Ever heard of “The Bradley Effect”? This effect was named after Tom Bradley, who served as mayor of Los Angeles for 20 years from 1973 to 1993. In 1982, this highly popular mayor ran to become the governor of California against his Republican opponent, George Deukmejian. From the day he announced his candidacy, he jumped to the top of the polls and remained solidly in the lead until election day. However, when all the votes were counted, Bradley had lost the race. Pollsters were stunned and immediately began researching why they had called this race so wrong. What the pollsters had missed was that many of the people they polled did not tell them the truth. Tom Bradley was black and his opponent was white. While many of those polled indicated they were voting for Bradley –so as to not be labelled as racist – when they got in the voting booth, they selected the white candidate. Thus was coined the term “The Bradley Effect.”
I mention this issue, because I’m beginning to wonder if a similar situation is developing in the U.S. presidential election. As we all know, Donald Trump ran roughshod over all other Republican candidates in the GOP primaries, scoring huge victory after huge victory. The voters who came out to support Trump, and there were millions of them, were angry, angry about the direction of America. Trump appeared just as angry, himself. Now the election has moved into the general population and this voter anger we saw earlier this spring appears to have faded away. But I suspect it has not. Rather, I’m beginning to wonder if a lot of voters are reenacting their own “Bradley Effect.” Coming out and openly supporting Donald Trump quickly earns the voter a heap of scorn and criticism. Like the Californians who said one thing, but did the opposite, I suspect many current voters may be engaged in the same activity.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I highly doubt that Donald Trump is the correct answer to America’s problems, but I’m also starting to think that he may have introduced us to the correct problem. Over the last 40 years, America has followed a consistent path. It hasn’t mattered whether the White House was occupied by a Democrat or a Republican, the overall direction has remained the same. That direction has included on-going investments in the military, expansion of trade agreements with countless nations, steadily increasing levels of regulation, constant expansion of social “safety nets,” and, perhaps most importantly, enormous debt-fuelled financing. Even the most basic economics course will discuss deficit financing – and suggest that deficits should be run during poor economic times, then replaced with surpluses during economic expansion. That’s the theory, but the U.S. has run huge deficits in good times or bad. And the problem is worse than it appears. While Trump talks about the $19 trillion federal deficit, he fails to mention deficits building in public service pensions, pensions for politicians, looming deficits in the social security system, and rapidly growing deficits amongst numerous U.S. federal government agencies. The true debt of the U.S. is likely closer to $30 trillion.
As Trump has correctly pointed out, these deficits are occurring while America’s infrastructure is also falling apart. There are no funds available to repair this infrastructure. Finally, assuming Hillary Clinton is the winner, she also faces the impossibility of paying for all the promises she has made in her campaign.
Thirty-six years ago, Jimmy Carter said “It’s midnight in America.” While his timing might have been a little early, I fear that Carter might have been correct, after all.
Brian McLeod is a St. Albert resident.
