As Go The Amish

The Election of Unintended Consequences

Starting immediately after Donald Trump's second win for the presidency, I saw Facebook post after post asking, "Why is this happening?" Because the answer is so obvious to me, I offered it. Several of the women asking the question blocked me, which has made clear the question isn't genuine. It should be. The actual question is, "Why was Trump's resounding win so surprising?" Through polling we knew the issues most important to the electorate. Agree or disagree with his solutions, Trump spoke about addressing those issues. Kamala employed Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy, she focused on Trump. One strategy spoke directly to voters. The other spoke directly to the legacy media, which ignored the issues most important to voters. For that reason, Kamala supporters, which includes those who have the highest trust in legacy media, especially those working in the industry, were the most surprised by the outcome. The short answer to why Trump won is that he spoke convincingly to more voters about what they said was important. The longer answer is that it was the result of unintended consequences from the democrats elevating ideology and their desire for power over the needs and desires of voters.

Kamala's candidacy itself is the unexpected consequence of a series of actions going back to the DNC assuring the nomination to Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in 2016. Each action was taken for the same reason, to maintain the hierarchy of power and influence in the Democrat Party. Kamala became the nominee largely because Biden's endorsement of his vice president curtailed the inclusion of other potential candidates. There are suggestions that Biden endorsed Harris because he was angry at being forced out and wanted to handicap the party. There is no direct evidence. Biden was forced out of the race because in his debate with Trump he exhibited the serious cognitive decline he had been accused of throughout his administration. Despite his cognitive decline, the party shielded Biden from the scrutiny of a primary by blocking potential challengers.

The media and Democrat allies called these accusations of decline conspiracies, cheap fakes, and misinformation, leading to mass shock and disbelief over his debate performance. For those utilizing alternative media for news, his decline was the predictable trajectory of his state during the 2020 election cycle. He largely campaigned using a camera in his basement. He only became the Democrat nominee because of a deal with Jim Clyburn, which made Kamala Harris the vice presidential candidate for Biden. In Iowa and New Hampshire, Biden had come in fourth and fifth place respectively. The South Carolina Democrat endorsed Biden for the promise that he would make a black woman his VP. Clyburn had sworn to endorse no one prior to the South Carolina primary. Clyburn's endorsement and all remaining candidates dropping out to endorse Biden, elevated him above Sanders in South Carolina and led to his eventual nomination. As in 2016, the party had coalesced around a single candidate to block Bernie Sanders and his desire for the party to return to its traditional focus on the needs of workers.

The strength of Bernie Sanders' campaign against the Clinton juggernaut in 2016 was a surprise across the spectrum. He and his campaign acknowledged that he entered the race to bring forth topics that would be ignored in a primary race cleared for Hillary Clinton to run as the sole candidate. No one expected him to be competitive. His candidacy was taken seriously after he unexpectedly narrowly lost Iowa and won New Hampshire decisively. Sanders' campaign was eventually defeated when Clinton secured the requisite number of delegates, both based on the primary vote and the support of superdelegates. Superdelegates are elected officials and high profile members of the party whose votes outweigh those of individual pledged delegates. The support of superdelegates allowed Clinton to ascend to the nomination with no negotiation with Sanders or appeal to his base by adopting any facet of his platform popular to his supporters.

While using powerful people in the Democrat party to undermine Sanders, the Democrat's outsider candidate, Clinton used friends in the media to elevate the Republican's outsider, Donald Trump. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans had no tool, like superdelegates, to hamper populist candidates. The millions in free exposure made Trump the Republican nominee. The strategy was named "The Pied Piper strategy." It gave Clinton the opponent her campaign felt was easiest to defeat. Toward that end, Clinton utilized a slight modification of the campaign tactic used against Sanders. During the primary, Sanders' supporters were labeled Bernie bros. The intimation was that the only reason he had supporters was that they were too sexist to support Clinton. While it was a useful meme for the media, it had no impact on Sanders' support and decreased the relevance of his eventual endorsement of Clinton. Clinton's campaign strategy reinforced The Pied Piper strategy. Instead of making appeals to voters, she talked almost exclusively about Trump. She also called his supporters deplorables, implying they only supported Trump because they were racist as well as sexist. Considering how successful the strategy proved for Clinton, the impact of its adoption for 2024 was predictable from the start. Instead of growing support the tactic only creates negative association for staunch supporters against Trump and a similar negative association with the user for independents. Attacking voters will never be a winning campaign strategy.

