In horseracing parlance, when a particular horse wins unexpectedly the bookmakers’ call this a ‘turn-up for the books.’ In more general usage, the phrase came to mean an unexpected piece of good fortune, a pleasant surprise, or something generally welcomed especially if not deemed likely. Whilst conceding that those who didn’t want nor expect it might think otherwise (not least the ‘defeated favorite’), if we confine its meaning to this usage, Donald Trump’s win by any definition is a ‘turn-up for the books’ and the best example this side of Harry Truman in ‘48 at least, that the Grand American Narrative has to offer.

As might be anticipated, in the wake of Trump’s historic victory, a win that for many reasons has shaken the Beltway establishment and beyond to its core, and one that political junkies will be ‘fixing’ on for years, there’s been much handwringing about how so many folks got it so wrong. All of this has been accompanied by the obligatory hyperventilating and existential angst about what his election portends for the future.

His campaign both revealed and ‘reanimated’ the tectonic forces that hold sway in the political equivalent of the San Andreas Fault, a long-neglected fault-line in American politics that has been waiting to let rip for decades. At the risk of overcooking the geological metaphors, we might imagine that if folks were presented two highly improbable scenarios before this election and had to bet their house on only one as the more likely outcome, the choice here was either a Trump win or California sliding into the Pacific Ocean after the actual San Andreas finally lets the ‘big one’ rip. Many might have picked the latter. Expect aftershocks until further notice.

The reality, to say little of the irony, of a political neophyte and ostensible outsider winning a U.S. presidential election (to say nothing of winning the actual nomination while summarily defeating 16 of his own party’s rivals in the primaries) without the support of the party, Wall Street or the mainstream media).

He spent less than his opponents by breaking every rule in the electioneering field book and then defeated his eventual opponent, a seasoned campaigner and professional career politician whose own party (and the usual ‘suspects,’ the Main Street Media (MSM), Wall Street, Israel Lobby et. al.) all had earlier anointed as the presumptive nominee and who they all collectively backed from the still relatively popular incumbent on down with the most effective, ruthless, formidable, sophisticated, cashed-up political machine ever assembled. This, indeed, was unprecedented.

With Clinton herself winning the popular vote convincingly (some suggest it could nudge more than 2 million), this of course is not a ‘landslide’ in any conventional sense, and is not quite the conservative ‘revolution’ some pundits are breathlessly celebrating. But, as noted, few if any election outcomes were as unexpected. To the extent it represented a “landslide” of sorts, in this case it was a “landslide” of the contemporary political imagination. The substrata has shifted underneath people’s feet and moved to spaces that were hitherto unthinkable, and possibly about which few might lay claim to having much idea of what to expect.

And this is happening at both ends of the political spectrum and just about every key point in between. The Bernie Sanders factor is a testament to that. Even if on the face of it with the Republican victory, both parties will now have to reinvent themselves not just as a matter of course, but of survival, at least as major political forces. Such is the extraordinary nature and character of this election and its outcome!

Win or lose though, Trump’s impact was always going to necessitate a rethink about the way politics is conducted in Washington, a “rethink” both parties will avoid at their peril. That “rethink” should entail everything from how they function as political parties and how they manage themselves and how they position themselves with voters, to how they interact with each other on the Congressional and legislative levels to how they begin managing national affairs more in the interests of their constituents than those of themselves and their families, their political cronies and/or corporate benefactors. More than that, they will need to be seen doing so.

Let there be no mistaking it. The Republicans are no less on the nose than are the Democrats, albeit in some cases different with constituencies and for possibly different reasons. And they are no less on the nose because of their windfall victory now than they were before the campaign even started. The GOP did win by default in some respects, with no shortage of people not unreasonably seeing the Democrats as losing more than the Republicans winning. Right now the winners are grinners (albeit some of them a tad sheepish), but it remains to be seen just how long this will last.

