Maybe it’s not the economy, stupid

OPINION:

More than 30 years ago, James Carville, then adviser to the presidential campaign of Bill Clinton, while trying to focus that campaign on the most critical issue of the era, coined a phrase that continues to echo today: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Mr. Carville’s exclamation proposing that political campaigns must focus primarily if not exclusively on economic issues has been taken as gospel for more than a generation, unquestioned and endlessly repeated. Yet today, we must question Mr. Carville’s adage.

President-elect Donald Trump’s resounding victory suggests that maybe it is not the economy after all. Suggesting this does not mean that the economy does not play a significant role in elections in the United States nor that it did not play a role in the recent election. Still, it does suggest that the economy may not always be American voters’ sole or most important consideration.

As Democrats have been insisting, the economy has actually been demonstrating a great deal of resilience. Inflation has decreased significantly, unemployment is relatively low and the stock market is booming. Compared with virtually all other major Western economies, ours is both in a better state and indicates a strength and vibrancy to be envied. Thus, viewed from that vantage point, despite high prices, if the economy really dominates in the mind of most of the electorate, Vice President Kamala Harris should have had a relatively easy time being elected.

Perhaps, however, the economy, at least when it is not teetering or in recession, may not always be at the top of Americans’ minds. It is a concern when food staples are too expensive at the grocery store. There is anxiety when income does not appear to have kept up with inflation. Those concerns, however, may pale beside some other issues that affect us.

This postelection analysis has reminded me of discussions I and other students at the University of Chicago would sometimes have with the great economist Milton Friedman. Friedman was always ready for a conversation in which he would brilliantly defend his view that economics is the dominant motivation in all humans. Not only was his belief in the rationality of the free market his overwhelming principle, it sometimes appeared to be his only underlying belief.

Religion, sex, nationalism, family loyalty — none of these powerful forces were as significant to Friedman as market forces. I could never convince him that his singular focus might be misdirected. As an undergraduate, my feeble efforts to contradict Friedman invariably failed. He won every argument, hands down.

In light of Mr. Trump’s recent victory, however, I might have a chance to prevail in a debate with Friedman. Unfortunately, since he is no longer with us, I cannot put this proposition to the test. But I think Mr. Trump’s triumph sends a signal that economics may not always be the overwhelming force in decision-making. The voters may have just sent that message.

So, what may have moved into the first position as a motivator of the American electorate?

I am increasingly convinced that the forces steadily undermining our traditional values have surged into a position of greater concern to a majority of Americans. The increasing erosion of values that prior generations not only considered foundational but even took for granted has been gnawing at the body politic and may have finally reached a point where many people have had enough.

An obsession with matters of gender and sex, a rejection of conventional concepts of justice, the denigration of traditional religion and an undermining of the role of family and parenting seem to have finally become untenable.

While Americans want everyone to have a fair shot at the American dream, they don’t want anyone to put their thumbs on the scale to tip that scale in favor of any specific group. Americans have an innate notion of justice. Criminals need to be punished, and victims need to be supported, as religions have always emphasized. The nuclear family remains the keystone of our society and the best assurance of success. Consequently, whether consciously or subconsciously, these cultural issues seem to have rapidly advanced to the top of the agenda of many voters.

The logic that appears to have propelled Mr. Trump to victory is that while the economy and its impact on our pocketbooks are important, they could be less important when considered in the context of the prospect of a steady destruction of fundamental values. This may be what has just happened.

The “woke” philosophy that has steadily seeped into every aspect of our society over the last decade has become unacceptable. For a while, it seemed like a kind of joke. As it settled in more firmly, it became an irritant. Finally, its presence in all parts of our national life, from our government to the military to our schools and businesses, made it an offense against rationality and even decency.

At that point, Mr. Trump began to appear as a bulwark against irrationality. Even the president-elect’s antics began to seem far more normal than the eccentricities of radical progressives. Pocketbook issues may have taken a back seat to a recalibration of our national values.

While the state of the economy remains important in electoral politics, it is those who would undermine or disregard America’s long-cherished traditions who may end up being labeled “stupid.” Relying on the good sense of the American people seems far smarter.

• Gerard Leval& is a partner in the Washington office of a national law firm. He is the author of “Lobbying for Equality: Jacques Godard and the Struggle for Jewish Civil Rights During the French Revolution,” published by HUC Press.