EU Faculty Hold Post-Election Panel in Wake of Campus Concern

Five Elmhurst professors held a post-election panel to answer questions from students about their concerns in the aftermath of the election results on Nov. 14. The panel included professors from three different education departments: political science, English, and psychology.

Dr. Connie Mixon and Professor Scott Braam from the political science department answered questions while Dr. Mary Walsh facilitated the discussion. Professor Eric Lutz provided a perspective from the English department and Dr. Patrick Nebl from the psychology department.

“We have a culture of anti-politics, not engaging, not wanting to participate,” said Dr. Mixon. “But it’s especially important now to be engaged and pay attention.”

Walsh initially noted that the post-election panel had a larger turn-out than the pre-election panel that was held earlier. Almost all the seats were filled, with onlookers tuning in on couches.

Students showed concern about the Department of Education (DOE), tariffs, the Republican ‘trifecta,’ the rise of conservatism in America, the media, and how the algorithm impacts information. Additionally, it was brought up how Trump’s re-election differed from his first presidency and if his charges would affect his presidency.

The first concern was how Trump plans to dismantle the DOE, with many students relying on FAFSA/other aid and education majors concerned about their futures. Mixon brought up how former president Ronald Regan attempted to abolish the DOE and established an entire commission with a report (a nation at risk) but later found it was against the republican party’s interest.

“It would take a lot to get rid of it, that doesn’t mean it won’t happen,” Mixon said. “The fear is real.”

“Does [Trump] know what that department does? No, I bet not,” said Bramm. “It’s a symbolic but scary gesture.”

Mixon added that Trump cannot eliminate a cabinet-level department without Congress. “Those of you that have heard me rail against the filibuster, maybe it’s not such a bad thing right now,” Mixon said.

The plan to eliminate the DOE was outlined in The Heritage Foundation’s ‘Project 2025’ — a book explaining how to institute as many right-wing ideas as possible circulating for over a year. While Trump has not officially endorsed the book, 140 former Trump staffers contributed to the writing.

Professor Lutz covered both the Democratic and Republican National Convention this summer. At an event run by The Heritage Foundation, the proposal of eliminating the DOE was presented as removing ourselves from federally run public schools and returning the responsibility to the community with the vision of ‘little red school houses’ being the future.

“The question is, does that matter? During Trump’s first term, he of course tried a lot of things, regardless of whether he had the plan fully sketched out,” said Lutz. “A lot of times, there’s this war between what he wants to do and what he can muster up the energy to do.”

A male student asked, “Do you really think that women’s reproductive rights were on the line and are they now in danger now because Trump is president?”

“The answer is yes, but it’s going to be mostly on a state-by-state basis. I think a lot of voters were trying to do a thing where they wanted to have it both ways,” responded Nebl. “In Florida, they voted 57% to protect, and they actually failed because they needed 60%. But you had the majority of Floridians voting to protect a woman’s right to choose, while also that state went seven or eight points towards Trump. So just to kind of add, I think yes, but depending on where you’re at.”

Another question was regarding Harris’ campaign and if she could have done anything different that could have helped her win.

Between losing all the swing states and the popular vote, Nebl explained that not much could have been done to change the outcome.

“There were two and a half macro trends that got us where we were at,” said Nebl. “If we look at Western democracies, there’s this big movement from 2015 on with the rightward anti-immigration movement. That’s one of the factors that fueled Brexit. Even right now, Trudeau in Canada is a very immigrant-friendly country and liberal leader, and he’s having stricter enforcement.”

The second macro trend Nebl referred to was the anti-incumbency sentiment that developed post-COVID. Merriam-Webster defines anti-incumbency as “characterized by or expressing opposition to or disapproval of current political officeholders.” Examples mentioned the Tories’ historic loss to Britain’s Labor Party and how Macron almost lost his position as President of France to the right wing.

According to Nebl, the rise of anti-incumbency is likely due to inflations experienced everywhere, with inflation being the number one predictor of voting out the incumbent party.