That neither party comes up smelling like roses in the scheme of things then is a long-standing reality brought into much sharper relief by this election. There are still, for example, many unanswered questions about the degree to which both parties played fast and loose with fundamental democratic principles and electoral legalities, about which there was relativity little reporting in the MSM.

In the aftermath, many will rightly question not only Hillary Clinton’s suitability as the party’s nominee, courtesy of the revelations about the manner in which the DNC primary campaign was conducted, they will also be able to question her political legitimacy as the nominee and, especially, the integrity and credibility of the party machine mindset that plotted her ascension. Indeed, that should be a prerequisite going forward for party reform.

Yet if the Republicans think Trump’s win and retaining control of both the House and Senate redeems them and their party in the eyes of voters or the citizenry in general, one expects that they will be sorely disappointed as we move forward. And this is only partly attributable to the fact Trump was not their preferred choice of candidate; indeed, he was rejected by many, a point we should never forget.

The seeds of discontent ushering in Trump may have been planted some time back, but the current GOP fraternity and their forbears cleared the ground. Whether in opposition or the White House, the GOP also has proven form in tending the neoliberal and globalization garden. His campaign voters or the citizenry in general, may be sorely disappointed as we move forward. And this is only partly attributable to the fact Trump was not their preferred choice of candidate; indeed, he was rejected by many, a point we should never forget.

His campaign rhetoric aside, it remains to be seen how much of an enthusiast Trump will be for more of the same.

Obama Bets the Farm

There can be little doubt the election outcome reflected considerable dissatisfaction with Obama. Because he had so much skin in the game (his legacy for one thing), the president personally has to cop much of the rap for the rise of Trump (or even someone like him). The corollary to this is the president also accepting responsibility for the defeat of his own party when there was an obvious alternative in Bernie Sanders, someone who from the off clearly tapped into much of the prevailing sentiment in working- and middle-class America as Trump did.

After noting that Clinton’s and the Democrats’ loss wasn’t a defeat by default, Walden Bello says in an article titled “How Obama’s Legacy Lost the Elections for Hillary” that instead of jobs and relief, Obama offered only half-measures to folks we call here in Australia “battlers,” in this case especially struggling people in the Rust Belt and beyond, the broad demographic that delivered victory for Trump. “On the economic issues that motivate these voters, Trump had a message: The economic recovery was a mirage, people were hurt by the Democrats’ policies, and they had more pain to look forward to should the Democrats retain control of the White House.”

There was a telling report emanating from Obama’s European visit that gave us an insight into the incumbent president’s preoccupation with Trump and what – in his mind at least – to make of his victory. Quite apart from hinting at something of a personal struggle and coming to terms with it, the president seemed also at pains defending his legacy from an all-out Trump onslaught next year.

Americans chose Donald Trump because of a vague ‘change’ desire President Obama said while on a lame-duck tour of Greece. Americans “don’t always know what they’re looking for.” Obama also stressed that, “History doesn’t move in a straight line…It zigs and zags and sometimes goes forward, sometimes moves back, sideways. I think at times of significant stress, people are gonna be looking for something, and they don’t always know exactly what it is that they’re looking for and they may opt for change, even if they’re not entirely confident what that change will bring.”

Although the irony appeared to escape him when he made these remarks, the first part of Obama’s comments should not be lost on anyone else, given the considerable gap between the amount of vague change he promised and actual change he delivered (or for many, failed or declined to deliver).

In short, this can and does apply to Obama himself. To the extent voters “don’t always know what they’re looking for,” we might now at least argue they are less equivocal about what sort of change they don’t want and aren’t looking for! And the subtext here might have been: Did they know exactly what they were looking for when they voted him into office, twice?

