Less than a week ago, President-Elect Donald Trump announced his pick for his Chief Strategist: Steve Bannon, former head of alt-right outlet Breitbart News.
The news came as a bit of a shock to many Americans - Bannon's Breitbart has been known for publishing articles with serious undertones of sexism, racism, and anti-Semitism. In many cases, the stories have been all but subtle in their discriminatory and hateful language.
The DNC's reaction, naturally, was to call Trump out for appointing a bigot to a high ranking cabinet position. The RNC has stood by the President-elect's decision, yet this has become more of an indefensible stance to assume following the vocal celebration of Bannon's appointment by the Ku Klux Klan, American Nazi Party, and other white nationalist groups.
How did we get to this point? Obviously, President-elect Trump was able to effectively campaign in a way that netted him the necessary amount of electoral votes. Beyond that, however, how did America elect a candidate that mobilized voters through hate?
The answer may be more mundane than one might expect: party loyalty, and mixed policy priorities.
Trump's path to victory is largely in part due to his populist appeal - the market of working class white voters he once shared with Bernie Sanders stayed relatively untapped by the Clinton Campaign. This, coupled with the contrast between Trump's energizing campaign and Clinton's unexciting, incredibly conventional tactics, led to that demographic swinging in Trump's direction in critical states like Michigan and Pennsylvania.
There's also voter turnout and party member turnout to consider. Voter turnout in this election was at its lowest in over a decade, and as many know, Republicans win when turnout is low. With an energized base of Trump supporters and an unexcited Democratic electorate, blue voters from many states decided to stay at home.
In the wake of this election, many have stood up to protest the new President-elect, and rightfully so. It's a serious cause for concern when the nation's voting populace elects a candidate who ran on infringing upon the rights of women, LGBTQ persons, racial minorities, and religious minorities. One who disrespected the family of a fallen Gold Star veteran, who openly bragged on a hot mic about using his celebrity to commit sexual assault.
So why did traditional Republicans, the Jeb Bush and John Kasich voters of the world, come home to roost for Donald Trump? Considering how the white working class vote was the demographic that pundits are beginning to agree upon as the influential bloc of voters, it may come down simply to identity politics. The group of voters who Trump's policies will affect (the wall, mass deportations, a national registry of Muslim citizens, and heavy restrictions on women's reproductive rights, to name a few) are not the same voters as those who unexpectedly swung for him with such force.
In this respect, it is important to note that this observation is not to paint those who voted for President-elect Trump as overtly racist, sexist, homophobic, or bigoted. Many voted for Donald Trump for trade policies, for his tax plan, and for a multitude of other reasons. However, this does not detract from the fact that those who cast ballots for Trump were okay with the hatred and bigotry.
To vote for Trump because he brings the promise of jobs is also to express your indifference to the oppression of minority groups. Voters cannot pick and choose the parts of candidates that they elect - they must be comfortable with the whole package. With this in mind, it has become clear that a large portion of American voters have willingly chosen the man who openly disrespects women, who discriminates based on race and religion, who mocks those who are disabled, or who have made incredible sacrifices.
The voters who have chosen him can try to claim indifference, but those who remain neutral in situations of injustice have chosen the side of the oppressor.
