Preamble

Freud is not very fashionable right now. Yet, I think that his perspective on personality can cut to the heart of what happened on 8 November 2016. But first, what contributed to the result?

Factors working against Clinton from the start

The Democratic Party deserted the people as far back as Bill Clinton, who pushed globalization and financial deregulation. NAFTA started the process of exporting jobs, exporting pollution and reducing worker protection, which many correctly called a race to the bottom. Only the corporations profited from this movement. No initiatives were taken to help the displaced and the bankrupt.

Then, the hangover from the Bush housing crash of 2008 haunted the Democratic Party. The auto industry and the financial industry received huge bailouts. The people who lost their homes and their jobs received virtually nothing.

Both Obama and Clinton in 2008 campaigned on a promise to install a one year moratorium on foreclosures, to protect people while the government sorted out how to help them. After the election, nothing but more foreclosures. No help for the people. Few prosecutions and jail time for the leaders of the guilty mortgage companies and banks. Obama continued to push a globalization agenda with no compensation for the people. And the people noticed, and the Party lost its way.

Throughout Obama’s term, both the Party and the President did not seem to recognize that the spreadsheets showing that the bailouts really did not cost that much missed the point: the government left the people with the short end of the stick. Obama counseled patience with the economy, essentially telling the hurting millions that “trickle-down” would work over time. Thus, the rise of the tea party and the anger which still is with us.

As for Clinton, she was subject to Republican attack for over twenty years. The impression that something was wrong with her candidacy was a cloud over the campaign.

She was labeled a flawed candidate. Yet, who was more flawed? Someone who pursued public service, or someone who pursued only money, fame and women? A lifetime of service vs 70 years of selfishness. Who was more flawed?

She was called a liar. Yet, what exactly did she lie about? Not Benghazi. Not even her emails. Trump lied about many things, over and over. Who was the liar?

She was called crooked. Yet, what was crooked? Not the Clinton Foundation; she did not profit from it. Trump’s charitable foundation remains under investigation. Who was more crooked?

She was called untrustworthy. Again, no specifics would hold up. Trump, however, regularly refused to honor contracts. Who was more untrustworthy?

Taken together, the Big Lie approach led many voters to believe that something serious was wrong with Hillary Clinton. So what was wrong with her?

She was a Clinton. After the Bushes, and the Obamas, it was clear that many suffered from dynasty fatigue. Voters no longer wanted the Presidency to “stay in the family.”

She was an incrementalist. A career of calibrating the popular sentiment. More comfortable with small changes than with bold proposals. This was a handicap in a time of change.

She was charged with lacking a vision. Yet, her platform provided a clear set of proposals. Just too many to boil down to slogans. This was a problem.

She was a woman. Still fighting to break the glass ceiling. Bias against women definitely undermined her campaign. People called her a bitch. How many called him a bastard? Hmmmm.

On the other hand, Trump was the first true celebrity candidate. Over many years he had built a brand on “The Apprentice” of being (1) a great businessman, (2) tough and (3) smart. I believe that he is none of these. However, this was the role he played. As with many other celebrities, many viewers confused the role with the reality. He entered the campaign with this unshakeable image.

Self-inflicted wounds throughout the campaign

It started with her choice of Vice President. Tim Kaine was both safe and self-effacing. She chose not to go bold with Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or any other firebrand who could excite voters. A big mistake.

She and her advisors were deceived by the polls, opting to expand into Red states in the closing weeks rather than to defend the key states.

She called Trump’s supporters “deplorables,” which may have been the most serious mistake of the campaign. It mobilized many who might otherwise have voted for her. NEVER attack the voters!

She did not focus enough on the Democratic base. It was obvious that she would not have the same level of support among African-Americans and Latinos as Obama, but it was a high level. What was neglected was an effective appeal to the rest of the base.

There was not enough outreach to non-voters, the 43 percent, the millions who could have gone her way.

In the closing days of the campaign, she went low, attacking Trump rather than giving people more good reasons to vote for her. Surely, after a year of Republican primaries and Presidential campaigns, someone could have noticed that attacks on Trump did not work?!

