AS a continuation of the discussion on race-based politics I want to pivot internationally. I think one of the narratives being missed is that the Trump administration, while certainly facing many allegations of racism, depends most critically on an issue-based politics to succeed. Strangely, that administration represents one that doesn’t shy away from racist allegations, but I think does so as a way to deflect attention from its true policy intentions.
I know that claiming the Trump administration focuses most heavily on issues, rather than race is controversial, but I think just as we must look into our colonial history to resolve racial divisions, we cannot ignore the subtleties of our northern neighbours’ politics. To that end, understanding how an emphasis on race deflects attention from the true nature of politics is key, if Guyanese politics is to be accurately appreciated.

Those who claim the Trump administration swept to victory on a race-based platform forget that what swept Trump to victory was not allegedly race-based politics in southern states such as Florida, but vast support among Democrats in the North of the country. Race helped, for sure, but the election was not a close one in terms of the number of electoral college votes, so there must have been other factors. Trump consistently defeated Hilary Clinton in Democratic strongholds across the states whose citizens were historically manufacturing-based, and who had voted for former President Obama.

At its core, his victory was built on straightforward economic issues such as jobs, wages and international trade that were what those people cared dearly about. True to this message, earlier this year wages meaningfully rose in the United States for the first time in decades and aggressive trade negotiations with China have begun. Meanwhile, his opponents continue to talk about race, amongst other barely relevant issues. In the south, one could certainly argue that race is the dominant factor, but using race as a blanket explanation is insufficient in the US and insufficient in Guyana.

Jobs, wages, economic growth — these things enduringly influence elections. I’ll make an even more controversial claim: part of Trump’s strategy is to steer the conversation toward race so that race-based groups in the Democratic coalition become polarised and therefore isolate themselves. He wanted his opponents to talk about how racist he is, rather than how they’re going to improve the standard of living of those often at risk in their communities. This is a classic example of focusing on race and therefore completely missing the point of an election.

What is going on with US politics is not as cut and dry as race versus issues, with either side alleging the other is racist. Rather, race forms an integral part of a section of each coalition, Trump’s base of more rural voters being arguably more race-focused. As an angry reaction to this, which is quite justified, opposing coalitions of Latino and black voters turned up at the polls, Latino voters in particular were instrumental to Democratic strength in the west. But these race-based coalitions were never really going to be enough to win an election on their own, were they?

I think somehow the Democrats fell into a pattern of countering perceived Trump-based racism not with a relentless focus on economic issues, but rather their own form of counter-racism. And while standing up against racism is important, I can’t forget Trump’s chief strategist saying he was perfectly happy with Democrats focusing on race, because it freed Trump up to focus himself on economic issues. As a result, potential for significant losses in Democratic strongholds slid by unnoticed and Hilary Clinton didn’t even visit two of the key states she lost, Wisconsin and Michigan.

I say all this to say that race is often a tool used to mobilise populations but that it also is seldom able to win over a majority with any kind of consistency. Being on the right side of issues is more important over the long run and these are the types of debates we want to continuously hear our politicians trumpet. In a way, I think what happened in the US and can happen locally is that politicians don’t take a step back and really listen. The issues they debate shouldn’t just be what they think is important, but what their people think important. Something as simple as saying: “I hear you” can go a long way.

I know many of us are mortified of race-based politics, and this fear will only grow with coming oil revenues and the resulting hotly contested elections. But we didn’t start out a deeply racist people — politics made it so. As a result, I can’t help but believe politics can undo these fractures. To that end, I wonder if local politicians have made an effort to reach out and really listen to the opposing groups. Putting race-based notions aside, ask your constituents why they feel the way they do. That will yield where the cracks really are, and help the healing process to begin.