What is meant by postmortem? Well, in Latin, the term means “after death” and it refers to an examination of a person’s demise to determine the cause of death. In more recent times, the phrase has also come to mean a careful assessment of predisposing factors after a significant event. For this essay, I will concentrate on the latter use of the word, although in analyzing the 2016 national election, the former use also seems appropriate.

In my scientific field, epidemiology, Ken Rothman introduced the concept of sufficient cause in understanding the causes of an outcome. Derived from the science of logic, sufficient cause can be thought of as a set of factors that, if present, result in disease. Independently, each of the factors may not be sufficient to cause the illness, but when combined, the outcome is inevitable. Looking at a set of 3 factors, I will approach the 2016 election from the perspective of sufficient cause with the disease, in this case, being the election of Donald Trump as President.

Dumbing Down the American Electorate

H.L. Mencken reportedly said, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public”. Actually, that’s not his exact quote, but it works just the same. Even old cranky H.L. would be shocked at where we stand today. As a result of numerous cultural trends, the American public may be the least informed and, quite frankly, dumbest in our entire history. Daniel Patrick Moynihan listed these trends as “the triumph of video culture over print culture; a disjunction between America’s rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science, history, and government; and the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism.”

There is no denying that we have had a strain of anti-intellectualism running through this country for decades. Isaac Asimov, the great science fiction writer, observed, “There is a cult of ignorance in the US. . . nurtured by the false notion that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge”. Experts are distrusted, knowledge is suspect, and competence is ridiculed. 18% of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth. It doesn’t, by the way. Over 40% of our citizens did not read a single book in the course of the last year. 42% of us believe that God created humans in our present form less than 10,000 years ago. 25% of biology school teachers believe that humans and dinosaurs inhabited the earth simultaneously. Biology teachers! There are further statistics in this vein. Our lack of knowledge of US history is even more alarming, but my point is made.

Into this “facts and knowledge” vacuum step Fox News, the Koch brothers, and their inbred brothers-in-arms. Exacerbating this segment of the population’s ignorance and anger with unsubstantiated positions and outright manipulations. The end result is a relatively small, but still significant, portion of the American electorate, characterized by anger and stupidity, who feel the right to comment on every issue with voices loud enough to drown out any opposing views through confrontation and bullying tactics. These tactics permit this segment to have an outsized influence on our political discourse and on the outcomes of elections, from local to national.

Radicalization of the Right

My original intent was to call this section, “The Polarization of American Politics”, but that phrase doesn’t accurately convey what has happened. A truly frightening trend in US politics is the radicalization and retrenchment of the right. The term “polarization” implies that both the right and the left have equally moved further from the center and are less willing to compromise in order to govern. That is not what has occurred. Over the last 8 years, what is the evidence that President Obama or the Democratic Congressional leadership has consistently shown these proclivities? Now, how about from the Republican leadership? Ok then, let’s stop with the “polarization of US politics” talk and call this movement what it is. One of the 2 major American political parties being hijacked by a radical, loud minority.

If anything, prominent Democrats, and the party itself, may be justly criticized for too often accommodating unreasonable demands from the right and, as a result, losing their connections to the poor and the working class. Meanwhile, the growing voice of the Tea Party, nativist sentiment, and the racism and anti-Semitism of the alt-right forced any remaining moderate Republicans to hide behind a cover of extreme rhetoric. The problem is that, to ensure re-election, this rhetoric becomes policy at the expense of actual governance. Opposition without purpose.

During a campaign, this level of intransigence does not lend itself to a constructive honest debate appropriate to address the critical issues facing this nation where each candidate articulates their position and informed voters decide. Substitute, instead, intentional misstatements, misrepresentations, alternative facts, and, in 2016, blatant lies. Fundamental democracy requires an informed electorate. The radical right has, for years, orchestrated a coordinated campaign aimed at obfuscation of the American voter, to great effect.

Nominating a Fatally Flawed Candidate

I like Hillary Clinton. I believe Hillary Clinton would have made a fine President. In my career, I was in 2 medium sized meetings with Senator Clinton and I was most impressed – thoughtful, competent, and personable. The woman was imminently qualified. Eight years   observing and participating in the POTUS operation as an active First Lady; US Senator from New York with bi-party praise for coalition building and effective legislating; and a 4 year tenure as Secretary of State during demanding times. With a decent, cooperative Congress, President Hillary Clinton might have accomplished great things for the people of this country.

However, given the 2 previous “sufficient cause” factors discussed above, Hillary Clinton should never have been the Democratic Party nominee for President. This is not hindsight prognostication on my part.  I, and many others, repeatedly discussed concerns about her candidacy from the beginning of her run. No matter her talents, given this electorate and the opposing party, Hillary Clinton was carrying too much baggage. So many groups felt such extreme enmity towards her that she could never overcome no matter her detailed, rational policy positions or careful debate prep. Hillary Clinton has been viewed by many Americans, not only Republicans, as secretive and not forth coming. Secretive people don’t win the Presidency.  Incompetent buffoons who “you can have a beer with” win, but not intelligent people who are thought to be hiding some secret.

Hillary couldn’t turn-on the Democratic base and she was certainly not going to bring in those 10-15% non-commits with her perceived lack of warmth and robotic campaign personality. So many Democratic voters were less than enthused by Hillary’s candidacy, but felt that it was her turn after being beaten 8 years earlier by the junior Senator from Illinois. There is no “turn” for the White House. It’s a prize that the Democrats have to go after aggressively with the candidate most likely to win. We needed a candidate without that particular 20 year history in the public eye that could be twisted and misconstrued. We needed Joe Biden.

I knew that any decent Republican nominee would beat Hillary badly in November, but not Trump. I knew she could be him and once he was the last clown out of the tiny Republican car, I breathed a sigh of relief.

So Hillary was our nominee against a nasty, bullying, buffoon in orange makeup. A man who could not even earn the support of his own party’s leadership – by all evidence, a horrific human being. And she lost. And we all lost.

Other factors went into this cataclysm – an inexplicable interference in the US political process by the head of the FBI; Russian hacking of only Democratic Party emails and their subsequent release and misinterpretation; Fox News and mendacity journalism, in general; a ham handed campaign by the DNC; and the Democratic Party losing touch with its base all played a role in this defeat.

For the application of “sufficient cause” factors in this postmortem, I believe that the proud ignorance of a significant segment of the populace, the radicalization of the right, and the nomination of a fatally flawed candidate combined to achieve the level of sufficient cause for the Democrats to lose the White House for the next 4 years and perhaps the Supreme Court for a generation. You can argue with me that other factors played a more important role. That would be good. Respectful disagreement, debate, and exchange of views form the basis of democracy and political discourse. We should do it more often.

These issues will be the subject of future essays, but I’d like to leave you with another quote by that great American observer and famous curmudgeon (and racist, unfortunately) H.L Mencken, “On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of this land will reach their heart’s desire and the White House will be adorned by an outright moron.”