Donald Trump is first and foremost his own mouthpiece, his own champion, his own chronicler. He owns his narrative from start to end. So, when he characterized his victory in the 2024 US elections as an “unprecedented historic comeback,” the phrase became the byword for all characterizations of his political performance by almost everyone.
It also revealed to us the stunning surprise the results were for everyone, including the Republicans. In the run-up to the elections, everyone had predicted a close race. One Indian outlet termed it “Kaante ki Takkar (An evenly balanced confrontation),” in keeping with the predictions in the US media.
Yet, this supposed close race ended up being anything but close. As one witnessed, Trump overran the so-called “battle-ground” states. Not just that, he even seems to have made inroads into the sentiments of what have been traditionally Democratic strongholds – Rhode Island, Chicago, and hold your breath, New York City!
No one will deny that the fairly comprehensive victory of Donald Trump has been an unlikely comeback. At one point, when Donald Trump announced his bid to run for 2024 elections, there were not too many backers and believers. In the following months, Trump overcame the Republican primaries against some formidable challengers to emerge as the Republican candidate. All along he also had the shadow of legal cases against him, mainly for his involvement in the Jan 6, 2020 storming of the US Congress. That event was seen as almost sacrilegious by all Americans, Republicans and Democrats. He alternated much of his campaign on the trail and in the courtroom.
He seemed doomed politically as the accusations against him were upheld by court and he was declared a felon. Most so-called progressive media outlets in the US hammered him for his indictment and by extension, his criminal character. He was further labeled a “fascist,” by the Harris campaign.
On the other hand, in her whistle-stop-tour campaign, Kamala Harris was seen as revitalizing the Democratic effort, which had become almost comatose under Biden; especially so after the Biden-Trump debate. She quickly seemed to rally the troops and re-energize a camp that seemed to have lacked direction – and a leader. She raised big money in short time and seemed to be a real challenger to Trump. She was a smart woman of color, relatively young at 60 compared to Trump’s rather advanced state at 78. She had experience as a state Attorney General, and of course as the serving Vice President. She did not shoot her mouth, was urbane and composed, and did not make or encourage outrageous statements regarding minorities. She had political credentials and personal ones to boot.
Harris’ case was also buttressed by a strong economy, so it seemed.
Yet, none of that personal composure and probity of Harris and the background of a robust economy seemed to matter as Trump blew past her, in battleground state after state.
What followed in the Democratic and progressive camp was a hushed silence of utter disbelief – and horror. Thanos had won, gathering all the Infinity Gems to himself.
Understandably, there have been a flurry of responses and analyses on what caused this state of affairs, especially where Trump was able to sweep the battleground states, with almost no semblance of a fight from the Harris campaign.
It was not that there were no signs that the Harris campaign had weak spots. Certainly, among some populations, the Arab-American for example, there was anger over the continued US support for Israel. This probably spilled over into most of the pro-Palestine student population too which was eligible to vote. On the issue of border controls and immigration, the Democrats had been seen to be weak-willed and wavering. Harris, with her role of being in-charge of border checks, had been targeted by the Republicans and the media for failing in her task.
Still, no one thought that factors like these would prove to be major road-blocks and cause Harris to be…well…trumped handily.
But, they do seem to be among the several reasons that combined to give Trump the mandate.
Inflation and Immigration
A common conclusion doing the rounds in the US media is that the Democratic Party’s campaign overlooked the acuteness of two areas which mattered to most people – Inflation and Immigration.
Suddenly, the people in the know, economists included, are having to explain the difference between the economy – and one of its aspects, inflation. So, while the US economy was doing well according to economists and strategists, and there were even claims that inflation was down (gas prices were down, for example), the latter fact was not perceived by much of the electorate.
Hence, the complaints of high prices were being expressed for months before the elections, but apparently they fell on deaf ears on the Democratic side. The Economy was flagged to be uppermost on voter’s minds in poll after poll.
