Mutual misery got Trump elected

As a New York Times subscriber, I am often either amused or annoyed by its headlines that hint of new, knuckle-whitening crises.

Here’s one from last week: “Steve Jobs’s Daughter Forgives Him. Should We?”

Is she going to wonder whether she should forgive my father? Don’t think so.

Here’s another one: “Can I Contact the Grandkids I Discovered on a DNA Website?”

Picture this odd old man talking to your kids:

“I’m no stranger, I’m your grandpa. See? Look at this DNA!”

I would advise all to whom this applies to envision this scene — all five of them.

Ah, here’s one that keeps me up nights: “Is the Paleo Diet Right for You?”

No. I’ve lived twice as long as a cave man already. Next.

“Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not.”

Turns out this one was really good. It’s by Jonathan Rauch, who seems to derive great joy and income from studying happiness.

Economics has always assumed that economic decisions are made by a mythical “rational man” who uses only logic.

Recent studies of investment decisions, however, have found that many such decisions are as rational as a lead kite. Rauch and happiness economists seem to realize this fact.

I’m willing to bet some political strategists wished they had read Rauch’s insight in 2016. First, Rauch says, like all politics, our sense of well-being is local.

It depends on how we think we’re doing compared to the neighbors, family members and what we grew up with.

It’s also relative, though.

“If you live in a struggling area and your status is slipping, even if you are relatively comfortable, you are probably at least a bit miserable,” Rauch wrote.

To me, the lesson that it wasn’t poverty that elected Donald Trump president, it was a sense of unfairness.

I understand. Even when I conceded to being overpaid for the job I did at a big corporation, I chafed at missing promotions when I thought I was as deserving as many who got them.

That made me feel poor and victimized.

I wasn’t, but folks in rural areas and in the Rust Belt, even if they have done relatively well, feel like I used to when outcomes seemed unfair.

Only Donald Trump among the candidates for president in 2016 seemed to grasp their frustration.

Even at half the size of his ego, the chip on Trump’s shoulder was enormous. Political strategists missed how well it matched the chips on the shoulders of people who felt poor and betrayed, who turned out to vote by the millions.

Trump alone matched their anger and even though most candidates knew better, Trump told angry voters he could turn back the clock.

They believed him and still do. He speaks their language, and his chip on the shoulder still looks like theirs. No matter how much Trump bungles the highest office in the land, he still commands strong loyalty from voters, because he seems to understand the source of their misery.

Happiness economics explains misery. Misery explains Trump. There are lessons here for the rational.

Steve Hansen writes about our life and times from his perspective of a retired Tucumcari journalist. Contact him at:

stevenmhansen

@plateautel.net