I doubt I am the only one who feels that this presidential election is particularly polarizing. And while this election is similar to previous ones in many embarrassingly monotonous ways, polls do indicate that there is a new kind of polarization in this election, specifically the higher tendency for voters to state that they are voting against the other candidate as opposed to voting for their candidate. This sounds like an electorate’s nightmare, as it can only lead to further voter dissatisfaction. Since this phenomenon can hardly be described as a good omen, it is worth investigating the causes behind its emergence so that we might have a better understanding of how this election is operating and where it is going.

Donald Trump is arguably more economically “left-leaning” than Hillary Clinton, if only slightly. The difference is not enormous, but it is substantial given the traditionally right-leaning economic stances of Republican candidates. The best example of this is Trump’s unwavering denunciation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal since the beginning of the election, while Clinton has been quoted as calling it “the gold standard of trade deals” before flipping her position in an insincere attempt to sway disillusioned supporters of Bernie Sanders (it is believed that she will flip her position again once elected, according to newly leaked emails). Trump also supports increasing the federal minimum wage and has expressed no intention of attacking federal benefits programs like Medicaid and Social Security, a historic goal of past Republican candidates. He is even on record as supporting universal health care as a replacement for Obamacare. Of course, Trump is not more economically left-leaning in every way; his tax plan is far less progressive than Clinton’s, and he is not too concerned with making higher education more affordable to young Americans. Furthermore, many of Trump’s stances are notably prone to alterations, leading us to question whether his proposed economic policies would even be implemented. But overall, his political alignment on the economic spectrum is not far from Hillary Clinton’s.

However, it is not economic policy differences that are driving this election. Rather, this election seems to be more concerned with where the candidates lie on the social spectrum of politics. To elucidate this difference, I draw attention to the analysis of the candidates performed by the Political Compass organization, whose purpose is to represent political positions on a more nuanced scale than just a simple left vs. right spectrum. As they have determined according to their own measures of social issues, Trump is much higher in authoritarianism (one extreme of the spectrum) than Clinton. This might lead us to think Clinton would lie on the opposite end of the spectrum (i.e. Libertarianism). However, Clinton is actually quite high in authoritarianism as well, just not nearly as high as Trump. This is not too surprising given that Hillary Clinton is on record as proposing that we “just drone this guy” when referring to Julian Assange (i.e. the foremost bastion of holding those in power accountable for their misdeeds).

Since this difference in stances on social issues is the more dominant dispute defining this election, we should expect alignment on the social spectrum to be a primary factor in determining which candidate a voter chooses. Research into the beliefs of voters shows that people higher in psychological traits associated with authoritarianism are far more likely to vote for Trump over Clinton. Furthermore, the same research determined that authoritarianism was the best single predictor of support for Trump among many other metrics, including education level, race, income, and other demographics. Evidence suggests that this election is an opportunity for people high in authoritarian beliefs to assert themselves. Trump supporters see him as the “law and order” candidate, ready and willing to restore order, although it is not quite clear to others what the chaos is.

For a good example of Trump appealing to these people high in authoritarian beliefs, at the third and final presidential debate last Wednesday, Trump refused to affirm that he would accept the election results if he lost, simply responding “I will look at it at the time”. Although this implies that Trump could stage some populist coup in the case of defeat, such an uprising would be put down immediately and would be supported by almost no one, and especially not by those in power who control our armed forces. But it is clear that Trump has no intention of doing so. Rather, Trump simply seems to be appealing to people high in authoritarian psychological traits, who love the idea (consciously or unconsciously) of a strong leader refusing to give up on the nation he has sworn to make “great again”.

Of course, it is worth stating that authoritarian tendencies (or lack thereof) are not a perfect determinant of who voters prefer, as there are several other important factors. For example, males with low education are particularly likely to vote Trump, apparently due to real wages declining enormously for that demographic in the past two decades. In contrast, real wages for women with low education have not been nearly as heavily affected, and wages have actually increased for both men and women with high education. Moreover, people who feel like they don’t have a political voice are incredibly more likely to vote for Trump. This should not be too surprising, as low income Americans not having any real political influence is a pretty well documented reality. The people who comparatively have a lot of political power (e.g. Stanford students and faculty) probably can’t relate directly to such sentiment, but if we want to understand why many Americans support Trump then we must be aware of our insular privilege as elites of the future, both socially and politically. Given our relative economic security, we are not desperate for radical change as Trump supporters clearly are. Perhaps Trump’s most enticing qualities are his astoundingly novel contempt for the political establishment and his unwavering promise for rapid change once put in power. Therefore, it is pretty clear how the combination of decreasing wages and a lack of political influence for a large sector of Americans is driving them to support a nationalistic, authoritarian candidate, especially when his opponent represents the political Establishment that they rightfully abhor for ignoring their problems.
The purpose of this article is not to justify supporting Trump or any other candidate. Rather, I want to show that denigrating Trump supporters as stupid, violent, and morally reprehensible is not constructive in any way whatsoever. Doing so is just one more distraction preventing us from exposing the political impetus driving the Trump campaign. Anyone who wants to prevent the embodiment of authoritarianism from entering office should acknowledge the plight of Trump supporters and demand that their issues be addressed. Unfortunately, I do see such ideas being expressed by anyone.

Contact Ian Knight at isknight ‘at’ stanford.edu.