Harris' loss was not just a consequence of her campaign strategy. It was also a negative consequence of the conduct of the Biden administration. Through their actions they helped to create the unique coalition that defeated them. What do you notice about the image below?

Elon Musk, Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are all former Democrats with large followings who all fell under attack by the Biden administration for one reason or another. It is likely that in leaving the party each took part of their constituency with them.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a child of Camelot from the family closest to Democrat political royalty in the US. He has been a hero for his efforts towards the clean up of the Hudson River. Like Bernie Sanders in 2016, he ran in the Democrat primary to inject an issue important to him into the political discourse. He wanted to talk about the health crisis in the US, especially among our children. Instead of allowing him the opportunity, the party froze challengers like him out of an actual primary. Seeing no avenue to introduce his ideas through the Democrat Party, Kennedy ran as an independent. The Democrats sought to keep his name off the ballot through the courts while accusing Trump of being a threat to democracy. Before dropping out of the race Kennedy sought to negotiate with both Trump and Harris for his support and endorsement. He was completely snubbed by the Harris campaign. The result was a new non-partisan coalition. The tagline of the new wing of the coalition mirrors the president elects own motto, Make America Healthy Again.

Tulsi Gabbard was once seen as a rising star in the Democrat Party. She served as a Vice Chair of the Democrat National Committee until she resigned in protest over the DNC's bias towards Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary. She endorsed Bernie Sanders. She ran in the primary of 2020 and famously ended Kamala Harris' presidential ambitions by simply detailing her record in a debate. Needless to say, there is enmity between Clinton and Harris and Gabbard. During the 2020 election, Clinton accused Gabbard of being a Russian asset for her condemnation of the manufactured Trump-Russia collusion hoax. Gabbard is a veteran of the US military who speaks out against unnecessary military conflict and US foreign policy. She has alleged that she is under extra scrutiny while flying commercially. It is an allegation that has been supported by a Federal Air Marshall whistleblower saying that she has been enrolled in a program for increased surveillance, Quiet Skies. Gabbard withdrew from the Democrat Party to become an independent before endorsing Trump for President and declaring herself a Republican. She shares with Trump a desire to avoid the type of endless wars Democrats once ran against.

Elon Musk went from voting for Joe Biden in 2020 to being one of Donald Trump's strongest advocates and fundraisers in 2024. The change is the consequence of the nature of Biden's leadership. There have been numerous examples of the Biden administration using the power of government to coerce compliance with his wishes or as punishment. In August 2021, Biden had an Electric Vehicle Summit featuring US car manufacturers with the exception of Tesla, the most significant electric vehicle manufacturer in the US, if not the world. The exclusion of Tesla from the summit was perceived as Biden's disdain for Tesla's non-union workforce.

In October 2022, Musk purchased Twitter. He allowed several investigative reporters to comb through private company emails and files. The reporters discovered a collaboration between Twitter moderators and the administration and government security agencies in a campaign of targeted censorship. On behalf of the government, Twitter suspended accounts of conservatives, covid skeptical doctors, inoculation injured patients, parents arguing to open schools, and anyone calling men who choose to call themselves trans men. Elon severed the relationship between Twitter and the government and restored suspended accounts. Following the Twitter purchase, Elon Musk's companies seemed to face increased regulatory scrutiny. SpaceX has had launches delayed over strange environmental regulations, like the need to study the impact of launch debris on sharks. It has also been forced to deal with contradictory regulations. They have been criticized for not hiring non-citizen asylum seekers they are not allowed to hire because of Department of Defense contracts.

