FLASH
Shkruar nga Francis Wilkinson
Harris failed to convince voters of something crucial: that she was fit enough to serve as their president.
Vice President Kamala Harris led a coalition that stretched from leftist Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to former Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney and her conservative father, Dick Cheney.
She based the campaign on the vision of a society of law, morality, interracial coexistence, where hard work could still ensure the achievement of the American Dream, where clean energy would fuel a dynamic economy, and where there would be plenty of space development for all.
This broad coalition and this optimistic vision raised an unprecedented amount of funds. He enlisted tens of thousands of volunteers who canvassed the area, made phone calls and organized many small rallies. But in the end everything turned out to be in vain. Every losing campaign has its culprit, just as every winning campaign is the product of the genius of its leader.
Those who criticize or give advice about a game after it's over, and who have never worked on an election campaign - especially under the fog of right-wing propaganda and misinformation that is now pervading and distorting politics American - are rarely convincing.
Donald Trump's campaign was a mixture of wickedness and stupidity. Even if it had lost, MAGA's ascendancy, enabled by QAnon and other delusional initiatives, is evidence that much of the US has entered a post-rational, post-citizen political realm where propaganda reigns , often very idiotic propaganda.
One of the main talking points on election night was how millions of cases of "rigging" allegedly committed by Democrats and undocumented immigrants magically disappeared once Trump got ahead in the counting process. A Republican Party that despises virtue and is devoted to lies is a very big problem.
But it's probably not a problem that Harris or any other Democrat can fix. The rough consensus among campaign professionals is that Harris ran as good or better than expected campaign under difficult circumstances.
Parties around the world have failed to win another term due to voter anger at the many restrictions imposed by the pandemic and the inflation that accompanied and followed it. All parties in power lost their share of votes.
The notion that another Democrat would have succeeded where Harris failed, or that a different message or coalition would have swayed voters alienated from Trump, seems illusory at best. The US moved to the right.
The shift from blue to red was generally less pronounced in the 7 swing states, which again had the vast majority of resources and attention during the campaign. Harris fared worse in places like New York City, which shifted 17 percent of the vote to the right, and several counties in California, which flipped from Democrat to Republican.
Ultimately, voters had a clear choice. It was a hard race between hope and fear. Harris failed to convince voters of something crucial: that she was fit enough to serve as their president. Her vision of a positive future for all collapsed in the face of Trump's claims that "the pie was shrinking," so you better get your share now, before an immigrant or a transgender child steals it.
Democrats often have a hard time winning against this argument. Historically, they have operated on the theory that everyone deserves some welfare, and that American society is rich enough to provide it. Fear of resource scarcity, on the other hand, is a bulwark of conservative politics around the world.
How should Democrats respond? Should they avoid nominating a woman as a candidate in the future? Would they still be Democrats if they chose this path? Women are the main strength of the party, the majority of its talent and the foundation of its electoral strength.
They also make up more than half of American citizens. Exit polls, which are generally inaccurate, can still tell us some clues about the motivations of Hispanic men, most of whom appear to have voted for Trump.
Perhaps Harris could have been more sympathetic to their sense of economic insecurity or threat to their status. Or maybe those men thought that in a society so racially polarized, in which Hispanic and black immigrants were being harmed every day, it was better to rally around the white man than the black woman.
Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare are all at high risk in a Trump administration. The politics of fear is likely to change in the coming months. How Democrats will craft and deliver that message remains to be seen. Assuming Republicans claim a majority in Congress, as well as the Senate and Supreme Court, there will no longer be a Democratic power base in Washington.
New York, long a bastion of liberals, is in political chaos, with a hapless governor and a mayor indicted for corruption. That leaves California Governor Gavin Newsom as the party's likely leader. He is likely to start testing new slogans now to suit his new role.
Given the success of the Republican Party's extensive propaganda infrastructure, which now includes Elon Musk's Platform X, but also the failure of traditional news media to manage an information environment degraded by propaganda and partisan lies, for Democrats there will be new calls to create rival propaganda networks.
And maybe this time they will. This year's elections could be the beginning of the end for the old elite media. Often they do not want to act as information police, "arresting" lies or privileging facts. Under these conditions, their mission and usefulness are increasingly blurred.
With Trump back in the White House, the amount of lies will increase at a time when veteran reporters will aim to access the liars. And that's a recipe for further failure. In fact, Democrats may have to wait for another disaster under a Republican president.
However, Trump's mismanagement of Covid-19, in which he flooded the public sphere with lies and misinformation, did not stop his return to power. As well as the many criminal offenses for which he is accused or found guilty. (A post-rational environment suits personality cult demagogues well).
In any case, we will soon be living not under a new presidency, but rather under a new system of government. It remains unclear what the latter will be. But many signs are already visible. Wickedness and stupidity will be his twin pillars, and not the rule of law or democracy./ Adapted "Pamphlet", from "Bloomberg".
Lini një Përgjigje