Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 American election represents probably the greatest comeback in a presidential election in the nation’s history. In 2020, Biden won the Electoral College and the popular vote convincingly. Claiming the election to have been stolen, Donald Trump gave himself a second chance in 2024. This time, he handily won the electoral vote and increased his popular vote by 3 million over the 2020 election. Although the popular vote (according to various mainstream media sources) was too close to suggest a popular mandate (Trump: 49.8% to Harris 48.3%), it showed an increased divisiveness in the nation’s social fabric. Trump’s wins in contested states and Republican control of both legislative chambers magnify his victory.
Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 American election represents probably the greatest comeback in a presidential election in the nation’s history. In 2020, Biden won the Electoral College and the popular vote convincingly. Claiming the election to have been stolen, Donald Trump gave himself a second chance in 2024. This time, he handily won the electoral vote and increased
Beyond the numbers revealing how divided the nation is, we need to ask two significant questions: why and how Trump managed such a spectacular comeback, and what potential impact it might have on American social and political behavior. Although multiple reasons may have contributed to Trump’s success, there are two issues that made his victory possible: voters’ perception of Donald Trump, the person, and voters’ understanding of the most relevant issues.
The Social Fabric as an Indicator of Human Conduct
The term social fabric is a useful metaphor that allows us to identify the core values, norms, and attitudes that combine to preserve cohesion within the nation. It establishes guidelines for acceptable cultural behavior. If these guidelines were radically altered, they would indicate significant shifts in individual and social conduct.
In the U.S., the core values embedded in the social fabric relate to principles enshrined in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. It expresses the desire to establish a new nation guided by philosophical and moral values that the Founders said were encompassed in the Laws of Nature, an abstract concept upon which all sorts of rights and duties are rooted. The Preamble states in part that:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Four distinctive values stand out. The first one, equality, refers to the secular and religious principle that all human beings have intrinsic worth and deserve respect in the eyes of others. It establishes that all individuals have the right to be treated equally before the law regardless of social ranking, race, creed, age, power, or gender, among others.
The second value, that of a supreme Creator, is significant because although the U.S. is not a Christian nation constitutionally or historically, it has become heavily populated by Christians of various denominations. Although Christianity has declined significantly in the last decades, 68% of the population still identify as Christians, followed by 26% who are unaffiliated (atheists, agnostics), 1.9% Jewish, 0.6% Muslim, and 3.5% who describe themselves as Hindu, Buddhists, and Unitarian Universalists. Hence, it is realistic to presume that Christian values prevail in American culture, the most traditional ones being love, humility, compassion, generosity, respect, forgiveness, faith, peace, and some form of justice.
The third value refers to individual rights that are said to be self-evident and divinely ordained and thus cannot be questioned. Decades later, however, the implementation of these rights was radically altered and extended to all citizens. And today, despite their divine roots, their understanding continues to be examined.
The fourth value was the most radical at the time. It states that those who rule require the consent of all who are being ruled. It became the foundation of the democratic process and the anchor of the principle of equality.
Years later, a written constitution was approved to protect and give legal meaning to the values in the Declaration of Independence. Once the Constitution was approved, a Bill of Rights was added as a desire … to prevent misconstruction or abuse of governmental power.
The social fabric is ultimately about how citizens conduct themselves as individuals and nations. In all societies, the interaction between the social fabric and politics allows changes in each other. There is, however, a common denominator in this interaction: citizens can affect the direction and impact on the social fabric through the electoral process and their choice of values they deem significant at a particular point in time.
How Voters Perceived Donald Trump
Inevitably, even if citizens focus on the issues, their votes will count only if their candidate is elected. The president acts as a filter through which citizens make their voices heard and their desires implemented. Nothing reveals a person’s character more than his or her demeanor. The dictionary defines character as the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual, or as the particular combination of qualities in someone that makes them different from others. Character can be positive or negative depending on how people perceive their candidate. Delineating Donald Trump’s character is vital because it may tell us what we should expect from him and provide an insight into why he was chosen to lead the nation.