Lutz added that Biden’s candidacy for a second term was a “colossal” mistake. Democrat’s campaign depended on how Trump is a threat to democracy, but this message was undermined by nominating someone “so weak” as a candidate.

“Not only did [Biden] stay way too long and have a terrible debate, he was historically unpopular, rightly or wrongly, but he did accomplish quite a bit. Does not mean that he was popular,” said Lutz. “If you have a threat to democracy and you’re warning that that’s the biggest issue on this election, you cannot put him first. You certainly don’t lose to the host of The Apprentice two out of three elections by only making one mistake. ”

Due to how algorithms play into our media and news consumption, we often get isolated in the media we engage with, Bramm pointed out.

Bramm explained that when talking with Republicans or conservative-leaning people, they were unaware of what he spoke about, even if the story was completely factual.

“We’re not talking to each other anymore, I don’t mean that only in a kumbaya kind of way, I mean literally my voice is not reaching people who are not in my sort of echo chamber, and that’s a problem,” said Lutz, who writes for Vanity Fair in addition to teaching at Elmhurst. “It’s a problem for the industry…We need to expect a little bit more of our electorate to read newspapers, to pay attention to things they are uncomfortable about.”

Mixon noted that there needs to be more civic understanding, as two-thirds of Americans can’t name three branches of government. This can lead to people falling victim to disinformation/misinformation when consuming media about the government, especially since an echo chamber typically ignores opposing ideas.

“How is Trump going to run his policies differently to get them into effect compared to 2016? What’s going to change? What is he going to focus on more than he did back in 2016?” asked a student. “Because he’s been president once. He’s seen how that works.”

“In 2016, Donald Trump was known primarily as the host of The Apprentice. I say that jokingly, but he was a tabloid guy. He was a guy who was, yes, rich, but known for being rich in a kind of cartoonish way,” said Lutz. “His entry into politics wasn’t like Mitt Romney, a rich guy who was cut from that, like, ‘I’m going to be president cloth.'”

In 2024, people know who Trump is and what he wants. As the median has shifted to the right, Lutz added there might be less friction when Trump attempts to implement his agenda, as those who were critical of him are not in the Senate or the House anymore.

A concern was raised about the Republican ‘trifecta’ and all the support Trump has; what hope do we have for checks and balances?

“That starts with the states. We have a federal system of government. We have one national government. We have 50 state governments that have a great deal of autonomy,” said Mixon. “We’ve already seen here in Illinois, J.B. Pritzker says you have to go through him, right? So I think that in blue states, there will be resistance.”

Lutz explained how the Republicans had a trifecta in 2017, and Obamacare looked like it was about to perish. However, one senator, John McCain, voted against abolishing the ACA because he didn’t like the idea of the ‘Skinny Review,’ which was repealing it without a plan.

A student mentioned the presence of populism throughout the election, given both parties were running under a subset of populism, and wondered how it would change in this upcoming election and onward.

Populism is defined by Merriam-Webster as a political philosophy or movement that represents or is claimed to represent the interests of ordinary people against the Establishment.

Nebl believes this country has a strong appetite for economic populism, with examples such as minimum wage increases winning in every state, medicare being relatively popular among Republicans and child-tax credit. Republicans have gone about it through immigration-based populism, essentially pivoting the blame to immigrants rather than the Establishment.

“[Trump’s] populism has to do with more othering and less of the economy,” said Bramm. “If you have Elon Musk as your main running person, you’re not playing with populism on the economic side.”

In the aftermath of this election, there is a lot to unpack, and while things may get quite grim, there is always hope.

“We don’t live in a vacuum. Things will happen. His policies will have ramifications, consequences. We’ll see them,” said Bramm. “There will be a time to vote against that, to organize against that. So there is always hope. Because we live in reality. Things will happen. And they won’t be good things. And people will push back. I hope. I will.”