As everyone not living under a rock (or in some 90% of the United States of America) already knows, India recently completed the largest national election in human history (Mera Bharat Mahaan, i.e. some people really need to use birth control!). The Modi Sarkar has begun and been in action for the past week.

One of the few amusing elements of Narendra Modi’s victory is the resultant rapid backpedalling by a large number of people from previously stated opinions regarding him, the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, etc. This is not only true in India, with some individuals and groups that had characterised his impending victory as geeks tend to view the day George Lucas released the first Star Wars prequel (what Wagner called Götterdämmerung, if you prefer) now rushing to express their support for him and his government. Even the US government, which famously denied Modi a visa in 2005 (arguing that his actions had damaged religious freedom), hurried to congratulate him, with first President Obama and then Secretary of State John Kerry inviting him to visit the US.

More than the Democratic government, however, the US political party that should really be inviting Modi over to pick his brain are the Republicans, who tried – and failed – in 2012 to do precisely what he has so effectively achieved. Modi managed to replace an existing government with a Conservative party that has strong right-wing leanings and a love for chest-thumping nationalism, as well as a history of acting against minority interests. In fact, considering the disarray of the Republican leadership and their fears of being trodden on by the Return of Clintonzilla in 2016, it is slightly surprising that none of them have considered transporting Modi to the US, painting him white and making him their candidate. Or maybe they have! Conspiracy theory?

Of course, Modi would find it much harder to pull off something similar in the US. The Republicans lost heavily in 2012. Although admittedly Romney’s performance against Obama compares to the Congress/UPA against Modi, or the way the Mahabharata compares to Amish Tripathi’s works. This despite the Republican platform being quite similar to Modi’s, with an emphasis on reform of a faltering economy and backing a candidate who relied heavily on the claim of revitalising a state economy as its governor.

The fact that Romney and the Republicans fell flat on their collective faces is not to suggest that American voters are, for lack of a more precise word, less stupid than the Indian electorate when it comes to such issues. Idiocy, after all, is perhaps the most fundamental of human traits, especially when one puts large numbers of people together (a substantial flaw of democracy in practice). And, considering recent movements in the US, especially in the area of education, it is certainly making an effort to be as pre-eminent in this area as it seems to believe it is in others.

Some of the elements that nobbled the Republicans were their inability to conceal a disinterest in catering to the US’ growing minority population and the Democrats’ successful emphasis on the Republican War on Women (Romney’s lovely “binders full of women” certainly helped) – but it eventually came down to the Opposition. Modi had the election handed to him by the actions of an incompetent and corrupt Opposition, headed by an individual akin to the male equivalent of Sarah Palin (especially in interviews). Romney, on the other hand, faced a savvy opponent who is a very persuasive orator (and I say this as someone who – while supporting Obama in 2008 and 2012 – thinks he is an overrated speaker and has generally been disappointed by his performance). Romney certainly tried the “anything but Obama” approach, just as Modi used the “anything but Congress” to good effect. It is an approach that sometimes works, as Obama himself can vouch for, being the proud recipient of the world’s first – and hopefully last -Nobel Peace “congratulations for not being George Bush!” Prize. But sometimes it doesn’t.

However, while the Republicans are not going to be lucky enough to run against the UPA and RaGa (whom Hilary could, I’m reasonably certain, kill with her pinky), what they will likely do come 2016 is to try and nail the tried and true right-wing formula that Modi used: an emphasis on economy and nationalism at the absence of all other issues. I hope that the aforementioned elements and others will cause them to crash and burn again, and not just because I look forward to seeing the brains of all the overt and closet misogynists in the US and beyond (many of which exist outside the Republican party too) melt into goo at having to deal with the most powerful person in the world being female.

So, if you haven’t worked out what my position is vis-à-vis Modi and the Republicans, then … well, first, Jeff Foxworthy says, “Here’s your stupid sign!”…let me spell it out. But, before doing so, let me point out that I despise the Congress/UPA and think the Democrats are pretty damn sucky too. It is just that when I have to choose between a right-wing party (emphasising economy and nationalism) and something else, I will pick something else virtually always – even if that something is a party rife with incompetence/corruption.

