The Kamala Harris reversal

THE AMERICAN DREAM IN THE WAKE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (2/4). Increasing polarization, defeat of the polls and the Democrats... This series of articles aims to present some lessons to be learned from Donald Trump's new election as head of the United States.

According to the virtuous opinions that the most stellar minds, certainly moved by an absolute goodness of soul, allow themselves to share with us on social networks, it seems that fascism is back in the White House. Going a step further, rational reserve obliges a reader sensitive to critical study and appeased knowledge, who will obviously wonder about the reasons that led to this Democratic debacle: for the first time since the election of George W. Bush Jr in 2004, and against all odds, a Republican candidate wins the popular vote against his Democratic counterpart.

A deeper reading should proportionally guide the curious mind to something perhaps more relevant: the proportion of Trump voters hasn't moved in any particular trend. The quick conclusion one might draw, then, would be this: Trump didn't win the election, Vice President Harris did.

Reasons for the reversal

In 2020, 81 million voters endorsed President Biden. In retrospect, that's some 8 million more than the 73 million Vice President Harris managed to win over. Two observations must be made in this regard: the vice-president failed to motivate the troops, and Donald Trump remained consistent. This consistency is part of a more credible professional stance on a number of issues awaiting the next president: economic stability, world order, control of migratory flows and so on. It would seem that the Republican offer better meets the expectations of American society than the Democratic offer, and this is partly true, since this election was also decided on the’ethos and the ability to mobilize his camp.

And this first observation leads the reader to a provisional conclusion: Donald beat Kamala, hands down, by overturning the status quo democrat; where the Trumpmania is directly, and almost instantly, mobilizable, the Democratic camp has had to struggle to win over and seduce part of its electorate. Barack Obama's endorsement in recent weeks came far too late to make a major difference - and yet, in the face of the Trumpmania, polls suggest that only the’Obamania is stronger in today's political offer. Many will use their usual finesse, arguing that there is still a deeply racist and misogynist base within the Democratic Party, which will always refuse to vote for a woman, who is, moreover, racialized.

In this respect, the supposedly ebullient intellectual tension must lead to a second provisional conclusion: in politics, as in war, we must be wary of the quiet paths that simplicity can point to.

There are more obvious reasons to rule out the idea that the Democratic Party is viscerally and fundamentally racist and misogynistic: clearly, changing candidates in the middle of a campaign is an absolute sign of representative instability. It won't have escaped the notice of even the most casual voter that this election was particularly marked by a very singular, albeit common, approach: neither candidate wanted to convince anyone beyond his or her own camp. This was a particular failing of candidate Harris. Finally, Biden's withdrawal in favor of Harris benefited the Republican rhetoric, as a masked admission of the background music sung since 2020 that the President was senile and therefore unfit for office. This half-hearted acknowledgement ruined the Democratic Party's initial credibility with its supporters.

In 2020, Biden garnered just over 81 million votes. The electoral madness, apart from the fraud evoked by the opposing camp, was characterized mainly by an unparalleled aversion to the 45^th president, and his sulphurous persona. The question that should be asked, before claiming fallacious arguments, is: where did Harris' missing 8 million voters evaporate to? It was they, or at least their absence, that swung the election against the Democrats.

Poor Democratic strategy, the result of poor management

Kamala's campaign was littered with mistakes: the absence of humble rhetoric (leading to denial of the facts regarding the presidency), the botched hurricane in Florida which caused several deaths and was scrutinized by the whole of America, lack of political coherence, non-incarnation of power... All these errors, both in communication and in the embodiment of power, in the face of a character whose controversial nature was no longer a surprise, who became, in the time of yet another botched shooting, or in aid of the victims in Florida, an image of what America should be, and much more than what Harris could embody: heroism and victory, overcoming political divisions to reconnect with the American dream.

The average American voter needs to dream; not systematically and lasciviously wallow in a lifestyle whose doxa democrat demands detestation. Thus, to mobilize, it is said that it is better to envy than to pity, and this truth is true of all eras.

From the moment replacement of Biden by Harris, in absolute terror, to follow up the defeat in the polls after a disastrous first debate, haste pushed the Democrats in a counter-productive direction. Many of the party's front-runners could have run a better campaign than Harris: the bet made on the vice-president is, once again, one of absolute disconnection from reality.

Kamala's choice, above and beyond others, drives an apocalyptic rhetoric and remains in tune with the disastrous management of the Democratic Party for months now, where clear governance is no longer discernible, where blank checks to the tune of several million dollars are written without really knowing where the money lands, and where an absolutely warlike rhetoric crashes in the face of an increasingly unabashed laxity in martial matters. Even if we try to believe in the soundness of its dogmas, we have to admit that the Democratic Party isn't even up to the stakes it sets for itself.

For this gamble to have paid off, the United States would have had to enjoy remarkable growth, a virtuous economy, a stable migration policy, and a global climate in keeping with these claims. However, over the past four years, the opposite has occurred: war in Ukraine, massive inflation, an unprecedented migration shock, and the impoverishment of the American working classes. At a time when the challenges posed by global governance tend to make the world a little more dangerous every day, it seems foolish to leave another four years of fragmented, unstable governance to the Western beacon. Whatever our personal preference, Harris carried the image of a replacement, when the American voter needs to dream to be convinced. By going for a more unifying candidate, like Michelle Obama, the Democrats could have won this election; that's the lesson the polls are teaching us. An expensive choice paid for internally: there is now almost a billion dollars raised in this election, and 20 million to be returned to the Democrats.

Nabil Djarfi is a graduate in political science and international relations. Parisian by birth, heart and blood, he is a Genevan by adoption..

You have just read an open-access article. Debates, analyses, cultural news: subscribe to support us and get access to all our content!