The Midterm elections certainly sent a message. But what was it? The Democratic Party, which had approval ratings as low as 29 percent in some polls, flipped both houses of Congress, by indisputable margins, in all demographics.
There’s only one clear message here – the nation, including Republicans and of course independents and Democrats – actually everyone except for diehard loyalists – rejected Donald Trump. In this issue or that, for this behavior or that, America rejected him. He said to vote as though he was on the ballot, and this was the verdict. Not only democrats and leftists, but many conservatives, and even many MAGA adepts, who had looked to him to vindicate their grievances, realized that he has merely used them.
As columnist Peggy Noonan puts it, “Trump was the author of the ruin.” He was rejected for being himself, not over any one, two, or five issues or complaints. No one should take this outcome as giving some grand lesson based on any of them. Sure, inflation upset people, the reasons for it upset people, the war of individual impulse against Iran showed up his incompetence, the corner-cutting campaign to deport immigrants repulsed many, tariffs hurt the economy, attempts to slant electoral processes against his opponents made everyone queasy, indulgences in the décor of the capital showed up his narcissism, etc. etc. There is evidence that all of these were considerations, but none in itself stands out. What they have in common is that Trump emblazed his name on all of them, in personally combative terms.
Trump was rejected because there is a limit to our tolerance for offensiveness, no matter who, no matter from “which side” of our public discourse, they cross the line. Bill Clinton’s and Richard Nixon’s impeachments got as far as they did because they approached that limit. The election confers no mandate, no favor, no guidance, of any kind, for anyone else.
Much turmoil lies ahead, not least as Trump himself continues his personal quest to defeat and humiliate adversaries.
But a deeper turmoil will arise out of politicians’ continuing absorption in partisan interests. It’s different now – the old duopoly has been discredited and disrupted, on “both sides.” The “left” has to figure out where anti-Israel, identity, and anti-business extremism fit what’s left of their moderate wing. The “right” has to decide what MAGA measures carry more than vitriolic resentment and which of their establishment priorities still stand. A Foreign Affairs missive sees America now facing a foreign policy blank slate – the same holds for public policy overall. And when the politicians are fragmented as they are, all prior norms and expectations are up in the air. On one hand, that does suggest that partisan polarization may no longer suffocate our thinking. Conservative columnist Matthew Continetti notes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ saying that “’anybody can win anywhere. Anywhere.’ We are about to find out if she’s right.”
On the other hand, as our institutional establishment’s credibility stands enfeebled, by these politics but also by institutional interests – and then by new disruptions ranging from AI to CRISPR to quantum computing to new understanding of black holes to European populism – any public order or norms could actually disintegrate. We may need to craft new institutional and civic structures at a depth not addressed since the Progressive Era. As we wrangle over our responses, we may well face questions about the bases of reality, the nature of humanity, the philosophical essence of truth, and more. Our partisan interests will likely pale against the challenges. How would we shape our next social fabric?
This election hasn’t yet raised these challenges. Many still call the election “historic” because the polls varied so much from prior patterns. And perhaps the long running bipolar, mutually alienating discourse is dissipating. We can only hope. But dissipation itself offers no answers for a future of unfettered possibilities. We need to be ready to address those.
We need not prepare out of fear. America is a revolutionary creation, a nation identified by principle rather than mortal clay, a sovereign of the governed over the rulers, a society dedicated to people’s right to choose their own lives. As new as we are, every new turn in history presents an opportunity to make these possibilities a bit more real, and to open the species, and our history, to profound progress and new levels of meaning. So we must not read any election in a way that would constrict where we might go. Rather, we should take affirmation that we can grow.