The reasons for the above are manifold. Consider the economic issue, for example. It is unsurprising that right-wing governments tend to come to power at moments of financial crises. Frankly, people are selfish. While many pay lip service to concerns for fellow citizens and the underprivileged and so on, such issues pale before their concerns for their own situation and wealth. Ask people if they would willingly earn less next year, live in a worse house/apartment/room, pay higher taxes or simply pay more for potatoes – if it meant that the vast majority of their fellow citizens would live better lives. I greatly doubt that most would honestly say, “Yes, I am fine with that”. So, when a group or individual indicates to them that they might actually be richer, people jump for it.

One could argue, of course, that it takes significant financial and material privilege to be able to say, “Yes – I would rather that the economy materially benefited me less if it helped others that need it”. It is easier for me to say so because I am well off. But many positions that are difficult to adopt are also worthwhile (such as the Congress of the Elephant in Kamasutra, a key part of our culture that I look forward to Smriti Irani including in the revamped syllabi of the future). For me, improving the economy is not inherently a positive – since it is a means to an end. It is only positive when such improvement also serves to improve the lives of the majority (I’d like to say all, but … yeah, right) of a nation’s citizens. And (largely because Indian parties contest elections without presenting any detailed economic plan) there is no sign whatsoever that the “improved development” claim presented by NaMo, even if it came to fruition, would actually aid the poor and dispossessed in India. Frankly, if the 21st century – in India, the US and elsewhere – has taught us something, it is that trickle-down approaches to improving the economy at/from the top never aid those at or below the middle class. (And that the Sicilian was right: You never start a land war in Asia.) I’m waiting for a party that genuinely considers a bottom-up approach to the Indian economy – that would be refreshing and likely have further-reaching effects on the nation. But gesturing at an improved top-down approach (and implying to the voters that they will benefit) certainly serves to sell (pun intended) the idea of economic reform – and so Modi did.

Admittedly, beyond the economy, the primary reason I hesitate to support any right-wing party is the emphasis on nationalism and the results of such emphasis. An emphasis on the nation seems, initially, a good thing. But in practice (and we have seen this with the Republicans and, prior to the elections, the BJP), nationalism inevitably differentiates the “true” members of the nation and those who are not – categories that invariably align with those who support the party and those who do not. This is why right-wing groups appear stronger and more cohesive (no, I am not using these terms as positives here) than others – because they are adept at using the “Us versus Them” model. Hence, again, why they are more successful at moments of crisis and general unhappiness, since these are moments when people are particularly prone to being persuaded that “someone out there” is the source of their problems, and that expelling/defeating such group(s) will solve everything. Socialists, the overly liberal and secular, the West, illegal immigrants, those with wrong values, etc. (no, I will not use the “J…” word and Godwin myself) – they’re not on “our” side and if we expel them, acche din aayenge.

It’s a really good spiel! And it inevitably seeks to eradicate dissent and opposition (because if you oppose it then you are clearly one of “them”), working against the very basis of a democracy. We’ve already seen comments, not primarily by Modi but certainly by his fellow politicians and followers, expressing such ideas during the campaign, and now that they have won, are already seeing more, with accompanying actions. It was, of course, inevitable, since the victory is seen as a mandate for such behavior. And that, more than anything else, is why I think it’s a pity the BJP won and hope the Republicans lose next time around too.

In conclusion, let me note that I really, really hope that I am completely wrong about Modi. I hope that I totally have to eat crow over the next five years and end up saying, “I was wrong. Modi has been very beneficial to India and has done so without decreasing freedom, harming minorities and problematically increasing patriotic fervor. I was so wrong”. We shall see…

Also, I promised myself that I would get through this article without mentioning the 2002 riots and Hindutva—which I did. (Yes, until now. Shut up.) Go me.