The US elections recently concluded, not with the excitement that many expected but rather with a subdued outcome. There was considerable buzz surrounding Kamala Harris's candidacy. Although she was not initially seen as a strong contender against Trump, many self-proclaimed liberals had already declared her the future President of the United States. However, simply offering "thoughts and prayers" does not translate into votes, nor does a strong dislike for the opponent guarantee victory. Winning an election requires a concrete agenda and a clear vision, along with a well-defined plan to achieve it. All of this hinges on having a leader who is an effective communicator. A successful leader must understand the public's sentiments and possess the language skills necessary to resonate with the intended audience.
This is not to say that Trump possesses all of the qualities mentioned above. His vision is dark, filled with retribution and conflict, and often feels unattainable. Nonetheless, throughout his life, political career, and rise to the presidency the first time, as well as his overwhelming majority in the second election, he has always seemed improbable. In contrast to Kamala Harris, Trump presented an agenda, albeit a vulgar one. He did offer a vision. Most importantly, he expressed his thoughts assertively, even when he was politically incorrect or simply wrong.
Kamala Harris, on the other hand, frequently changed her stance on significant issues, adapting her positions depending on the crowd and the problem at hand. The agenda of Kamala Harris and her Democratic party primarily focused on ensuring that Trump was not elected. While fear can be an effective political tactic, it has its limits. Fear alone cannot conceal a lack of political acumen, charisma, a coherent agenda, and effective strategy. The rallies and messaging seemed so heavily focused on Trump that I wondered if the Democrats were inadvertently campaigning for him.
The American electorate is not yet ready to elect a woman as President of the country. There needs to be greater maturity when it comes to electing a candidate of color or one with foreign ancestry, especially if that ancestry is from just one generation ago. Unfortunately, American voters do not currently exhibit that level of maturity.
We can discuss how unfortunate this is and explore potential solutions, but the fact remains that the Democratic Party did not adequately consider the implications of nominating a candidate with these qualities, leading to an expected resounding defeat. If Donald Trump is indeed a poor choice—and many believe he will prove to be—then it would be wiser to support a candidate who has a legitimate chance of winning rather than forcing a social agenda into political strategy. Ultimately, voters are likely choosing what they perceive as the lesser of two evils.
Overall, it’s a troubling situation for everyone, and the consequences will be felt by all.