Yet, bread-and-butter-and-eggs issues seemed to have prevailed over the narrative of a spectacular Wall St. performance and a generally solid economy. The key points here are real prices – and maybe a comparative view with better times in the recent past, especially under Donald Trump as President. So, when voters complained about inflation, they were expressing a slew of dissatisfactions. As one piece put it, “Inflation, in particular, acts as a cipher for a much wider range of perceptions, not only of immediate hardship but of unfairness and powerlessness.”
It is not as though Harris did not acknowledge the pressures of higher prices. “Our biggest challenge is to lower costs — costs that were rising even before the pandemic, and that are still too high,” she is reported to have said in a speech in Washington before the elections.
But it seems Trump’s messaging on these issues was more pointed – and trusted more by people who also factored in his business experience as well.
It seems that there is a strong memory of government assistance during the Covid-era, wherein the Trump government doled out federal subsidy and assistance checks. In fact, a New York Times article described it as a time when the US acted almost like a welfare state. “In the early, panicked days of the pandemic, the United States government did something that was previously unimaginable. It transformed itself, within weeks, into something akin to a European-style welfare state,” the article stated.
This federal assistance, especially in the form of extra money in the pocket, seems to have cemented in many voter’s minds the good ‘ol days under Trump.
But what begs attention is the fact that the Biden regime and its claims of a better, more prudent economy could not displace that perception. And that the Democrats failed to keep track of the situation on the ground, buoyed by seemingly rosy economic forecasts.
After all, the nation had entrusted in a previous Vice President the role of commander-in-chief just 4 years ago. Biden had then won the key battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. He had snagged Georgia too. The Economy was the top concern in 2020 as well, and the Republicans were perceived to be better at managing it, according to a Pew survey report. Yet, Biden came out ahead.
It is possible that somewhere in the half-hearted re-election campaign bid by Biden, and then the changeover in the Democratic Party Presidential nominee, the constant ear-to-the-ground with voters was interrupted. Democrats missed the message on the street about the still-high prices and a slow uptick in wages.
Issues of immigration were also said to be high on people’s minds. Even symbolic action and words by Donald Trump have always created an impression of him being quite clear in his stance on immigration. His out-and-out “America First” declarations certainly appeal to his base, the so-called “MAGA base” within the Republican voters. On the other hand, the Democrats have been more wishy-washy with their attitude towards immigration, especially the “illegal immigration” across the southern border in the US. Events during the Biden presidency where one witnessed hundreds of migrants camping outside the border fence in the southern USA were upsetting for everyone. They also sharpened the rhetoric against such spectacles of migrants hoping to be let in.
The narrative around what constitutes legal and illegal entry into the US is contested among activists and legal scholars. But it is not a matter of confusion for a vast number of Republicans and especially Trump’s base. They have a hardline stance against entry via sneaking across borders, no matter what the drivers of such an immigration might be. There are fairly stock narratives built around such immigrants as taking jobs away, straining local resources and also as indulging in criminal activity. Thus, their demands are straightforward and it has been Trump who has responded to such demands with his stern statements against illegal immigration.
In a strange twist of fate, it seems that Latino voters also sided with Trump on issues of immigration. This despite the fact the hardline stance on immigration would affect Latin American immigrants the most. Yet, it seems to follow the strange logic of moral higher-ground and forgetting, wherein one so-called legal immigrant group quickly looks disapprovingly at other migrants entering in whatever manner available to them, often for the same reason that motivates almost all migrants. But that is what it was, along with an acute sense for the bread-and-butter issues once again, which do affect a lot of the Hispanic population who are part of a growing working class.
There are other surprising blocks of voters that seem to have favored Trump. African-American men, Asian Americans and young voters, constituencies which were probably assumed to be generally behind the Democrats. But there seem to be some signs of deep discontent all around. And it appears that Trump convinced the voters as the “Doer,” the Mr. Fix-It – and someone with a plan and resolve.
