredient: making voters angry enough to forget the first four.
“Anger is a cheap input and it scales,” said Dr. Gretchen Voss, a professor of political communication at a Midwestern state university. “You can’t say that about a housing plan. A housing plan needs land.”
Republicans, for their part, were stunned.
For years they had assumed that economic dissatisfaction would eventually bring voters back to conservative candidates. They had overlooked the possibility that voters could be dissatisfied with the economy and furious with the people running it at the same time. It is the political equivalent of a customer returning a defective toaster by burning down the appliance store.
Why Hatred Cannot Replace a Federal Budget or an Electricity Grid
The problem for victorious Democrats begins when the celebrations end.
Hatred is wonderful campaign fuel, but it is a poor substitute for an electricity grid. You cannot pave highways with resentment. You cannot manufacture antibiotics from indignation. And you cannot balance a federal budget by shouting at Trump’s photograph.
The national debt does not respond to volume. Neither does the Consumer Price Index, which has been tracking the price of eggs with a sobriety no candidate has matched.
Some progressive activists appear convinced that every American problem has the same solution: higher taxes on somebody who owns something. Under this philosophy, a successful small-business owner is not a job creator. He is an unfinished government revenue opportunity.
Meanwhile, voters still expect cheaper groceries, affordable mortgages and wages that survive a trip through the checkout line.
The danger for Democrats is that winning elections on anger creates expectations that anger cannot satisfy. Eventually, a voter standing in a supermarket must choose between ideology and dinner.
Hannity’s larger point remains simple: hatred can move millions of voters.
The unanswered question is whether it can move a single economy.
Democrats have won the right to find out. America’s taxpayers have been volunteered to finance the experiment.
Five Observations on the Politics of Hate
- You ever notice nobody has ever paid off a mortgage with a grudge? I would have tried it by now. The bank doesn’t care how angry you are. The bank has a form.
- Every candidate says, “I’m going to fight for you.” Fight who? I didn’t ask for a fight. I asked for a bridge. Nobody promises a bridge anymore. It’s all fighting and no bridges.
- The whole economic platform fit on a cocktail napkin. That’s the only piece of paper in America that has ever actually worked, and it was holding a drink.
- The fundraising email says the deadline is midnight. Midnight for what? The republic? Then they extend it. It’s 12:01 and I’m still getting emails from a guy named Chad telling me civilization is over. Chad has a lot of energy for a guy whose deadline already passed.
- You win on hate and now you’ve got to run the country. That’s like winning a hot-dog eating contest and being told you now have to cook for the whole stadium.