With concern, I foresee that Trump will likely win the presidential election next Tuesday. Although polls indicate a technical tie, a “hidden vote” is expected, given that, due to the candidates’ identities, it is politically incorrect to admit a vote for Trump (a white man) instead of Kamala Harris (a Black woman). Thus, it is highly probable that Trump has the real advantage.
I believe the former president is a competitive candidate for three reasons:
- His campaign is easy to understand.
- It addresses practical problems that affect everyone.
- It capitalizes on the accumulated frustration of population segments that feel marginalized by the global and digital economy characterizing the urbanized coasts of the United States.
On the other hand, Kamala Harris has suffered from poor communication. Her campaign is heavily tied to appeals from the “progressive left,” with identity-based messages that barely unite a few minority groups in the electorate. Worse yet, these messages fuel resentment and frustration among the rest of the voters.
Communication for Dummies
Regarding the first point, it is worth noting that, regardless of how we feel about Trump, his messages are simple and direct—easy to understand: close borders, improve the economy, and restore law and order. Undoubtedly, these ideas are so ambiguous they border on childishness. Yet, they are precisely the kind of messages that succeed on social media and, ultimately, resonate with the masses shaped by a postmodern education system that undermines logic and reason.
Paradoxically, the most progressive sectors have been particularly susceptible to postmodern principles and have been the main promoters of valuing subjectivity and relativism. While enriching in some respects, this approach has also generated skepticism toward traditional logic and reason. This electoral context favors emotional and simplified messages like Trump’s. Messages directly appealing to people’s feelings and immediate experiences resonate more than complex and nuanced arguments.
As a result, the Democratic Party’s more sophisticated rhetoric often struggles to find a foothold among the general public. Their speeches echo the complexities of the modern world but fail to meet the communicational challenge this entails. Additionally, Kamala Harris, in particular, is an ambivalent politician whose rhetoric has shifted throughout her career. This makes the entire campaign seem unconvincing, difficult to understand, and, therefore, hard to sell.
Studies have shown that Trump’s electorate includes a broad base of white voters without college degrees. At the same time, Democrats typically receive more support from those with college and postgraduate education. This educational gap reflects the priorities and perceptions of the voters. Simplified and direct messages resonate more with those with lower formal education levels. In contrast, voters with higher education levels may lean toward more complex and detailed proposals. The main problem: the majority of the population does not have postgraduate education.
Go Woke, Go Broke
The Democratic Party’s ” woke ” left has neglected basic issues like security, employment, and the economy. While Harris enjoyed the support of Hollywood celebrities, Trump attracted endorsements previously associated with Democrats, such as the Construction Workers’ Union, drawn by his promises to strengthen security and promote infrastructure projects that create jobs.
Instead of maintaining an agenda rooted in everyday life, Democrats have focused on debates that, while important, do not necessarily interest the majority. While Harris engages in abstract discussions about pronoun usage or redefining the identity traits of fictional characters, Trump—despite his intellectual limitations—addresses practical and broadly relevant topics like reindustrializing the United States.
The U.S. identity-based left has made a fundamental political error: neglecting its historical causes in favor of a moralistic discourse based on the taxonomy of intersectionality that punishes individuals for their “privilege” (real or perceived). Instead of appealing to shared values and identities to unite people, their obsession with differences and prioritizing individual identity (subjective) over common issues (objective) is a critical weakness.
In contrast, Trump’s strategy has leaned toward a discourse evoking a common “us,” an inclusive message that broadly appeals to the essence of an American identity in which anyone can feel included—even children of immigrants who, empirically, likely have more in common with their countries of origin than with their current place of residence.
While it is undoubtedly positive to advocate for and make historically ignored minorities visible, the overly segmented and excessively detailed approach of woke politics, which abuses now-empty labels like “privilege,” is a strategic mistake.
Politically and electorally, this perspective also faces the antagonism generated by the cancel culture, which persecutes and punishes anyone who deviates from the slogans of cinematic progressivism and pop-streaming narratives. Let me be clear: I support many of these causes; my criticism is the lack of political skill in defending them. Good politics persuades, it does not impose.
I believe this cancel culture is why the polls remain tied. Still, I suspect that in the privacy of the voting booth, where there is no social pressure or regard for Taylor Swift’s opinion, many people will vote based on their immediate personal interests. The Obamas’ insistent, almost pleading calls to the Black community to vote for Harris are evidence that voters ultimately seek solutions to everyday problems, not just symbolic recognition or inclusive rhetoric.
Conclusion: Time Will Tell
For better or worse, the average voter prefers direct and tangible proposals over abstract and futuristic ones. The average voter avoids thinking about medium- and long-term consequences. This happened in Mexico: social programs took precedence over the ongoing authoritarian drift and the foreseeable insolvency that public coffers will face to sustain those programs. In this sense, Trump has been a better candidate, though he will likely be a worse leader for his country and the world.
In any case, even if Trump loses—and I hope he does—the fact that this criminal is neck-and-neck for victory should be interpreted as a call to address the “on-the-ground” reality, a return to the concrete problems affecting everyone, regardless of their particular identity. This is a lesson for the Mexican opposition and, beyond elections, for all who engage in human rights activism.
Update November 6, 2024: Trump's victory has been overwhelming. I don't believe anyone without insider information could have foreseen this outcome. Even in the popular vote, his victory is decisive, surpassing Harris by 4 million votes, granting him a majority in both houses. Such a victory demands a multi-causal analysis to understand how he united such a diverse and vast range of population sectors.