#Title

Trump’s victory and why the Democratic Party failed
PHOTO: AFP
The American people have spoken this time to turn their country back to the Trump-era—the lesser of the two evils for the majority of Americans who voted in this election. The president-elect has outperformed himself compared to his runs in 2016 and 2020 and made history by being the first convicted felon to be elected to the highest office in the US. Regardless of what the post-mortem analysis reveals, there is one clear thesis that emerges out of this election: a star-studded, billion-dollar campaign cannot suffice for the lack of moral and ethical leadership at the top, and history has repeated itself so soon after the 2016 loss of the Democratic Party because the party elites refuse to learn lessons. Their dismissiveness frankly cost them the election. Harris’s concession speech may be the best message the campaign delivered; the humility might have helped the party this cycle if it had been part of their messaging. The other part of the story is that in its 248 years, the US has never had a woman president, which is reflective of the broader unyielding social order and persistent racism and sexism that have now acquired a new dynamic with the resurgence of conservative leanings in younger population, particularly Gen Z men who are concerned about the economy.
Kamala Harris, a qualified, seasoned politician with a robust track record in public service as a prosecutor, senator and a vice-president, may have offered a promise for some. But it was a change in appearance and not substance, and that alienated voters who vote based on principles. The Clintonian politics of refined rhetorics and compromised principles has failed the Democrats time and again. Harris, unfortunately, is a prodigy of the same brand. She may not have been a figure as polarising as Hillary Clinton, who evoked strong disdain among opponents, but she was clearly seen as a candidate who would carry Biden’s legacy with the ongoing economic woes and genocide in the Middle East on her shoulders—enough to throw off voters whose advocacy for peace have fallen on deaf ears.
Harris’ campaign also failed to build on Biden’s support base. A party loses credibility among voters when there is no clear stance or direction; not that the current Republican Party or the Trump campaign has a strong suit in gaining credibility, but Trump’s two-word promises are direct and blunt and delivered in sizeable bites. Trump 2.0 promises a new golden age for the US, which begins with closing the southern border, mass deportation of migrants, equipping and protecting the police, lowering prices, increasing energy production, imposing tariffs to make domestic products competitive, and bringing the “American dream” back. This time around, Trump was able to court prominent Muslim and Arab community leaders in key battleground states like Michigan with his promise to end war in the Middle East. He did broker the 2020 Abraham Records for a normalisation of relationship between Israel and several Arab nations, but he also ordered the “Muslim Ban” upon taking office in 2017, and recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced plans to relocate the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. So, it is unclear how, when and if Trump will act on his promise to the Muslim voters who supported him.
The blue party has lost mid-western industrial counties, along with college towns in the battle ground states that went for Clinton and Biden in the previous election cycles. The past three US elections should drive this point home: political parties cannot capitalise on identity politics without communicating their policy stances. People vote based on issues, not identity. The Democratic Party has long been out of touch with the everyday socioeconomic realities of the people it claims to represent.
Ordinary citizens care about gas and grocery prices. They do not study the mechanics of inflation and what causes it; they do not see the time it takes to form and implement policies and the time it takes for them to have an impact. Inflation during the previous Trump administration was averaging 1.9 percent, while the US experienced one of the highest inflation rates since early 1980s during Biden’s presidency. But we seem to forget that Biden inherited the Covid economy with major disruptions in global supply chains and energy price hikes. The US is not taking an uncharted path by choosing Trump. The upcoming Trump administration will be tethered to the ideas and rhetoric on which the previous Trump administration ran.
The epoch of political scandal, chaos and quick turnovers may be back, especially given the line-up of people being considered for key positions, such as Robert F Kennedy, Jr, known for his anti-vaccination and controversial healthcare-related advocacy, to have substantial authority over federal health agencies. We should not forget about the Fauci days in the White Office, when misinformation triumphed over expert guidelines. Climate concerns that are global will also receive pushback due to erosion of environment legislation and advocacy agencies. In his victory speech, Trump highly praised X and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who is also rumoured to be playing a key role in the upcoming Trump administration.
While the clout of the radical Project 2025 has declined, a new organisation has appeared on the scene with a policy agenda for the new administration: The America First Policy Institute, a right-wing think tank with direct links to Trump’s official transition team. Some of the key policy goals of the organisation include defunding Planned Parenthood, establishing nationwide reciprocity for concealed weapons permits, removing the US from Paris Agreement, implementing work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries, and making federal workers at-will employees thereby removing civil service protections for federal employees. Now, with the Republican Senate majority, the House leaning red, the court packed with conservative judges, with the checks and balances tilting in one direction, the pathway to accomplish these policy goals lies open.
One factor that may have surprised the pundits is how fast the outcome of this election became clear, and that is because of the wide margins of gain and loss. Clearer victory also signals a peaceful and orderly transition of power—which should not be taken lightly given the January 6 attack on democracy during the last transitional period. Allan Lichtman, a historian and political analyst renowned for his accurate predictions of the US presidential elections since 1984, predicted that Harris would win this election based on his 13-point predictive model, which assesses factors such as short-long term economic challenges, policy changes, social unrest, foreign and military successes and failures, and other issues that determine electoral outcomes. Even analysts overlooked hard economic realities. The Democratic Party’s wobbly stance has deactivated the voter base the party usually relies on. Fewer women, fewer communities of colour showed up for Harris compared to their turn out for Biden and Clinton.
Kamala Harris said as she conceded, “This is not a time to throw up our hands; this is a time to roll up our sleeves.” While the election outcome is sealed, she affirmed that the bigger fight is not over. But the question is: which fight is the right one? The Democratic Party needs to grow beyond quick fixes and have a bold, progressive agenda based on principles. The party cannot have its foot in two different boats. The ethos of strong moral compass and clear vision that Biden’s acknowledgement letter states in relation to Harris’s run for president needs to be more than just rhetoric if the Democratic Party hopes to craft a bold and unified progressive agenda and truly represent the people.
Sarzah Yeasmin
is a Boston-based Bangladeshi writer and contributor to The Daily Star. She is project manager at Harvard Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation.
Harris, a qualified, seasoned politician with a robust track record in public service as a prosecutor, senator and a vice-president, may have offered a promise for some. But it was a change in appearance and not substance, and that alienated voters who vote based on principles. The Clintonian politics of refined rhetorics and compromised principles has failed the Democrats time and again.