Trump’s opponents often characterize him as having an authoritarian personality. His supporters, however, do not seem to perceive him as such, or perhaps they do and do not seem concerned. The public record shows (and Trump does not deny) that he likes to be in control and be able to command and be obeyed. For Trump, the nation is one large corporation, similar to his private company, in which he does not have to respond to shareholders or board members. Many of his supporters share this attitude and believe that the U.S. can (and should) be governed as a private enterprise with as few regulations as possible. This model was tested during Trump’s first administration. Setting aside that he was limited by the opposition party at times, those were chaotic years that related to his presidential appointees.
A trait of good governance is a president’s choice of those who assist him. In 2016, Trump promised he would bring into office the best talent. This was not to be. Trump had more turnovers than any other modern president. Contrasting his remarks when he named his appointees and after they resigned or were fired palpably indicates his character and his demeanor.
Upon appointing Rex Tillerson as his Secretary of State, he said, Rex knows how to manage a global enterprise … I can think of no one more prepared, and no one more dedicated, to serve as Secretary of State at this critical time in our history. Within a year, Trump fired Tillerson via a Tweet. Afterward, he referred to Tillerson as dumb as a rock and totally ill-prepared and ill-equipped to be Secretary of State.
He named Marine General James Mattis his Secretary of Defense, referring to him as one of our great generals and the closest thing to Gen. George Patton that we have. Mattis resigned over military differences within two years, after which Trump referred to him publicly as the world’s most overrated general, later adding that he was better than Mattis on military matters.
Trump also appointed Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, the most significant legal post in a presidency. Sessions was a controversial pick because of past racist remarks. He had been rejected for a position as a federal judge for denouncing the 1965 Voting Rights and referring to several Black institutions as “un-American.” Upon his nomination, Trump said, he is a world-class legal mind … is greatly admired by legal scholars and virtually everyone who knows him. Nearly two years later, Trump fired him, then ridiculed him as scared stiff, missing in action, and as very weak and disgraceful.
After firing his Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, President Trump named General John Kelly to the position. He said that Kelly was a Great American … and a Great Leader … who has also done a spectacular job at Homeland Security. He has been a true star of my Administration. Two months before the 2020 election, Trump fired him, indicating that Kelly didn’t do a good job, had no temperament, and got eaten alive. Later, he referred to Kelly as a total degenerate.
He nominated William Barr to succeed Sessions. He referred to him as a terrific man and one of the most respected jurists in the country, adding, I think he will serve with great distinction. Trump fired him following the 2020 elections after he publicly refuted Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud based on evidence provided by the FBI and the Department of Justice. Trump then called him a coward who didn’t do his job, a low life, and gutless.
In 2017, Mr. Trump also nominated Christopher Wray to be the Director of the FBI, referring to Mr. Wray as a man of impeccable credentials … who will again serve his country as a fierce guardian of the law and model of integrity. Upon winning the 2024 presidential election, it appears he realized that he made another mistake and called for Wray to resign.
The public record shows that Trump tends to disparage the military. This seems inexplicable from a political standpoint since, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he depended on the institution with the highest credibility in the nation. And yet, he referred to Senator and former POW John McCain as a loser and to dead American soldiers as suckers while denigrating the Medal of Honor, the highest decoration extended to military personnel for acts of valor. Although he walked back his comment on the Medal of Honor, none of it seemed to matter. It appears that military veterans were less concerned with their self-respect than with other issues since, according to the Pew Research Center, they backed Trump by wide margins.
Occasionally, Trump has acknowledged that climate change is real, yet he does little to combat it. He favors a more anti-science posture, exemplified by his unscientific remarks about public health. His staff regards him as being impulsive. He has referred to himself as a very stable genius, who knows more about most things (including terrorism) than anyone else. Among all social strata, such a know-it-all personality is not well-liked because it displays an overbearing attitude that makes others feel inadequate. If so, voters did not seem to be emotionally concerned, believing perhaps that he is a stable genius.
Is Trump a Misogynist?
