What Happened?
A guest post by Michael Huemer
This is a guest post by
(blog here). Michael Huemer is a professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado. He is the author of more than eighty academic articles in epistemology, ethics, metaethics, metaphysics, and political philosophy, as well as ten amazing books that you should immediately buy: https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Huemer/e/B001H6GHNU.
“What Happened?” was what Hilary Clinton wondered in 2016 (her book about it didn’t sound very interesting, though). Non-Trumpists have been wondering that off and on ever since, and we’re wondering it again more loudly now. Let’s find some answers.
But first, some philosophy.
1. What Is an Explanation?
Among other things, an explanation of X is a set of facts without which X would not have happened. But not just any such set of facts will do. For example, the explanation for why Trump was just elected is not aptly given as, “Because Thomas Matthew Crooks had bad aim,” even though, if Crooks had better aim, Trump wouldn’t have been elected.
Roughly, I think that when people ask “why did x happen?”, they are (usually?) taking for granted some background beliefs that would lead one to expect that x would not happen. (Especially if they phrase it as “what the hell happened?” or “how could this happen?”) The true form of the question is, “Given y, why did x happen?”
The explanation, then, will be a set of facts that corrects those background beliefs, or supplements them such that you would then have a higher expectation of x.
The perplexity surrounding Trump’s success is specific to him; it’s not just like the question you could ask about any other candidate. Many people have found his success shocking in a way that the success of other major candidates in the last 50 years has not been.
2. What’s the Background?
What are the facts that would cause us to be surprised by two Trump victories in the last 3 elections? Well, here are some obstacles that he faced:
During his campaign, he had 91 felony charges against him and was involved in multiple trials.
He has been overwhelmingly opposed by most media sources and seemingly influential elites.
He had conflicts with the most seemingly powerful elites in his own party, including the previous two Republican Presidential candidates, the family of the previous Republican President, and the family of the previous Republican Vice-President.
Multiple people who served in his own first administration publicly excoriated him, including: one Vice-President, two Secretaries of Defense, a Chief of Staff, a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a national security advisor, a deputy press secretary, and a director of communications who worked for Trump.
And here are some things that he did:
Made offensive remarks of the sort that politicians usually do not make (“shithole countries”, “grab ’em by the pussy”, etc.).
Frequently lied about publicly verifiable facts, and was exposed for it.
Committed sexual assault, which he was found liable for in court.
Praised enemy nations’ dictators.
Advanced foolish ideas like injecting disinfectant to fight disease.
Expressed beliefs far out of touch with reality, such as that the Air Force has invisible airplanes and that the rebels took over airports during the American Revolution.
Here, I haven’t listed any controversial policy stances, nor have I listed unproven accusations against him. These are all things that are definitely factually true.
My sense from watching American politics for the last few decades would have been that any one of these things would normally be a very serious problem for an American political candidate, and many would be career-ending scandals.
So it is surprising that Trump has both won the election and even won the popular vote by five million votes, even with all these apparent disadvantages.
3. Fake Answer #1: It’s the other candidate
When asked why they support him, Trumpists will often claim to be bothered by Trump’s well-known problems, but claim that they just had to vote for him because the other candidate is incredibly, existentially-threateningly awful.
I think this is total bullshit. You could maybe say that about one other candidate, one time. But if you’re saying that about Hilary Clinton, and Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris, and all fifteen of his primary opponents in 2016, and the dozen or so primary opponents in 2024, then you’re bullshitting me. Republican voters did not just hold their noses and grudgingly vote Trump in 24. Huge numbers of them loved Trump. They overwhelmingly gave him the nomination, and they turned out in record numbers to vote.
Of course, I can’t prove that it’s bullshit for any given voter; no doubt some people voted for him grudgingly. But that really isn’t the explanation we’re looking for.
This election was not about Harris. It was about Trump.
4. Fake Answer #2: Policy
I don’t think the main explanation is about Trumpian policies either. There were multiple other Republicans who offered similar policies (insofar as you can ascribe policy positions to Trump) while having none of his disadvantages, and they got nowhere with it.
Moreover, the items that I listed in section 2 really are not the sort of thing that would normally be outweighed by someone having “good policy positions”. Normally, those things would end your political career, whatever your policy views. Does Trump somehow have phenomenally wonderful policy ideas, vastly better than any other politician has ever had? Come on.