As for Obama’s not unreasonable comments about GOP obstructionism throughout his term of office (a reprehensible tactic on their part that notwithstanding their recent electoral success and now dominance of the Beltway, has come at great and possibly permanent cost to the party’s brand), we might ponder an alternative question for the incumbent: could Obama have “precluded” Trump’s rise or impact by ponying up on a few more of his core promises, spending his political capital more wisely and fairly, more dutifully avoiding the errors of judgment, arrogance and political shenanigans of his much-reviled predecessor, and showing Main Street America in general and America’s “battlers” in particular he was the real McCoy after all, a president truly in their corner and not just another Wall Street political front-man cum errand boy?

We can’t answer that question of course with absolute confidence, suffice it to say the ‘answer’ is destined to become an enticing, enduring counterfactual. But there can be little doubt Trump’s appeal and subsequent success was driven by the lost promise – actual or perceived – of the Obama years, and the president must be acutely aware of this.

In truth Number 44 has no-one else to blame but himself if Trump dismantles all or even part of his legacy. With a backward nod then to the earlier horse-racing motif, the president backed the wrong ‘nag’ – even betting the farm – when in Bernie Sanders he, the DNC and the party faithful had an eminently electable alternative to the “Queen of Chaos.” Given the way the DNC campaign was conducted – their own appalling shenanigans showcased in all their ‘ugly glory’ courtesy of the Podesta email ‘reveals’ – that, we can now safely say, was never going to happen.

In the Paradise of Opportunity (No Fly Zones)

Above and beyond Obama (or for that matter any previous president since Reagan at least), Trump’s win then has also been driven by a widespread, deep-seated lack of faith and trust – accumulated over the past few decades – in the integrity of the democratic system of government and contempt for those who purport to represent their interests. In what must serve as the quintessential master class of prolonged, consistent, truly bi-partisan cooperation American politics has on offer, both parties have contributed enormously over the past three plus decades to the dismantling if not effective destruction of the American Dream in its hitherto real and imagined dimensions.

Whether on broad economic, social, national security, or foreign policy issues, both parties have demonstrated a recidivistic, palpable indifference to the concerns and needs of average working- and middle-class Americans, with both repeatedly showing themselves prone to elitism, corruption, cronyism, manipulation, greed, deception, bribery, hypocrisy, opportunism, self-interest, contempt, cynicism and arrogance.

In the process, democracy’s once ‘proprietary’ domains – equal justice, freedom, human rights, equality of opportunity, civil rights, liberty, and most everything from habeas corpus to the pursuit of happiness – have effectively been declared ‘no-fly-zones’ for ordinary people, accessible only to those increasingly privileged, mostly unelected, and thoroughly unaccountable few. Most significantly, both parties have undermined, possibly irreparably, the sense of pride and place folks had in their once beloved – but now maybe not so – United States of America. Along with that, they have all but conspired to ‘deep-six’ that once famously enduring, optimistic mindset that by some accounts enabled the country to thrive and prosper as a ‘paradise of opportunity’ (or even a reasonable facsimile thereof).

Let’s for the sake of it term that period The Era of Future Promise, or that time in our history – from 1945 to say 1975 – where a whole generation or more of the majority of folks could not only envision a progressively better future for their kids and grandchildren, but anticipated it, and all things equal, if one was willing to strive for such, rightfully expected it.

That is no longer the case for an increasing number of people, and it is this sentiment – one whose seismic impact we have just witnessed – that’s been neglected by both party majors. That this envisioned future is no longer realistic for many comes as a direct result of neoliberalism – the roll-out of which was overseen by both parties – and with it the globalization of economic and financial activity itself culminating from there via “casino capitalism” in the inexorable transfer and consolidation of historically unprecedented wealth, power, and income into the hands of fewer and fewer people – is inarguable.

Now the end of this earlier era might have been heralded by Reagan’s ascension in 1981 and the advent of neoliberalism. But its sustained demise was enthusiastically presided over by Bill Clinton, in cahoots of course with this year’s DNC candidate for president, his wife Hillary, and the then Party establishment. Some folks clearly haven’t forgotten that. In short, there was no clear sign from Clinton that things would be substantially different under her regime than under that of her old man’s administration.

