The one-word explanation for the presidential landslide

By now I think I have heard all the explanations.

Yet the Trump landslide surely deserves the inclusion of the solitary one word answer that somehow escapes legitimacy in our contemporary society.

So far the most common response to the totally unexpected landslide victory of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States invariably centered around variations on the word incredible or unbelievable. This simply couldn’t have happened. The media was unanimous, both in its support of the Democratic candidate as well as its prophetic assurance that Kamala Harris’ victory was certain. Towards the end, as election day drew near, the polls, which continued to speak with oracular assurance, was at the most willing to concede the possibility for “a very close race”. Still, the ultimate end was never questioned.

The most famous pollsters as well as the unquestioned political authorities, the ostensible “best and the brightest” of journalism renown and of radio and TV fame, the George Clooneys of Hollywood prominence whose enthusiastic endorsements brought with them the assured backing of their millions of followers – all of them were the obvious kingmakers of national leadership.

The opposition candidate for president was hounded and harassed, the object of indescribable legal lawfare, his followers often afraid to admit their political leanings.

And yet the result — a totally unexpected “national referendum.”

The attempts to explain how — and why — this could’ve happened are so varied and so numerous they almost cancel each other out. And so, as the story continues to amaze and astonish, the media begins to use a word which unaccountably makes room for the irrational. When reason fails perhaps it is even possible to use the word miracle!

A miracle allows us to make mental room for results which transcend simple rational cause and effect sequence. And as we try to analyze a world altering and extremely unexpected event there needs to be room for the presence of two highly unexpected assassination attempts. Neither one should have failed. The first failed to allow a bullet to murder a highly exposed presidential candidate by minor millimeters.

I ask a simple question: is there no time when someone far removed from a spiritually influenced view of history might not be moved to wonder whether God does not decide to intervene in the course of world changing events?

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks once powerfully suggested that the very word history has profound meaning as an indicator of divine providence. History can also be understood as “His story”. Yehudah Halevy, in his classic work The Kuzari, gives us a profound answer as to why God identifies himself in the first commandment as “I am the Lord your God who took you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage” rather than choosing to define his greatness by way of being the creator of the heavens and the earth: Emphasizing God as Creator would have ignored his far more relevant role as author of the human drama of history.

I find it fascinating that we almost never hesitate to emphasize that our belief in God echoes our faith in his involvement with our lives. “God runs the world” is not merely an idiomatic expression of the pious. It is a summation of faith in a higher power. “God bless America” is our national anthem.

Would it really be out of place for at least a small portion of the American populace trying to come to grips with an event of international import to give the one word answer to the mystery of how this could’ve happened: The spiritual response is correct — it must have been “God!”?