And in the closing days, she tied herself even closer to Obama. The undercurrent of racism over the past eight years transferred to her campaign. Plus, there was the real perception that his foreign policy was a failure. The cloud over Obama covered her, too.

Many voters wanted a break from Obama, not a continuation. When declaring herself a strong individual would have helped, she attached herself to the status quo.

Relying on the trickle-down of a slowly improving economy to attract voters also was not a good idea. She needed to break with Obama by offering big proposals for stimulating the economy and putting people back to work.

She also went small on her infrastructure plan, starting at about 250 billion, instead of going big with a trillion dollar stimulus package. This gave Trump the initiative.

She never handled the email controversy effectively. Early disclosure and apologies might have made the controversy go away, or at least defuse the attacks. Instead, it blew up again in the final week of the campaign, and definitely cost her votes. Blaming the FBI Director cannot excuse her long-term mishandling of this issue.

She didn’t understand what every bureaucrat knows: you can adopt terrible policies or lack competence, but you must never violate the procedural rules. The email mess was a procedural disaster.

But a little perspective helps

Considering all of the factors arrayed against Clinton, and her self-inflicted wounds, and the Sanders voters, the female voters, the white voters, the Latino voters, and so on, who went for Trump, the election ultimately was decided by about 100,000 voters in three states. It was an incredibly close election.

Any one of many factors could have shifted to give Clinton the victory. One can slice and dice the data forever, but any small shift would have been decisive. Thus, explanations that this or that factor was the decisive one are wrong. On election day, she lost, And this brings me to Freud.

This was the Freudian election: id vs. ego and superego

Simplifying a bit, according to Freud, the Id is that part of us where impulses arise, without logic or reason, focused on immediate satisfaction.

The Ego is that part of us giving a sense of self and connection to reality; it provides reason and common sense.

The Super Ego is the source of conscience, morality, and the knowledge of right and wrong.

Looking at the election though this lens, Trump expressed the Id, pure and simple, angry, hateful, lustful, greedy, boastful, unrestrained. Clinton represented the Ego and the Super Ego, the adult or parental restraints on childish impulses.

One of the biggest stories of the campaign was the unprecedented number of respected Establishment Republicans who rejected Trump. Never happened before, and perhaps never will again. Rationality did not count: Republicans ignored their leaders.

Trump was right when he said that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and it would not matter to the campaign. He tied himself to the anger, hate and fear of many voters, who felt ignored and left out of the mainstream. His supporters did not take his outrageous statements literally: they responded to the emotions they felt and which he supported. He was and is Mr. Id.

In the end, anger and hate was more important than adult reason and restraint. The Id won over the Parent.

In my view, Trump remains fundamentally immature, impulsive and without conscience. I expect him to help the top 1%, at the expense of his supporters and the rest of us. The next few years could be devastating to our democracy.

A path out of the wilderness

Yet in all of this, there emerges a path for the Democratic Party: return to putting people first. It is not enough to attack the super-rich and the super corporations. It is not enough to promote incrementalism. Specific programs have to address the people’s needs. Here are a few possibilities for “Putting People to Work.”

Create the Rebuild America Corps. This program would recruit and train the unemployed and underemployed in the construction industry. The Corps would rebuild and reinsulate our deteriorating housing, both in cities and in rural areas. This should be about a fifty year project, paying fair wages and benefits to Corps members.

Set up a two-trillion dollar Infrastructure Program. We need to address both repair of existing bridges, roads, and so on, and new needs such as high speed internet for all, and a strengthened energy grid.

Focus tax breaks and incentives on small businesses. Stop the giveaways to the rich and the big, and focus on small business, which provides most of our job growth.

Improve everyone’s health care with the National Medical Corps. This program would provide free medical education, in return for a ten year commitment to work in underserved areas, and in Medicare. Corps members would be salaried, under a new Civil Service classification.

Tax the financial giants to provide partial reparations for those who lost their homes, their equity, and their jobs.

Of course, these are just a few of many possibilities. The Democratic Party has to put people first again. Time to start!