Had Harris won, there was concern that she might interfere with the ownership of his companies or target them for increased regulatory attack because of his support for Trump. Rachel Maddow suggested that if Harris won either government contracts with Musk's companies should be severed or his ownership somehow unwound. This petty vindictiveness and absurdly heavy use of power has come to characterize the political left.

In an appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience, Marc Andressen, a significant figure in Silicon Valley, spoke of a meeting with representatives of the Biden administration. The administration laid out its plans for managing the growth of AI. In essence, they wanted to limit the expansion of AI to a few large companies they could pressure as needed, and curtail the growth of start ups. His explanation is that the administration would risk the loss of US leadership in AI and threaten economic growth based on innovation solely for the sake of controlling the technology. These meetings clarified for many in Silicon Valley the difference between Trump and Biden and led to their support of Trump. In the interview he also speaks of the scourge of de-banking, the process where banking services are denied individuals because they have been labeled a Politically Exposed Person (PEP) with no due process. There are people denied banking because they engage in criminal activity and money laundering. PEPs are denied banking because they have conservative viewpoints. In her autobiography, First Lady Melania Trump wrote of her and son Baron being de-banked.

Increasingly, individuals engaged in crypto are being de-banked. Crypto is legal but disliked by the current administration. The lack of due process to the use of regulation to punish individuals for engaging in legal practices disliked by the party has come to epitomize Democrat governance. Most people simply want to live their lives and the consequences of their choices. Many people in the US are not politically informed or active. They raise their awareness in response to election season, unless forced to pay attention sooner due to threats to their way of life.

Amish communities do not generally participate in the electoral process. In Pennsylvania there were reportedly 3000 Amish voters in Lancaster County, an Amish stronghold, in 2020. In 2024 the unconfirmed number of Amish voters rose to 92,000. The rise can be directly attributed to government regulation of raw milk and meat sales by Amish farmer Amos Miller. Miller came under the scrutiny of federal agencies in 2016. His traditional farming practices focused on organic unprocessed food were in non-compliance with food safety regulations. The legal battle came to a head in January 2024 when Miller's farm was raided by the state and $100,000 worth of products were detained. The Amish community showed solidarity for Miller through financial support and increased political activism to register more Amish voters. Although the raid was conducted by state Democrats, it reflects on the party as a whole. Such extreme over-reach has unexpected metaphoric resonance, especially with less informed voters. There is no way to track the electoral power of the New York State raid that led to the seizure and execution of of P'nut and Fred, the rescued pet squirrel and raccoon, just prior to the election. Still, Democrat would be the winning bet if the question was, "Which party is more likely to kill your house pet?" When Democrat voters express surprise at the results of the election, it is because the media they use helps them to rationalize away the many factors that contributed to the loss as unimportant or racist and sexist to consider.

I could have written that Democrat voters are confused by the results of the election because their media obscured the factors important to deciding the election and stopped. It would be true, but also inadequate as an explanation. It misses the reason the legacy media obscured those factors. The legacy media is essentially a part of the Democrat Party. Kamala Harris' campaign wasn't an appeal to the voters, it was a narrative pitch to the media. Positive media coverage for Harris was a direct inverse of the negative coverage for Trump. Unbiased coverage, especially in relation to what voters say matter, is the equivalent of advertising for Trump. As a result, the legacy media is also suffering from and attempting to manage the same unintended consequences as the party as a whole. Namely, their coverage of important political topics shrinks their constituency by excluding a wide range of voices. The biased reporting of the legacy media has decreased trust in the media while inspiring increased scrutiny of its pronouncements. For those who acquire their news through non-traditional sources, it is easier to be well informed if you assume the opposite of what the legacy media says. It is the reason many people who didn't vote Trump in 16 or 20 supported him in this election.

