It's no exaggeration to claim that tens of millions of Americans (as well as hundreds of millions of people worldwide who count themselves as friends of the United States) have been left shocked, bewildered and upset by Donald Trump's win in the 2016 presidential race. The smart as well as the hopeful money always had Hillary Clinton becoming America's first female commander-in-chief. She had the money, the endorsement of the mainstream media, the support of Hollywood and corporate America, and vastly more volunteers on the ground, always an advantage in a country where voting is not compulsory.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Mrs Clinton's opponent had alienated large constituencies with his inflammatory rhetoric, been exposed as a tireless braggart and self-promoter and shown to have few of the virtues many Americans expect of their presidents. Only Mr Trump's fervent believers, an allegedly disaffected, backward-looking and largely white demographic concentrated in the Midwest, believed their chosen candidate could carry the race.
These traditionally red states may be vast in size, but they're not delegate-rich, and the political orthodoxy was that no matter what reservations that people in the heartland had about Mrs Clinton's character (and they were sizeable) the liberal-leaning city elites in blue states like California and New York would send her to the White House.
Mr Trump's win represents a shift in the political alignment of the US every as bit as dramatic as that of 1932, when a dour and grim incumbent defending apparently unsuccessful policies (Herbert Hoover) lost to an opponent (Franklin D. Roosevelt) who exuded confidence but declined to outline specifics. Mr Roosevelt's victory was enabled by big city support, and it resulted in both a profound transformation of the scope and size of government in the US and a long Democratic ascendancy.
With the Republicans now controlling Congress and the White House, America may be on the verge of a similarly transformative period. Militating against that possibility, however, is the many in the GOP's leadership who cannot abide Mr Trump. The president-elect's skills in the arts of coaxing, cajoling and persuading (so central to effective government) are also an unknown quantity. The clear mandate Mr Trump secured will convince most Republicans to fall in behind him, if with gritted teeth.
Clinton supporters now have to come to terms with an individual they have repeatedly reviled as a buffoon and an incompetent intent on wreaking social and economic havoc at home and strategic mayhem abroad. Mr Trump's rhetoric has been decidedly inflammatory on occasion, but those fearful of what his presidency portends should recall that America's constitutional checks and balances are particularly robust and effective. And however they might dislike the result, Democrats must recognise that America's voters have spoken emphatically in support of a new way of politics.
To be an effective president, Mr Trump will have to reach out to people he's alienated or offended, as well as delivering on his promises. These will be massive tasks with no guarantee of success.
