USA expert on Trump's intentions "A complete reorganization of the state is hardly possible"

USA expert Claudia Brühwiler talks about the surprising result of the election, the weaknesses of the polls, the lack of profile of Kamala Harris, Donald Trump's intentions and ways to slow him down.

About the person

Gemeinfrei

SRF calls Claudia Franziska Brühwiler "one of Switzerland's most distinguished experts on the USA": the professor studied political science at the University of St. Gallen and has been working at her alma mater as a lecturer in American studies since August 2022. She recently published the book "Out of a Gray Fog: Ayn Rand's Europe".

Before this election day, it looked like a close race: Are you surprised that Trump is now so clearly ahead in both the states and the popular vote?

We actually always knew that it could be clear in the end, because all the polls were within the margin of error and that meant that it was quite possible that it would be clear in the end - for example, that one of the candidates or the female candidate would clear all the swing states, which was possible despite the tight starting position of the polls.

But?

What is surprising now - and this has surprised all the American media, who are following everything extremely closely, and all the commentators - is how quickly it was clear. With Pennsylvania in particular, we assumed that we would have to be patient, that there would be a recount and so on. But now the results are so clear that we have to ask ourselves again: What was missed in the run-up?

Do we now have another unreported case in which poll participants were afraid to admit that they were voting for Trump?

We can only really see that later in the aftermath - especially when we look at who voted for him. One of the major shortcomings of many polling institutes and large surveys is who they reach in the first place. There is a tendency to reach conservatives less well because they often simply refuse to take part. But minorities and younger voters are also more difficult to reach.

How can this be compensated for?

People have now started to switch to web-based surveys to compensate for the fact that not everyone has a landline anymore, for example. That used to be the way to conduct surveys. But it remains to be seen exactly where the problem lies. And it will be particularly interesting to see who Kamala Harris has lost among those voters who helped Joe Biden to victory in 2020.

How was Trump able to convince so many voters and what, on the other hand, slowed Kamala Harris down?

As I said, we won't have part of the answer until we see who voted and how. But what has become clear is that voters had one major concern in this election. The exit polls have also confirmed this, and that is the economic situation. Of course, this is then automatically blamed on the ruling administration. And Kamala Harris is part of this ruling administration.

Hasn't she distanced herself from Joe Biden?

Whenever she spoke of a new beginning and a new start, voters naturally had to say to themselves: "You're already part of what is - what exactly is this change supposed to mean?" Especially when the candidate also says that she has done nothing differently from her boss. The other thing is: Kamala Harris has become intangible for many Americans. This seems somewhat paradoxical to us, given how much media attention she has received and how present these elections are - on both sides.

So she lacks a profile?

In fact, many Americans have not really been able to develop a sense of how she differs from Joe Biden and what her personal vision is. So you have to ask yourself: Was it the time? After all, it was a very short election campaign by necessity. Or was it the type of messaging and media she used?

Do you think that many men had a problem with electing a woman to the highest office?

The accusation of sexism was of course quickly made, but as I said, we first have to look at who voted how. We will probably be able to determine the gender gap, but we also had it with Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. So we can see that women with a university degree in particular vote differently to other voters. But until we have the figures, we shouldn't jump to such conclusions.

But on paper, the US economy isn't actually doing so badly: why was Harris still unable to score points here?

The fact is that the overall economic situation is excellent: we have low unemployment, we have growth and wages have also risen again. But this time the motto is not "It's the economy, stupid" as it was with Bill Clinton, but - as one commentator put it - "It's the inflation, stupid". That is what is bothering Americans, that the basket of goods is simply still so much more expensive.

Is that really the case?

Eggs, for example, cost three times as much as they did three years ago, and when you then hear that yes, there have been wage increases, you have to say: on the one hand, they haven't been given to everyone and, on the other hand, people don't see wage increases as compensation for inflation, but assume that they have done something in return. People now compare prices with the prices they paid before. And it is precisely those who have not yet experienced a pay rise who are under great pressure. The other issue is housing, which has become scarcer and more difficult to afford, especially in growth regions.

It looks as if the Republicans will also take over the Senate, which approves appointments to high offices: Will Trump reshape the state between now and the midterm elections in two years?

This is a spectre that the Democrats have also repeatedly conjured up: It's hard to completely rebuild the state. What we do know is that new appointments are to be made in the federal administration. Efforts have been made to recruit many new recruits who can join the federal administration. They will also be better prepared to fill the more senior positions. This was still a big mess in 2016, when there was actually no personnel list at all at the beginning of Trump's term of office.

Is the big change coming now?

As far as the closure of ministries is concerned, for example, the last word has probably not yet been spoken. Especially as Donald Trump had distanced himself strongly from Project 2025 and is now taking great care to ensure that no one associated with this program is on his transition team.

What about the Supreme Court?

The Senate will make it possible for two somewhat aging justices to retire after all. One would be Samuel Alito, the other is the longest-serving and oldest judge, Clarence Thomas. They would probably be replaced by younger judges, who would then consolidate the conservative majority in the Supreme Court for several years to come.

If Trump doesn't last four years, his deputy J.D. Vance would take over: Where do you rank him?

J. D. Vance belongs to a movement that calls itself post-liberal. He is also close to the national conservative movement. In other words, he pursues a very traditionalist family policy, which he wants to emphasize. He repeatedly emphasizes how important healthy families and opportunities for families are for the future of America. He is also pursuing a protectionist course with regard to economic policy. And he is isolationist by conviction. That is a difference to Trump, who has no political convictions in this sense, but rather instincts.

What options do the Democrats now have to control the policies of the Republicans and Trump?

We have to wait and see how the elections for the House of Representatives turn out. The chances of the Democrats gaining a majority are still intact. The other thing is that there is no factionalism in American parties - and we have seen how chaotic the situation was with the Republicans when it came to appointing a new speaker for the House of Representatives. We should not assume that a disciplined party will suddenly simply follow Trump.

Are there institutional brakes?

The senators and representatives are primarily committed to their own re-election and less to Donald Trump. Of course, you also have to bear in mind that America is a federalist state, and Democrats are at the helm in many states. That is always a counterbalance. Checks and balances are not simply reduced to the federal level, but are propagated at the level of the individual states.

Universal tariffs, less NATO involvement and an end to the war in Ukraine: do you expect Donald Trump to keep his election promises?

We look back at 2016 and see that the wall to Mexico is not in place, that the USA is still in NATO and that the economic policy was ultimately much more Republican and traditionalist than promised. We should therefore not take him literally, but we must take him seriously.