I, like many voters, had a negative view of Trump that, while not completely true or nuanced, was reinforced by the media. I became skeptical and suspect of the media during Russiagate. It was an obvious hoax, in that there was no mechanism for Russia to change votes to elect Trump. The coverage of Trump became the story for me rather than Trump himself. For others, seeing through "the very fine people" hoax was inoculation against any future misrepresentation of Trump. All it usually takes is watching the full footage of Trump instead of just the media edits.

For years people believed that Trump called neo-nazis and white supremacists fine people, when watching another 30 seconds of video shows him condemn them explicitly. It was even debunked by Snopes, although it took 7 years. Joe Rogan spoke about how his view of Barack Obama was sullied by Obama employing the debunked hoax in the closing days of the campaign. The legacy media employs hoaxes on behalf of the Democrats as negative PR against Trump which decreases in effect each time deployed. This leads to more extreme hoaxes, like equating Trump with Hitler, which are both ineffective and offensive. The legacy media coverage is a part of the strategy for Democrats not information for voters. They are forced to employ hoaxes because the actual goals of Democrats are so unpalatable to voters. Had Biden run on opening the border to anyone around the world who wanted to enter he would have lost handily. Harris was unable to run away from past positions on state funded sex change operations for inmates and illegal aliens, which was decisive in her loss. It is reasonable to want to blame Harris for being such a poor candidate, or Biden for not surrendering the nomination sooner and avoiding a primary. In truth, they are likely the best that all the party's prior choices have left them, both in terms of candidates and positions. This is not just about why Harris lost, but about all the ways the party has handicapped itself in the future.

Both Trump and Sanders represented a call to largely unvoiced desires of voters. They were both populists with a focus on the working and middle classes. This has been largely missed by the press focused on calling Trump's emphasis on immigration racist. His message was actually similar to Sanders', the influx of immigrants drives down wages for the working class. As someone not paying close attention to Trump's campaign, his final "Argument to America" for the 2016 electorate strikes me remarkably as the other side to Sanders' coin. Unlike the Democrats with their superdelegates, the Republicans lack any undemocratic mechanism to blunt a populist movement. As a result, Trump has transformed the Republican Party. It is now the wide tent party that includes growing numbers of traditional left constituencies from peace activists and health activists to the working class and union members, generally ignored by Democrats.

To deflect the populist desire for economic fairness, the Democrats instead offered social justice. Social justice is not about confronting any injustice. In this case it means claiming that voters are racist, sexist, transphobic, or homophobic for caring more about their material needs than the political power of Democrats. The vast majority of voters do not support their positions on things like male athletes in girls' sports if they call themselves trans. The problem Democrats have now is that they have attracted the sort of voter who finds social justice appealing. They are a minority, but a very vocal minority. It is not enough to offer more attractive candidates hiding positions they are forced to take on that are detested by voters. They need to modulate their positions. Seth Moulton learned what happens when you try.

Moulton is a Massachusetts congressman. In the finger-pointing that followed Harris' loss, Moulton suggested that the party needs to get away from identity politics. He said, "I have two little girls. I don't want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I'm supposed to be afraid to say that." Moulton is correct. Swing voters who supported Trump listed her support for cultural issues over their needs as a primary reason to vote for Trump. Moulton was heavily criticized by his state party and his campaign manager quit. The consequence of taking on cultural issues to avoid economic concerns is that those issues are now central to the remaining base. Comcast, the owner of NBC/MSNBC may be offering them a clue of what is needed. Following the election CNN and MSNBC saw a 36% and 54% drop in respective viewership. Comcast is reported to be looking to sell off the much more biased MSNBC property in order to preserve the legacy of NBC, considered the serious news property. Similarly, the future prospects of the Democrat Party rest heavily on whether it chooses to identify the past choices that led them to this moment, or if it will continue blaming the unintended consequences of those choices.