Donald Trump’s notable remarks about women can be found on the internet. Throughout his campaign, he mocked Kamala Harris’s name, her ethnicity and race, and her mental faculties, calling her stupid and retarded. He has hurled insults at Nikki Haley, his former Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, wife of the former leader of the Senate Republicans, and over two dozen other public women. Moreover, he has made immodest comments (not typical conservative behavior) on the physical looks of numerous women, including France’s First Lady, Princess Diana, his daughters Ivanka and Tiffany, and his wife, Melania. It appears that his conservative and moderate supporters also were not concerned with such conduct.
According to the dictionary, a misogynist is someone who hates or despises women. Nonetheless, it is questionable that Trump can be labeled a misogynist any more than he can be referred to as a misandrist–someone who hates men–simply because he denigrates some men. Trump is unabashed about hurling insults against those he dislikes, male and female, or about his indelicate comments about women he likes. That millions of women supported Trump suggests that they did not feel their self-respect or gender being offended.
Is Trump a Racist or Bigoted?
In 1973, Donald Trump was sued for discriminatory housing practices against Blacks. In 1989, he actively supported the death penalty for the “Central Park Five” (four Blacks, one Latino teenagers) who were accused of raping a female jogger. After spending thirteen years in jail, they were exonerated. Trump, however, continues to believe they were guilty despite DNA evidence to the contrary. He opposed Native Americans operating casinos that posed competition to his interests. He initiated the conspiracy that Barack Obama was not born in the United States. He generalized behavior regarding Mexican immigrants being criminals and rapists, called for a ban on Muslims entering the country, requested a judge to disqualify himself from a civil suit regarding Trump University because of his Mexican heritage, approved tweets of white supremacists, and demeaned people from Haiti and African countries. Nonetheless, he gained more support among Latinos, Blacks, and Muslims in 2024 than in 2016, indicating that those minorities who supported Trump also were indifferent to remarks that appeared to insult their cultural identity.
The most reasonable explanation for Trump’s behavior is that he does not mind associating with any female or male of any ethnicity, race, or religion as long as they support him or do not overshadow him. The public record shows that anyone who contradicts or discredits him provokes his hostility.
Trump and some of his closest associates are known too for his public use of vulgarities, the likes we have not seen in politics from someone claiming to be a conservative, i.e., a traditional values, religious, family-oriented politician. He played a role in inciting the 6 January 2024 attempt to prevent formalizing Joe Biden’s electoral victory in which over one thousand persons were charged. Nonetheless, the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has defended Trump’s latest appointees, indicating that people who voted for Donald Trump knew (or were not concerned) that he intended to disrupt the system. While Ronald Reagan was labeled ‘the Teflon President’ because none of the criticism leveled at him would stick, there does not seem to be a synthetic chemical that might best describe Donald Trump’s impenetrable demeanor.
Trump’s behavior, displayed for decades and into the 2024 election, suggests a trait seldom seen in modern American politics. He is best characterized as being ‘brazen,’ or according to the dictionary, marked by shameless or disrespectful boldness. The millions of people who voted for him, deliberately or inadvertently, validated his behavior and elevated him as a social role model in politics. From this standpoint, it appears that the social fabric stands to be altered if similar conduct begins to be socially emulated.
Trump’s Religious Demeanor
Months before the 2024 election, the Pew Research Center on Religion and Politics indicated that only a minority of people (8%) perceived Trump as very religious. Trump, however, who claims to be a nondenominational Christian, believes he has been chosen by God to complete a political mission. Many within the Christian Right believe he has been “anointed” by God.
Being anointed presents a theological problem given that, at least in Christianity, the last person to be anointed by God was Jesus, also known as the Son of God. Christian theology, however, minimizes Trump’s anointment since all Christians are anointed through baptism with God’s grace to behave according to God’s wishes. Interestingly, people chose to believe in Trump’s anointment because he survived two assassination attempts. If so, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford also would have been anointed since they also survived being assassinated.
