Quantcast
Connect with us

Resistance after the 2016 presidential election: Fear, protest — and what comes next

Published

on

- Commentary

Since the results of the presidential election were made public, we have witnessed the emergence of a resistance movement protesting the election of Donald Trump.

Protests have taken place in at least 52 American cities. A few turned violent. There has also been a multitude of racial and hatred incidents in schools, universities and public places.

Why are we witnessing so much division and violence?

ADVERTISEMENT

My research and teaching focus on social movements – understanding their sources, evolution and decline. I believe we can understand the origins of the protests by examining how the expectations of the public were shaped at different stages of the election.

Stage 1: Negative perception of candidates

During the general election campaign, each candidate worked to delegitimize their opponent.

The Clinton campaign portrayed Donald Trump as a fraud for his shady business activities and as a racist for his views of Mexican immigrants and the endorsement he received by the Ku Klux Klan. They said he was a woman hater and a sexual aggressor for his upsetting remarks about groping women. And they called him a puppet of Putin for allegedly working with Russia to leak incriminating Clinton emails.

For its part, the Trump campaign was not short of accusations against Hillary Clinton. They portrayed her as lacking judgment for the Benghazi incident. They called her a liar and a criminal for allegedly breaking the law regarding the use of a private email server. They said she was corrupt for using her position as secretary of state to advance the Clinton Foundation and the interests of Wall Street bankers.

In both cases, the campaigns shaped the perception of the public that the other candidate was morally, ethically and legally unfit to be president. The consequence was a highly polarized and antagonistic political environment stirred by both left and right media echo chambers.

ADVERTISEMENT

This negative campaign elevated the level of anxiety and stress in the population as the vitriolic arguments, stories and videos on social media increased concerns about both candidates.

Even before the campaign ended, violence was visible at Trump rallies and with the firebombing of a Republican office in North Carolina.

Stage 2: False perception of victory

During the general election, nearly all political pundits predicted the victory of Clinton and the failure of Trump. Poll analyst Nate Silver gave Clinton a 71 percent chance of winning. Sam Wang from Princeton University put Clinton’s chances at 99 percent.

ADVERTISEMENT

Even the analysts working for the Trump campaign admitted that his path to victory was narrow.

Overall, the vast majority of mainstream media downplayed any polls showing Trump leading the race and overplayed polls showing Clinton’s lead.

ADVERTISEMENT

This positive bias toward the Clinton campaign shaped the perception of the public and the partisan base of each party, setting false expectations for the Election Day results.

Protesters hold signs during a protest against the election of President-elect Donald Trump in downtown Seattle.
AP Photo/Ted S. Warren

Stage 3: Perception of a stolen election

Trump’s victory came as a shock, immediately shaping perceptions of the losers and winners.

For Clinton supporters, concerns related to President-elect Trump’s unfit character turned to fear and a call to denounce the results, reject the new president and foster solidarity with those who felt disfranchised. The “safety pin movement” began. Protesters gathered.

ADVERTISEMENT

The frustration of the democratic base was heightened by the fact that Clinton won the popular vote. Violence erupted in some protests, like the ones in Portland, Oregon, but most were relatively calm.

Trump supporters were surprised by the election results, too. For some, the victory was perceived as a validation of racist values. This led to several apparent hate crimes across the country such as swastikas drawn in schools, slogans painted calling to “Make America White Again” or students shouting “white power” or chanting “build the wall.”

Stage 4: Perception of competency

The next few weeks and months will be critical in shaping the perception of the public regarding the Trump administration’s competency to lead the country through cabinet selection, domestic policy priorities and engagement with foreign nations.

For instance, the recent nomination of Steve Bannon as senior White House advisor has confirmed the perception of danger among African-American, Hispanic and Muslim communities. This negative view has led to institutional resistance from some in the U.S. Congress and even by state and local agencies. For example, the Los Angeles Police Department made a strong statement refusing to participate in immigrant deportation.

ADVERTISEMENT

What happens next is in the hands of the president-elect and those who surround him.

The Conversation

Frederic Lemieux, Professor and Program Director of Bachelor in Police and Security Studies; Master’s in Homeland Security; Master’s in Cybersecurity Strategy and Information Management, George Washington University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

How Democrats clean up the messes left by Republicans

Published

on

For decades, Democratic administrations have been cleaning up economic messes left to them by Republican administrations. Thanks to Donald Trump, they'll have to do so again.

Before diving in, we need to understand this one concept: the debt-to-GDP ratio.

The national debt is a meaningless number on its own. It's meaningful only as a percentage of the total economy, the GDP. Even if the debt grows, that's okay so long as the economy grows even faster. But if the reverse is true — if the economy is growing more slowly than the debt — we're in trouble.

With this in mind, let's go back to the 1980s. When Ronald Reagan took office, the national debt equaled just a little over 30 percent of the total economy. Then Reagan began cutting taxes and spending a huge amount on the military. By the time he left the White House, the debt-to-GDP ratio was nearly 50 percent. He viewed it as a way of "starving the beast" so future Democratic administrations would find it harder to fund programs for the poor and average working people.

Continue Reading

2020 Election

Sanders campaign manager accuses MSNBC of ‘constantly undermining’ Bernie: Fox News is ‘more fair’

Published

on

Faiz Shakir, the campaign manager for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., claimed that right-leaning Fox News has treated the self-described democratic socialist "more fair" than left-leaning MSNBC.

"Fox is often yelling about Bernie Sanders' socialism, but they're still giving our campaign the opportunity to make our case in a fair manner, unlike MSNBC, which has credibility with the left and is constantly undermining the Bernie Sanders campaign," Shakir told Vanity Fair in an interview published Tuesday.

Continue Reading
 

2020 Election

Here are 3 winners and 3 losers from the 2020 Democratic presidential primary debate

Published

on

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg joined the other leading Democratic presidential primary candidates Wednesday night in the fieriest evening of the race so far.

His presence on the stage drew fire from the other candidates, but it also seemed to change the overall tone of the debate, with more attacks, counter-attacks, and passion than was generally seen earlier in the campaign.

Here’s a (necessarily subjective!) list of the winners and losers from the fray:

Winners

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) — Warren hit her stride right as the debate started by attacking Bloomberg for his record on the mistreatment of women, racist policies, and his tax returns. She repeatedly came back to skewer the former mayor, making herself the biggest and most notable presence in the debate. But importantly, she also continuously brought the discussion back to the issues she cares about — like expanding health care, environmental justice,  and consumer protection — while getting in digs at the other candidates on the stage.

Continue Reading
 
 
close-image