5. It’s the Personality
Trumpers often display something akin to religious dogmatism. It often seems like it simply doesn’t matter what anyone says, or what Trump does; they’re on his side no matter what. (It’s worth watching some of Jordan Klepper’s video interviews with Trumpists. This is from 2023:
.) This really isn’t the sort of thing to be explained by policy positions or the badness of the other side.
I suspect that Democrats are having trouble answering the main question because the true answer is incomprehensible to them. The answer is that a huge number of people admire Donald Trump’s character. This is incomprehensible to most Democrats because they find his character uniquely awful. Huge numbers of people love his personality, while similar numbers are disgusted by it.
What (allegedly) admirable traits do supporters ascribe to Trump?
a. Patriotism
Trumpists think that he loves America, presumably because he says things like that (the theme of his first inaugural address was “America first”). Of course, anti-Trumpists tend to think that he cares about nothing but himself.
b. Honesty
Trumpists think that he “tells it like it is,” whereas anti-Trumpists tend to think that he can’t open his mouth without lying.
Why this radical disjunction? I think he’s exceptionally honest in one way, and exceptionally dishonest in another: He’s “honest” in that he doesn’t dissemble in the way other politicians do. He has no filter and no concern about offending anyone with whatever is on his mind. But he’s dishonest in the sense that he also has no interest in how his statements relate to the facts of external reality.
The “honesty” is something you can notice just from listening to him. The dishonesty is something that you generally would only notice by checking his statements with some independent information source. But if you’ve already decided that he’s honest, you might just reject all information sources that disagree with Trump. That might be one reason why the Trumpists aren’t concerned about his lies.
The other reason is that low-information voters simply do not care about the policy-relevant facts of external reality.
c. Masculinity
The above are small factors. The main thing people like about Trump is that they consider him dominant and masculine. Unlike (a) and (b) above, I think this is one personality trait that both Trumpists and anti-Trumpists perceive, though they might describe it differently: they perceive that
Trump is unafraid of social sanction or criticism.
He freely speaks his mind and does whatever he wants.
He says and does everything with absolute self-confidence.
He never apologizes or admits a mistake.
He aggressively attacks anyone who gets in his way.
He succeeds in imposing his will on others and getting away with all of the above.
Supporters might describe all this as being “strong,” while opponents might describe it as being “an asshole.” Sometimes, there’s a fine line between being masculine and being anti-social.
This is the only thing that stands out about Trump compared to all other candidates, and this is the only thing I can think of that would explain how he could survive scandals that would destroy any other candidate. Notice that all of the items listed in sec. 2 can also be spun as examples of his strength. When he gets attacked by all of these people, including the justice system itself, and yet emerges mostly unscathed, that is just further proof of what an incredibly manly man he is. Yes, he has 91 felony charges against him … and yet we see him walking around free as a bird.
Why is this trait so important? One reason may be that supporters think we need such a strong person to push America’s interests on the world stage, or to do battle with their ideological opponents at home.
Another reason may be that Trumpists wish that they themselves could be strong in that way. Perhaps they often feel like saying offensive things or nakedly pursuing their own interests, but they refrain because they fear social sanctions. They admire Trump for being free of such constraints, and they want to vicariously express themselves through him.
I don’t think most voters seriously think about what is good for the country or what sort of person makes the best leader. They just vote emotionally, especially the low-propensity voters that Trump managed to inspire.
d. Cult leader
Cult leaders also have most of the traits listed in (c). Perhaps cult leaders activate a module in the human brain that makes people want to unquestioningly follow a sufficiently dominant leader. (Compare the phenomenon of Stockholm Syndrome, another example of the brainwashing power of sheer dominance.)
Cult members were not reasoned into their beliefs and cannot be reasoned out of them; it requires a much more elaborate process to deprogram them. And now, for the first time in American politics, we have a President who is a cult leader—indeed, the leader of the biggest cult in American history.
6. Smaller Factors
Here are some smaller factors that might explain why Harris failed to capture all of the moderate, non-cultist vote:
Many across America are fed up with the bullshit on the left, and that might just rub off on any Democratic candidate. To avoid this, the Democratic Party would probably have to have repudiated its extreme wing long ago.