The Democrats will look elsewhere to attribute blame for their loss – it was the FBI’s James Comey and his on-again/off-again investigation of Clinton’s email servers; it was voter suppression and racism; it was Bernie Sanders campaign and misogyny; it was third parties and independent candidates; it was the corporate media for giving Trump the platform, social media for being a bullhorn, and WikiLeaks and/or the Russians for airing the DNC dirty laundry – Naomi Klein had this to say about the result: “But this leaves out the force most responsible for creating the nightmare in which we now find ourselves wide-awake: neoliberalism. That worldview – fully embodied by Hillary Clinton and her machine – is no match for Trump-style extremism. The decision to run one against the other is what sealed our fate. If we learn nothing else, can we please learn from that mistake? Here’s what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatization, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their kids even worse than their precarious present.”

There can be little doubt that fundamental to Trump’s win – and it should be emphasized, no less so than with Sanders’ popularity and success – was a feeling that the trickle-down of the Reagan years did not work for most. This can be seen as the first genuine, appreciable expression of that frustration.

In his entreaties to voters to bring the jobs back for example, Trump promised them something that almost certainly he will struggle to deliver even if he is serious about making it a policy priority, but in doing so he clearly tapped into a rich vein of discontent.

Cleaning out the Stables

Yet this election has exposed a major chink in the armor of the hitherto impregnable, indomitable two-party-system, seen now by more as corrupt, decrepit, and bankrupt. The rise and impact of political outliers such as Trump and Bernie Sanders, largely on opposite ends of the standard political spectrum, is pro-forma evidence grass-roots Americans – especially those not welded to that system and have legitimate grievances about the direction in which the established elite are taking them – are onto something.

That the additional reality this situation is deteriorating even further across almost all strata of the “Main Street” political economy and permeating all aspects of life once synonymous with – and essential to claiming a stake in – the American Dream (even in its more modest imaginings), should be obvious to all but the most politically myopic or deluded.

But whilst the ties that bind Uncle Sam and all he stands for to his long-suffering subjects is strong, it remains to be seen if Trump can do much more than just “drain the swamp.” Indeed, the bigger challenge will be to restore faith in the American Dream. With the former prerequisite task on its own akin to Hercules cleaning out the Augean Stables with a teaspoon and a toothbrush whilst its occupants are still in residence (given this is Washington we’re talking about, this metaphor may work on more than one level), it’s enough to say Trump will have his work cut out on both counts.

With the record firmly in mind, we might define at this point three monumental errors of judgment made by the DNC hierarchy, all of which contributed to the Trump rout: their preferred choice of candidate when they had a highly credible, electorally appealing, and eminently electable alternative in Bernie Sanders; the manner in which it was revealed the Clinton primary campaign was conducted and the revulsion it engendered and damage it caused; and the fact that over the past 30 odd years the Democrats’ brand amongst its most historically important constituencies had lost much of its political allure.

In sum, the Clinton campaign might have been better served by resuscitating that immortal mantra from Bill Clinton’s first White House tilt in 1992 – and here I am not talking about ‘two for the price of one’! I’m thinking here legendary Clinton strategist James Carville’s “It’s the economy, stupid!”

Underpinning all of this was sustained groupthink within the DNC camp, the key state of mind of which can be summed up in one word. Hubris. This “hubris” was in part fueled because it was “Hillary’s turn,” and partly fueled by a conviction someone like Trump could not possibly win. To be fair, this predisposition toward “hubris” is not proprietary to the Democrats; the GOP – many of whom also felt “someone like Trump could not possibly win” – can invariably be relied upon to provide stiff competition with their own unique manifestations when the need arises. Trump’s win is unlikely to temper that.

Where to From Here?

