Almost four years ago, as the recount of the 2020 presidential election was completed, many analysts warned that the Republican Party should move away from Trump as quickly as possible. They warned that their extremism and histrionics were a heavy burden on a political organization that should aspire to represent the diversity of the United States. When his most loyal followers, encouraged by their leader, tried to storm Congress, the same observers reiterated that Trumpism was a thing of the past and warned that Republicans would end up committing suicide if they did not turn the page as soon as possible.
Yet here we are, four years later, contemplating the possibility of Donald Trump once again residing in the White House. A detailed analysis of the reasons why this may occur would require much more space, but we dare to briefly point out some of the reasons here.
In the United States there are two completely different realities. On the one hand, there are the big cities. On the other hand, the extensive rural areas and medium-sized cities. In The New Class WarMichael Lind explains how the largest towns were filled with highly educated middle classes, who embraced progressive values, while the immense agrarian regions were emptied and many industrial areas became impoverished, as companies relocated to other countries. These urban middle classes managed to introduce their concerns (such as climate change or taking advantage of the benefits of globalization) on the political agenda, but both residents in rural areas and less qualified workers felt that theirs were ignored, and even marginalized. , for the benefit of the “prevailing urban ideology.” Trump takes advantage of that feeling of abandonment and the resentment it provokes. The electoral maps of the most contested states usually show enormous red areas (the color of the Republican Party), among which small blue islands stand out (the big cities, where Democrats obtain high levels of votes).
Furthermore, the largest urban centers are not as homogeneous as many think. In them there are degraded neighborhoods, with high percentages of immigrant population, which constitute an optimal breeding ground for Donald Trump’s proposals, which ends up eroding the electoral base of his rivals in the territories that should be more favorable to them. Among ethnic minorities, there is also enormous diversity: in some segments, reluctance towards the arrival of new immigrants is growing, especially among Latinos; In others, as is the case among Muslims, the Democrats’ stance towards Israel or their defense of feminism distances them from Kamala Harris, who may have problems maintaining Joe Biden’s percentages among the African-American electorate, since inflation has been devastating. among the most humble families.
Today, the United States is a mosaic of contradictions, and there is no one like Trump to exploit them, taking advantage of the complexity of the world we live in to send simplistic messages and propose solutions that are as easy as they are useless, but that fit very well with opinions, almost always poorly founded. , from a relevant part of the electorate.
We must also draw attention to the role of social networks, through which false messages and half-truths spread extremely quickly. Some studies (for example, the one published by Vosoughi, Roy and Aral in the journal Science in 2018) have shown that, in them, lies spread more, and with greater speed, than truthful information. The way they work, through algorithms that provide access to content similar to that already viewed and create a barrier against dissenting voices, reinforces polarization and facilitates the dissemination of these simple messages. Argumentation, contrasting opinions, rigorous debate, with a constructive spirit, barely have a place on social networks, fertile ground for Trumpism. When trying to combat it with the same weapons, it is often forgotten that neither the medium nor its rules are neutral. It is an unequal battle.
With the support of social networks, but with the complicity of some of the large traditional media outlets (quite critical of Trump, almost all of them), the Republican candidate has managed to impose his themes during the campaign. With delirious messages, such as those relating to Haitians who ate pets, he has managed to make immigration and insecurity take center stage, and that many political debate spaces dedicated hours and hours to talking about his statements instead of addressing other issues, such as health care or the lack of social services, in which the former president does not have much credit among the electorate. His exaggerations, outbursts and insults have become the axis of the campaign, and the Democrats, in trying to combat them, have often amplified their impact, uniting Trump’s voters, who constitute a much more compact bloc than Harris’s. , which brings together voters with very different opinions on issues such as the invasion of Ukraine, the trade war with China, or the Palestinian conflict, to name just three examples.
Perhaps the vice president was not the best Democratic option for this electoral confrontation (she was not, by any means, the worst), although we do not believe that her choice is as decisive for the final result as the factors to which we have just referred and which , in our opinion, have not deserved sufficient attention. If Trump becomes president again, it will be no surprise.
#Trump #win