Nevertheless, it is demanding to compare Trump’s divine anointment to his behavior. By his admission, he is a proud person. His demeanor is egotistical. He belittles people. He has promised retribution against his political enemies. Other American politicians have paid a price when their private indiscretions become public. Trump, however, has never been concerned about his immodest comments and behavior, nor has he felt regret or been apologetic.
As a colleague commented to me, if we try to put together Jesus’s commandment, his Beatitudes, his compassion for the poor, and the practice of inclusiveness, i.e., allowing all people to participate in God’s kingdom, it would be a strenuous exercise to identify the attitudes, values, and behavior that qualify Trump as exemplifying Christian virtues. His conduct, however, was of little concern to those who voted for him for religious or moral reasons.
Not everyone who voted for Trump, however, did so because of or despite his character. Relevant issues in 2024 also played a not so surprising role in his victory.
Voters’ Perception of The Issues
Individual voting behavior in the U.S. (or anywhere else) is anything but predictable. People vote for candidates because they express a liking for the way they look, act, speak, or how they believe they stand on the issues that matter to them. People also vote for a candidate as being the least unpleasant among other choices.
Unfortunately, the opinions people express to pollsters are often insignificant; polls’ results tend to be superficial because interviewers do not engage voters enough to uncover contradictions. Thus, although prejudice and bigotry play a role in voting behavior (on both sides), these attitudes are difficult to prove because most people are reluctant to divulge their negative traits. Thus, the media often ends up propagating negligible information to citizens.
As in past elections, two aspects of voting behavior stand out: citizens’ illiteracy about our political and economic system and unawareness or misunderstanding of the issues.
A brief look at voters’ perception of the most relevant issues may illustrate why Trump won. The public record indicates that Trump supporters viewed the economy as the most significant issue in 2024, followed by immigration, violent crime, and foreign policy. The least important ones were climate change, racial and ethnic inequality, and abortion.
Economic Discontent
Trump’s supporters in 2024 seemed to have trusted him more in handling the economy. Realistically, no one (except the very wealthy) tends to feel good when the economy is bad. Unemployment, inflation (high cost of food, gas, healthcare, and consumer goods), low wages, job security, and a decline in rainy days savings are enormously disliked.
People, nonetheless, vote according to how they feel or what they hear about the economy without taking into account how our economic system works. In general, if reliable information differs from what voters perceive, they will still vote according to their feelings or their ideology. When personal information is based on false premises, voting reveals a misleading reality.
In the U.S. numerous government and non-government research agencies constantly review the state of the economy which is then broadcast throughout the media. According to these entities, the U.S. economy in 2024 was exhibiting a rebound. Inflation had lowered from 8% in 2022 to a meager 2.4%. Jobs were being added. Even the forecast by the conservative Bank of America indicated that a recession was unlikely and consumer spending would remain strong. Food prices also declined but were still considered somewhat high.
Voters, nonetheless, mistakenly believe that presidents can control the price of food, gas, healthcare, housing, or other consumer goods as if they were the heads of a centrally planned economy like the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, or China, where despite liberalization, the government still controls commodity prices.
In the U.S., as in other capitalist economies, supply and demand are responsible for pricing consumer goods. However, unforeseen dislocations such as pandemics, wars, or climate issues tend to disrupt market pricing. Presidents are not responsible for food prices; the market is. Gas prices are set–not by a president (regardless of how much drilling takes place) but by supply and demand forces and multinational agreements that presidents find difficult to undo. Lowering taxes too much may have inflationary consequences in addition to increasing the federal debt. In the end, whatever a president does to lower prices, market forces have a way of retaliating and ultimately deciding the outcome (unless the decision is made to eliminate free enterprise).
Voters blamed the Biden administration for inflation. Voters, however, ignored that the responsibility for tackling inflation lies–not with the president but with the Federal Reserve Bank, whose chairman, Jerome Powell, a Republican, was appointed by Donald Trump. Trump supporters were unaware that his criticism of Powell’s handling of the economy amounted to Trump criticizing himself.
Rather than educate its audience on this reality, the media and politicians perpetuate the myth that a president alone can reverse the course of the economy in a short time.
