Other drivers of Trump’s victory… Inam Ul Haque
Last week we discussed some conceptual parameters of President-elect Donald Trump’s win as the 47th US president. We continue our exploration.
Second, bipartisan US politics. While the Democratic Party under a frail and aged president suffered from persistent anti-incumbency and anti-elite sentiment, Kamala Harris’s entry into the race was too late to make an impact on the Republican-generated street narrative. Mr Biden, given his senility and weak leadership, and due to the endemically anti-incumbent social media, was unable to effectively ‘tell’ the Democratic story. Old Democrats in Congress were no good to gauge the national pulse, hence were ‘imperfect messengers’ for an electorate that was demanding change. Kamala Harris’s ties to an unpopular president and the wave of ‘anti-incumbency’ and populism sweeping the world restrained her potential. And she walked into the ‘trap of defending’ the “establishment”, the very institutions that most Americans distrusted.
Democrats’ characterisation of US democracy under Trump becoming a ‘soft autocracy’ also fell flat, as many US voters associated and continue to link democracy with globalisation, corruption, wayward financial capitalism, migration of unwelcome populations from the global south, America’s forever wars and the elite or WASP (White, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant) capture of Washington. Trump, meanwhile, effectively campaigned against the past elites even of his own party like the Bush family and Mitch McConnell. He was able to successfully paint the incumbent political elite as bankrupt, inept and not good enough for an America that he cherishes to make great ‘again’.
Democrats’ dislike of ‘White Christian Nationalism’ led into ‘identity politics’ on Republican terms. Identity politics in the US context is ascribed to minority groups fighting discrimination. This politically benefited Trump. Biden and his party’s contradiction-laced “rules-based international order” through a national security enterprise, experienced repeated failures recently. Nowhere were these contradictions more evident than Democrats’ hypocritical and unconditional military support for Israel’s genocidal war on civilians in Gaza.
Third, war in Gaza impacted to favour Trump, who was apparently and ‘fortunately’ not complicit in re-arming Israel; killing of babies and women in thousands by US taxpayer-funded weaponry, live streamed on social media; or bowing to the Jewish interests domestically (despite moral and political support). He also benefited from President Biden’s hesitant leadership, not using the US leverages to rein in a berserk Netanyahu, and pursuing an unpopular war in Ukraine. Gaza particularly, exposed the inadequacy of moral and spiritual principles, that the American state stands for. Democrats, continued fatally to befriend influential, wealthy and powerful Jewish caucus, ignoring the national pulse.
In the heavily Arab American city of Dearborn, Michigan, won by Joe Biden in 2020, Trump beat Harris by about six percentage points. Gaza war has triggered progressive activism in the US like never before. Many Americans, with no personal connection to Palestine or Israel, became anti-war activists for Washington’s complicity in Gaza’s destruction. There were over 100 pro-Palestinian encampments across US colleges and universities, leading to forced removal of some five university presidents for being unable to contain the students’ anti-Israel rage. Black and young Americans led this activism, as 75% Black voters favoured cutting weapon shipments to Israel, compared to 56% white voters. Bishops’ Council of African Methodist Episcopal Church, an influential Black congregation, in February called the war a “mass genocide”, demanding Biden-Harris to stop funding it.
Kamala went overboard in shutting pro-Palestinian voices making them unwelcome. She rebuffed pleas to allow a Palestinian American to speak from the main stage. Her party never had people passionate about Palestinian rights in influential campaign positions. She campaigned alongside former Representative Liz Cheney, whom Trump called a “radical war hawk”. Trump, contrarily wooed Arab and Muslim voters promising to help “the Middle East return to real peace”. This also went well with Jewry in Israel and elsewhere, who are daunted by this conflict’s grave consequences. Many Arab Americans ignored Trump’s earlier comments, critical of Muslims, dismissing them as Democrats’ propaganda. Muslims relished Trump’s visit to Dearborn, and seating prominent local Muslim leaders onstage.
Ms Harris never took a break from Biden’s disastrous Israel policy. In this era, supporting Palestinian freedom is vogue, and central to being a ‘progressive’. Palestinian exception is considered not just immoral, it is politically outright disastrous.
Third, Kamala’s gender and being Black/woman of colour, also worked against her. If any woman was poised to be the first US President, fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton was the one, who lost to Trump in 2016 by razor-thin majority. Ostensibly, the US women and that too a Black one, are yet to break that glass barrier in the US. Despite owning up female themes, Kamala still did not resonate overwhelmingly with the female voters across America. The “sisterhood did not stand up”, as a women voter quipped. Women themselves were divided like always. Her single-point focus on abortion rights cost Harris female support, who considered ‘inflation’ and ‘threats to democracy’ as critical issues. So, overall female support to Democrats slipped from 57% (Biden election) to 54% this time.
Race, colour and ethnicity are recurringly ’emergent’ factors in election to the top office in today’s America, under the xenophobic, anti-immigrant, ‘us-and-them’ sentiment sweeping the West Plus. Some Black women blamed white women for betraying and still supporting a ‘sexist, racist, misogynist and predatory’ Trump. Exit polls showed that 45% of female voters – far more white women than Black women – still voted for Trump.
Fourth, Democrats’ media support and campaigning strategies ‘ostensibly’ backfired. Rural America saw Trump as an underdog fighting the countless demigods single-handedly. Team Harris’s oft boasted ‘campaign professionalism’ versus Trump’s band of MAGA warriors, activists and ‘billionaire rebels’ ultimately tipped the scales in his favour. Trump brought ‘race’ into the campaign as soon as Harris emerged as Democratic nominee, questioning her racial identity. Whereas Kamala’s campaign mostly focused on Trump, wasting energy and time arguing, like Hillary did in 2016, that Trump was unfit; instead of discussing issues more important to voters, like inflation and a faltering democracy.
Harris team experienced bickering, miscoordination and lack of focus especially on the blue collar and mostly suburban America. Democrats’ extensive use of social media ads or TV ads and podcast interviews, towards the end of the campaign was of no use, as most of the cited groups and others had already cast their postal ballots.
Courtesy 