There was no reason to expect Harris to be a strong candidate, given her weak performance in 2020.
Joe Biden should never have selected her as VP in 2020, nor should he have endorsed her for the nomination in ’24.
Biden should have dropped out long before the primaries, and top Democrats should have pressured him to do so. His senility was obvious long before his debate.
After Biden dropped out, Democrats should have held some kind of contest to determine the replacement candidate, to find out who appealed to voters.
Some considered Harris a “DEI hire” because Biden selected her for her race and sex. It’s possible that the Democrats would have won if they had just gone with a traditional, old white guy like the ones who have won almost all previous elections.
Those things might explain why Harris failed to eke out a victory like Joe Biden in 2020.
7. Is it my Fault?
Whenever someone criticizes voters, someone is sure to show up and say, “It’s the fault of elitists like you that Trump won! When you say mean things about people, that makes them vote for Trump.”
This theory is much more insulting to voters than mine. It suggests that people vote for Trump, not because they like him, but out of spite. Perhaps there really are some voters who are that childish.
Fortunately, it’s not my job to win votes. I’m just a philosopher. My job is just to tell the truth, whether it’s nice or not.
 | A guest post by
|
>Advanced foolish ideas like injecting disinfectant to fight disease.
He didn’t do that. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-inject-bleach-covid-19/
Which would be fine if you were just listing things people perceive about him, but you had to go further and state that these are all definitely things that happened for sure.
Good post. Let me perhaps complicate it a bit. Two preliminary points:
First, Trump's election was not single event. There were about 150 million votes cast by different people, and so it was an aggregation of 150 million separate events. There are of course multiple factors that any particular voter considered, and different voters picked Trump or Harris (or a third-party candidate) based on weighing these factors. So we can certainly say something intelligent about these aggregate choices, but we can't really identify "the" reason Trump won. There are multiple factors.
Second, voters are systematically and rationally underinformed. Public choice theory has explained this quite well. Voters bear the full cost of informing themselves about particular issues, but the benefits of doing so (better choices) accrue to the public as a whole. And the probability of changing your own state's outcome, let alone the outcome of the election as a whole, are trivially small. Informed voting is a huge positive externality, and like all positive externalities, we get too little of it. As a result, people rationally choose to underinform themselves.
Given those, your cult-leader explanation certainly makes sense and partially explains the vote. Some might object that no rational person would choose person like Trump, but a rationally underinformed voter might, and might do so for "cultish" reasons.
But other explanations also explain the votes of some voters.
1. Issues. I have heard numerous people argue that Trump is icky is various ways, but at least he supports certain policies that those voters agree with and the Democrats do not (support for Israel, strong border policies, etc.) So while it is a choice between two bad candidates, those votes are willing to pick the one they agree with on the issues, despite his other numerous negative factors.
2. Voters who admire negative characteristics. You identified Trump's masculinity / assholeness as one negative factor some admire. But some voters are racist, sexist, etc. Repugnant as it is, those people might find Trump more appealing than a black woman candidate.
3. Harris herself. She took much more leftist positions in 2019, changed her mind in 2024, and never explained why. She said her values were the same, but she never explained how those values led her to those positions in 2019 and those same values led her to different positions in 2024. And compare her speaking style to Reagan, Bill Clinton, Obama, and Buttigieg. Reagan was not a deep thinker, but seemed trustworthy, likeable, and inspiring. Clinton was a policy work and seemed to have a deep knowledge of issues. Obama had a broad philosophical vision of American. And Buttigieg seems thoughtful and can articulately explain issues. Harris has none of these qualities. She emphasized joy and happiness at the beginning of her campaign, but that only worked up to a point, and then she shifted to attacking Trump. (Her surrogates should have done this. She should have stuck with joy.)
Her policy explanations seemed shallow. Yes, prices are high, but she did not address the underlying problem and stuck it to Trump. (E.g., Covid which is over. Trump's tariffs made things a lot worse. Trump's new tariffs would make things even worse. The problem here is Biden kept the tariffs and Biden's two bid spending bills contributed as well.) Instead, she said we will give money to some people to help. Not very inspiring or deep.
* * *
All in all, I think there were multiple factors that influenced enough of the 150 million voters to vote for Trump that he won. How we disaggregate them is a difficult task, but I think you nailed one of them.