How to Lose an Election – Wealth as a Symbol

Every election is a negotiation, usually cross-cultural, between a candidate and the electorate. Succeeding in that negotiation means understanding what the electorate wants, which means understanding how symbols that surround a candidate are received and interpreted.

One of the marvels to many of this election is that a man who is garishly rich, stiffs his contractors, and pays no taxes could be elected a populist hero of the economically disenfranchised. And that Trump voters would reject Ms Clinton for being too rich!

Actually it makes sense. Wealth has never been a big issue for Americans. Almost all of us want to be wealthy. Our daily doses of television inevitably show us an American reality that is purely aspirational. Even “working class” families on TV live in upper middle class houses and do things that most working class people can’t afford. “The Honeymooners,” or the later “All In the Family”? Those were the days. We’re all about “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.”

And that is what Trump symbolized: what a lot of Americans think they would or could have and do if they won the lottery. And what they can experience once in a great while for a weekend if they max out the credit card.

Trump’s wealth made him look smart – a guy that could play the game with the odds stacked against him. The Clintons have the kind of wealth that makes them look like they own the casino. Trump looked like a player. Clinton looked like she printed the deck and shuffled the cards.

Of course all of this is perception, based on the symbols visible to the eye of the voter. But that is what counted in this election. I note in closing that in the days after the election the US stock markets have risen by several percent. Apparently the oligarchs who run our economy feel a Trump win is a symbol of a pretty good economic future.

www.patheos.com/blogs/roberthunt/2016/11/how-to-lose-an-election-wealth-as-a-symbol/