Jamila Michener was teaching a class at a maximum security prison on election night. On the contrary to the public expectation that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton would win the White House, all of the prisoners predicted that Republican candidate Donald Trump would definitely win the presidential election.

Michener, an assistant professor of government at Cornell University, and three other political scientists and public policy experts — Shana Gadarian, an associate professor of political science at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs; John Palmer, university professor and dean emeritus at Maxwell; and Robert Erikson, political science professor at Columbia University — shared their reflections on the presidential election result in a panel discussion Friday night.

Held in Maxwell Auditorium, the panel filled the room with more than 200 audience members composed of SU students, faculty, staff and community members. Chancellor Kent Syverud and David Van Slyke, dean of Maxwell, were among those in attendance.

The goal of the panel was for attendees to gain better understanding of the election, future policies and also each other. Each panelist spoke on the podium for five to 10 minutes and then the whole panel answered questions from both the moderator and the audience.

Erikson opened his talk by quoting then-Vice President Richard Nixon’s 1959 address to Commonwealth Club members about the two-party system. Then, Erikson, who specializes in American politics behavior and election, discussed the abnormality of the 2016 election and its unexpected results, or as some called it, the “black swan election.”

He made his case with the extreme polarization in candidates from the far-left, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and the far-right, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). He also mentioned the release of Clinton’s emails oddly close to the Election Day as well as the case of some newspapers’ extremely rare support for one candidate in an election.

Erikson also suggested Trump had opened up “second dimensional politics” in which existed the split between democratic and authoritarian with Trump acting as the authoritarian.

Brexit was another example of second dimensional politics, he said. But he could make no prediction of the future.

Gadarian had a different approach in which she gave out sets of reading selections in order to help better understand this unorthodox election. Gadarian recommended “The American Voter” written by Angus Campbell, Philip Converse, Warren Miller and Donald Stokes in 1960 to understand the importance and enduringness of partisanship in political party and “Democracy for Realists” by Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels to understand social identity. She identifiedworld consciousness as an underestimated identity and how there is a class of people who feel marginalized by elites from both parties.

She also discussed emotional factors such as economic and racial anxiety, enthusiasm and anger, to which Nicholas Valentino, Ted Brader, Eric Groenendyk, Krysha Gregorowicz and Vincent Hutchings address in “Election Night’s Alright for Fighting.”

“Anger is actually the motivator to get people out to vote,” she said.

Michener speculated the implications of a Trump presidency. She covered the effects of potential changes in policies relating to poverty, incarceration and social justice system. For the possible repeal of the Affordable Care Act, she suggested that the nature and access of health care in America would be dependent on geography and may include behavior-oriented requirements for benefits.

More requirements for working would result in shrinking welfare funds, which would be another likely change in policy directed at poor population, she pointed out.

In terms of incarceration, she said Trump’s standing of “law and order” seriously worsens the view of the justice system of marginalized people.

Palmer said he believed there would be substantial changes under Trump’s presidency. The president-elect would reverse “internationalism” practiced by predecessors and inevitably, many of policies under President Barack Obama’s terms involving immigrants and climate change.

Palmer also stressed Trump may be able to pick two judges for the Supreme Court, which would create enormous changes. Trump’s economic policies would likely increase federal deficit and have negative effect on growth in long term, he said.

“How we respond as a civil society is going to be absolutely crucial,” Palmer said.

Asked by Christopher Faricy, the moderator and an assistant professor of political science at Maxwell, about the threat on democracy of a Trump presidency, Gadarian and Michener both agreed that they are more concerned about the civil society than the institution.

Many portions of the population are feeling targeted and scared for their lives, the panelists said. Trump’s depletion of norms is absolutely unprecedented, they said, and so is the induced violence and unsafe feeling. Palmer said how we respond as a civil society was crucial.

Jett Cloud, a freshman political science major who attended the panel discussion, said he thought that after the election of Trump — which is dividing and polarizing America — it is very important to have experts in relevant fields discussing the implications of his presidency.

Even though it may not ease the fear completely, Cloud said, it made people feel better about the future.

Published on November 14, 2016 at 12:10 am

Contact Kai: atnguyen@syr.edu