With both political parties increasingly and so obviously beholden to Wall Street and the global corporate oligarchy, the ever widening disparities in income and wealth, and ‘core principle’ democracy now relegated to ‘poor cousin’ status in the political economy then, it is also just as clear many Main Street Americans were pondering an altogether pessimistic outlook for themselves and the next generation if the socio-economic scales continue to weigh in favor of the above power elites and against the interests of the middle and working classes and broader citizenry.

Although there was relatively little discussion in the MSM at least throughout the campaign of specific issues like economic inequality and income and wealth disparities, there can be little doubt Trump tapped into the sentiment that pertains to these matters. As Joe Lauria noted, a “new political force” in America has been unleashed. He added, “Millions of discontented Americans who have lost out to the computerization and the globalization of the economy – and who have been…called on to fight America’s ‘regime change’ wars – have made clear that they aren’t going to take it anymore.”

The way Lauria sees it then, any party or politician going forward ‘better listen or they will be tossed out, too,’ including Donald Trump if he doesn’t deliver the goods.

Jordan Chariton, a political reporter for “The Young Turks” news show, said that despite being a historically weak candidate, Hillary Clinton’s defeat wasn’t just about Hillary Clinton. The Rise of the Forgotten Deplorables has been a work in progress for some time. For him, “Clinton was the final lifeline to a neoliberal bubble built by the Clintons and many others — that finally popped on November 8th, 2016.”

He cites some of the factors that might have had contributed to the disenfranchisement and disillusion: Clinton, not Reagan, ‘pulled’ Glass-Steagall, the cornerstone of banking regulation for 60 years. Clinton, not Reagan, deregulated credit-default swamps (CDS), the ‘financial WMDs’ that sparked the GFC. And it was Clinton, not Reagan, who signed NAFTA, the largest nail in the American middle class’ coffin.

And for those who understood that there is such a thing as a “class war” and viewed globalization and neoliberalism through such a prism – if we recognize it as having been won a long time ago – we might posit the following: Why, when after the vanquished have long since surrendered to distraction, disillusion or outright despondency, are the victors still fighting the war?

Before this election, the short answer we might have suggested is that it’s because they can!

In a piece earlier this year in The Guardian,“Neoliberalism — the Ideology at the Root of all our Problems,” Georges Monbiot places the blame for most of the parlous state of the global political economy on the blowback from neoliberalism.

This social engineering experiment of sorts was anchored by an inviolable economic ideology that arose as a conscious attempt to ‘reshape human life and shift the locus of power,’ a goal few objective observers would argue has long ago been achieved. It became in effect a Weapon of Mass Disenfranchisement, sold on the utterly — and knowingly — fraudulent notion that ‘every child player wins a prize,’ with alluring, though empty enticements of ‘trickle-down effects’ and ‘rising tides.’

Monbiot also dutifully reminds us that neoliberalism’s central tenet proclaims competition as the “defining characteristic” of human relations, while redefining citizens as consumers or customers, whose ‘democratic’ choices are best exercised by ‘buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency.’ Moreover, he warns: “Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced, our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts.”

If the arrival then of Donald Trump doesn’t qualify as a “political crisis” of sorts for America, it will do until the real one gets here. For those who supported him, as to whether he will change the course of their lives (presumably for the better), that remains a big unknown. Expecting that a billionaire businessman — a man who symbolizes everything that is the very antithesis of their own lives — to change said lives appreciably probably is a big ask. Well might we say, ‘good luck with that’!

Throughout the campaign Trump demonstrated his mastery at keeping folks guessing as to what his next move would be, and continues do so in transition mode. It will be of great interest going forward then to see to what extent he continues to do this once he enters the White House, and especially [to see] what the ramifications might be for ordinary Americans in those areas that really matter for them. All of which is to say, we’re in for a few surprises, for better or worse. The Trump ego is legendary of course, and the best we might hope for is that it doesn’t all go to the new president’s head!

Now that would indeed qualify as another turn-up for the books.