Red and Blue States
Changes in voters’ preferences are nothing new in the US. The so-called battleground states are known to vote not in a fixed manner, and that goes to show that at some level, there is no clear-cut ideological choice or commitment in those states.
But even the so-called “solidly” blue or red states have changed their minds as when Ronald Reagan swept all states in the US save Minnesota! And it must be remembered that another solidly blue state such as Massachusetts had a Republican for a Governor for 8 years (2015-2023). Moreover, even in swing states, historic biases relating to race and gender remain. As the Saturday Night Live host Michael Che asked rhetorically, “How did I let y’all convince me that rural Pennsylvania would pick the Jamaican Indian lady?”
But we cannot forget that several areas of the country, rural and urban, helped elect the first Black president of the US, Barack Obama, not very long back.
In the end, it seems it does not matter if an American presidential candidate is brash, overbearing, boastful, rambling, takes liberties with the truth – and even convicted as a felon when the opposition party is in power. In an age of fake-news and half-baked news, especially from social media, what is truth anyways? It is probably what one screams the loudest and with the greatest conviction. So it did not matter that Democrats accused Trump of taking liberties with facts, and called out his outrageous statements. As several analysts said, his supporters know who he is – and they can look past that. US Presidents and lawmakers have had all kinds of controversies and accusations of inappropriate behavior leveled against them. Remember Bill Clinton?
A divided country, a different country
Americans, probably like most other citizens in other parts of the world, like hearing great things about their country – that it is the greatest country on earth, that it can do no wrong, that it is a world leader in thought and deed, that it presents an unbeatable environment to thrive in. And anyone who can reassure them of such glory in a thumping, thunderous manner seems to endear himself to them. Especially if the opponent is less vulgarly brash about such messaging. Patriotism always stirs up the heart and for someone who shoots from the hip, Trump gets that part very well.
Amidst the endless autopsy and self-reflection that the Trump victory has given rise to among the Democrats and the progressive population of the US, some have wondered if Trump does represent who they really are, in character, at least. But something they have been denying for the longest time. A piece in the New York Times titled, “This is who we are now,” could not help but rhapsodize about the so-called rude self-awakening of the supposedly more principled section of the population. That they too were no different from Donald Trump, at their core, and had been so all along.
While they harbored high ideals for their country’s president, there was always a dark side to them that wanted the over-the-top messaging, that wanted themselves secure from supposed criminals at their border, that could utter falsehoods and exaggerated claims while appearing perfectly sane and even likable.
The hope and image of a sane, restrained, well-behaved US President has been burst, for a second time, by Donald Trump.
Some say that people get the leader they deserve. Many Americans are going about their business trying to adjust to and digest the new reality. Some are visibly fretting at what they got, not sure they deserved this second term of Trump. The Hows and Whys are endless, and endlessly tantalizing, since it is anyone’s guess right now with inadequate and uneven data.
Observations about the “political divide” in the country are a good wake-up call. Such realizations are also an indication that no one group of individuals can be taken for granted. Very often, we live in bubbles, and do not see that the city or country we live in is not a monolith. There are cities within cities and countries within countries. Often carved up by issues such as race, wealth and personal beliefs. After the Ferguson, MS incidents in 2015, it was highlighted how a single road separated two diametrically opposite parts of town – one a white and wealthy part, the other mainly black and poor. Such divisions are seen in almost all major cities in the US and the world. There has to be an acknowledgement of such differences and an ignoring of various voices. It is also a good opportunity to understand what it means to be a country. America has had a tradition of people criss-crossing the nation to get to know it better, whether it be Alexis de Tocqueville in the 19th century or John Steinbeck in more recent times.
Despite political changes, the work for social justice and human rights carries on regardless. Some political environments are more permissive than others for certain processes of justice-work. This calls for better preparation among groups that engage with grassroots issues. As the saying goes, when the going gets tough, the tough get going. As TV host Jimmy Kimmel enacted, in humor, on his show, the tough have to tough it out under Trump, not get going anywhere else.
Umang Kumar is a social activist based in Delhi NCR.
