On Nov. 11, the Political Science & International Relations (PSIR) and Black Studies Departments hosted a panel with staff members from both departments reflecting on the 2024 election results.
The panel, “Stress Test for Democracy,” was held in the Coykendall Science Building auditorium and moderated by political science professor Daniel Lipson. Speakers included PSIR associate professor Scott Minkoff and SUNY distinguished professor Nancy Kassop, as well as chair of the Black Studies Department Weldon McWilliams.
Lipson started the evening by explaining that this event was planned before the election results were announced. The panelists were to focus on understanding why the election panned out the way it did and what to expect going forward; however, they wanted to hold space for the strong emotions and reactions that the campus community may have to the election outcome. They plan on holding a series of events to inspire learning, action and community regarding the election.
Each panelist spoke for 10 minutes before opening up questions to the audience, starting with Minkoff. He expressed his belief that the presidential election resulted from three things: individual candidates, short-term factors, such as unemployment prices and attitudes about the incumbent party, and long term factors such as globalization, hyperconnectivity and mediatization.
He stated that regardless of the candidates – Donald Trump and Kamala Harris – the high inflation and net migration over the last few years has caused widespread dissatisfaction for the Democratic party. Minkoff referenced Patrick Ruffini, a Republican pollster and author of the book “Party of the People: Inside the Multiracial Populist Coalition Remaking the GOP.” The book demonstrates that while the Republican party is becoming more ethnically diverse and grounded in the working class, the Democratic Party is connected to the college-educated and professional classes.
“Unless the Democrats find a way to make more inroads with working class voters, they’re likely to struggle to win a big election,” Minkoff said. “The Democratic Party is being received by many as a party that prioritizes progressive social goals over economic ones.”
Minkoff urged the audience to recommit themselves to democracies in their lives, including small, local ones within their communities. He believes becoming involved with others face-to-face steers people away from polarization and media that “leaves us less aware of each other’s lives and balance.”
“Democracy is hard,” Minkoff said. “My point is only that part of democracy in a place like the U.S. is figuring out how to be democratic in the face of its inevitable opponents. Trump is the most highly placed opponent of key aspects of American democracy in modern American history. That is bad, but it’s not the first time America has had challenges.”
McWilliams spoke next, discussing the conversations he’s been having with the Black women in his life regarding the election. A friend of his told him that “she did not think America loved black women.” He said “she was even stronger in saying she thinks America hates black women.”
“Trump’s election shows me that racism and misogyny are alive and well,” Williams said. He expanded on his points in the Q&A following the panelists’ lectures, “I think America has said we will tolerate patriarchy, misogyny and racism as long as we have more money in our pot. As long as we can find employment. As long as we’re not the immigrant. As long as there’s somebody else to look down upon.”
Williams expressed that Trump’s views around mass-deportation clearly target the Black or brown immigrant. He stated that while Trump is an anomaly, his inflammatory rhetoric towards people of color is not new or surprising to these groups, who have repeatedly been scapegoated for American problems.
“A nation that claims to be the most multiracial, most multicultural, most multireligious cannot forego anything that supports diversity, equity and inclusion,” Williams said.
Kassop spoke last, going over her concerns about what a future Trump administration could look like.
Prior to Trump’s reelection, she explained, his campaign failed to submit two memoranda of understanding: one that would require a $5,000 cap on contributions to the transition team, a public disclosure of donors and FBI background checks on potential appointees and another that would require the president-elect’s transition team to publicize a code of ethics addressing conflicts of interests.
Kassop explained that this defiance perfectly outlined what could be expected from Trump’s presidency: “defy the required position procedures, and privatize whenever possible rather than use government systems.”
She expressed concerns regarding the priorities of conservative think tanks the Heritage Foundation and America First Policy Institute (AFPI) and their competing plans to replace federal employees with loyal Trump appointees. The new administration plans on putting Schedule F into place, a new rule for federal employee hiring. This will reclassify previously protected workers and target civil servants in the Departments of Homeland Security, State, Defense and Justice.
AFPI prepared 300 executive orders ready to be implemented by Trump on day one of his presidency. In light of this, Kassop outlined the role that federalism and courts could play as checks and balances to “save us from Trump.”
She doesn’t expect executive orders to be overridden by a Republican-majority Congress, but it is expected that federal courts and Democratic state attorneys general will challenge controversial executive orders. Approximately 800 federal judges will hear and rule on challenges to Trump policies, most of which will not make it to the Supreme Court. Kassop explained that she will be paying attention to lower federal courts and the judges who populate them.
“Trump appointed 234 lower federal court judges in his first term. Biden has appointed 213 so far, with 47 vacancies of which the current Senate wants to rush through as many confirmations as possible between now and the end of the year, when the Senate session expires,” Kassop said. “There are currently 83 judges appointed by Republican presidents who could take senior status by January, opening up an enormous number of new federal judicial vacancies for Trump to fill.”
“My own research has examined the history of the White House-Justice Department relationship, and we have already been put on notice that Trump plans to bust all of the norms of that relationship that have been in place as a result of post-Watergate reforms,” she said. On this note, Lipson invited the audience to ask the panelists questions.
In the Q&A, audience members addressed concerns about the Democrats’ failings in this election season.
“I think that the Democratic Party failed to meet voters where they were at as opposed to where they wish the voters would be,” one commented.
“If Harris spoke out against the genocide in Gaza, do you think that the election results could’ve been different?” another asked.
“Was there anything that could have been done differently on the Democratic side?” one questioned.
Minkoff responded that Harris’ campaign had a pro-choice, pro-democracy and anti-Trump theory of how the election would pan out. “They might have just gotten this sort of theory of the election a little bit off,” he said. “When this is all said and done, Harris will have lost by less than the population of New York City nationally. Maybe half of that. It’s a very close country.”