Do the 2024 elections matter?
Another politically acerbic essay with a clickbait title that might get me cancelled down the road. As always, I regret nothing, and hope to attain status that will be worth cancelling.
The American elections are just around the corner, and to me, it’s looking like a Trump victory is imminent, despite the recent weakness. Sure, the polls say that Kamala is ahead, but if Hilary couldn’t do it, what hope does a female POC career politician have? I’ve just noted that most people refer to Kamala and Hilary by their first names: in the case of the latter, Bill surely has something to do with it, but I wonder if it’s because Harris sounds too feminine. Campaign season is always a spectacle, in the culture of spectacle, within the era of spectacle. As an outside observer, it is endlessly entertaining, and people always deign to remind me that this is not just reality television, but has real consequences. But does it?
In any discussion of Western politics, particularly those in countries with a two-party system, I always condescendingly turn to Hotelling’s Law, or as I call it, “the ice cream cart principle”. The idea is simple: imagine a beachfront with fixed endpoints, evenly distributed bathers, and two ice cream carts with identical costs, products, and a desire to maximize profits. Though the socially optimal placement is at the quarter and three-quarters points, allowing all bathers to be within a quarter of the beachfront from an ice cream cart at all times, each cart has the incentive to move closer to the middle to steal more of their competitor’s share, which results in an end position where both carts are right beside each other in the middle of the beachfront. I will not condescend further to explain how this applies to American politics.
The other reason I view the election cycle as pointless bickering is my complete rejection of the Nietzschean great man theory. The idea, propagated by many, is that history is shaped by great men, distinct individuals whose actions have changed the course of history. I’m more of Hari Seldon psychohistory school of thought: if not Hitler, another German; if not the First French Republic, then another European power; and if not Donald John Trump, then another opportunist with a flair for self-promotion. As an extension, I believe in the strength of American institutions and the effectiveness of the American bureaucracy. Though long viewed as impediments to expediency and business, they are immensely helpful in reducing legislative, judicial, and even executive power, thankless mangroves against tsunamis and hurricanes.
Trump and Kamala represent ideological opposites: rich white male versus daughter of immigrants, the voice of forgotten middle-America versus bicoastal liberal elite, Republican versus Democrat. Yet, their policies may be more similar than expected. They may debate how the conflicts in the Middle East and Russia should be addressed, but both have a good understanding of American interests in each region and that war is a small cost for those interests. They may argue about how to tax exactly, but taxes and free-market capitalism will continue to exist.
Furthermore, the American bureaucracy prevents any true change to America, even in the areas where there seems significant opportunity. Women’s health, immigration regulation, and culture wars are three areas where the presidency would have the most impact on the most lives, ranked in order of impact. A vote for Trump or Kamala is a vote for one of those, but the various government apparatus in place would dilute the impact, and restrict it to a short period of time, until the next president takes office. Even Trump’s apparent disregard for democracy and attempts at what has variously been called a coup and an insurrection were very quickly shut down.
However, Hotelling’s Law is a typical economic oversimplification which doesn’t account for friction in changing positions, voter loyalty, changing voter interests, or multiple dimensions. Though the underlying principle still holds, there is more variability in political position than the ice cream stand analogy would suggest. Likewise, individual charisma and belief can affect the course that a country or even history takes. Though it’s easy to say that Trump is now merely an instrument of the Republican party, the right-wing populism spreading across the world might have been forestalled, or skipped over the plurality of America if it wasn’t for Trump. Personal characteristics that are important with the electorate are just as important with in foreign policy: for better or worse, Trump’s loose-cannon status could have significant implications in how allies and adversaries see America. Similarly, Obama’s gravitas and identity might have both ushered in much progress and set the stage for Trump.
Despite my lukewarm centrism and derision for both uninspiring nominees, I do think it’s important to vote. I implore everyone, particularly those on the discouraged left, to see and understand that between two evils, there can be a greater one, that despite the apparent maintenance of the status quo. I recognize that mobilizing and organizing is vastly more important, but political engagement through the mainstream channels is also impactful: voter demographics and participation inform future government policy.
Do I have 2016-levels of fear and despair pending a Trump presidency? A passable first term for Trump and a lacklustre democratic slate really have shown that regardless of who sits in the Oval office, America will prevail. But a Trump presidency would certainly further curtail abortion access, make life more precarious for those with uncertain immigration status, and embolden those who have adopted all the phobias of the right, so a Democratic victory is what I’d prefer. Plus, American policy generally rings through the rest of the free world.
It’s hard to debate the exact merits of economic and foreign policy: both have outcomes that are tenuously linked to their intents, and data can be spun every which way to make either seem better. To say that they are ultimately more important to the future of America than women’s health and minority safety is not wrong, but both callous and privileged. I can understand those who would support Trump on those grounds, but I think that would be indubitably a selfish vote. But all votes ultimately are selfish votes.
So do the 2024 elections matter? Depends on who you’re asking, and what sorts of policy would have an impact on their lives. America will prevail, as will American capitalism and imperialism. For the private equity sweatshop analyst in Boston or the AI researcher in New York, perhaps not. But for others, it means much more, whether they know it or not yet.