Dozens of examples of political and economic illiteracy among voters have surfaced in the media. A citizen who supported Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who represents the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party and calls herself a democratic socialist, said that in addition to voting for her, he supported Donald Trump, who represents the opposite end of the economic spectrum, because he cares for the poor. In another instance, several voters who claimed to dislike Trump said publicly that they had no choice but to vote for him because they believed that he would bring down inflation. An Ultimate Fighting Championship star supported Trump while blaming high food and gas prices for the poor conditions people find themselves in (even alluding to himself despite being (reportedly) a millionaire. While not having a sound understanding of communism or capitalism, he was critical of American car companies building their products abroad, thus creating unemployment.
Voters ignore that private corporations take production overseas because that is how a free enterprise system, known as capitalism, operates. Likely, voters were unaware that, for years, Trump had his brand of products made overseas, including his Trump Bible, because that is how he would increase his revenue.
Political and economic illiteracy abound in both parties. In 2024, these traits favored Trump. Had Kamala Harris won, the same illusions would have favored her if people were to believe that she could do better at managing the so-called free market.
Immigration
When viewed historically, the first settlers to come to America were not legally authorized to enter the country. Neither were the English colonists and the thousands of African slaves that came years later, or the thousands of Dutch, Germans, Irish, and French that followed. Weak immigration laws throughout the nineteenth century and until early in the twentieth century accounted for much illegal immigration from Europe. Throughout the latter part of the twentieth century, hundreds of thousands came into the country without visas from Cuba, Haiti, Mexico, and other Central American nations. Massive migrations across the Southern border, however, began early in this century.
In 2016, Donald Trump dove into public discontent and made undocumented migrations the centerpiece of his campaign for the presidency. He vowed to build 1000 miles of wall along the Mexican border and have Mexico pay for it. In the end, he built 458 miles of walls, most of it (373) involving replacement of existing dilapidated structures. He built 85 new miles, but Mexico refused to pay for any. A point often ignored in the discussion is that in 2018, amid Trump’s Administration, the former House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, acknowledged that half of all illegal immigrants included people who came into the country legally (on a visa) and overstayed their visa.
Migrants continued to come into the country throughout Trump’s administration at a rate between 40-70k per month, similar to the number of entries under President Obama. Trump clamped down in mid-2019 by issuing tariff threats against Mexico to force cooperation. He also forced the separation of families as a deterrence measure. By April 2020, illegal entries were down to 16k per month, largely because the Pandemic slowed down migrations worldwide. As soon as the Pandemic subsided the numbers steadily climbed during Trump’s last year in office registering over 70k per month in December 2020 (according to his own chart).
Trump’s policies on immigration were simple: to prevent any solution that might give Biden a victory, issuing a call for mass deportations, and continuing to demonize undocumented immigrants. Without evidence, he generalized about illegal immigrants being criminals, rapists, and drug smugglers; said that thousands of criminals were being released from Venezuelan jails and sent to the U.S.; that Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, were stealing animals from their neighbors to eat them; that illegal immigrants were being allowed to vote; and that they were taking away jobs from African Americans.
He has said that undocumented immigrants were poisoning the blood of our country and causing all sorts of diseases, alluding to how mixed marriages between nationals and people of different races and ethnicities were harming the nation. He called on three American-born members of Congress with different ethnic backgrounds to return to their countries. His rhetoric was similar to nativist prejudice in the past against Catholics, Italians, Jews, and Irish people.
Nevertheless, could Trump be entirely accountable for the consequences of his remarks? Certainly, fear and insecurity are successful tactics in politics. Their success stems not necessarily because the remarks are truthful but because of the possibility that they may be true. But, one individual standing on a podium making exaggerated claims does not hold much value in the market of ideas. If words create hateful anti-immigrant sentiment, would not voters who chose to believe in those views or ignore them altogether be accountable as well?
As for the relationship between crime and undocumented workers, the National Institute for Justice issued a report about crime in Texas, where we might expect a large population of illegal migrants to live. The study revealed that between 2012 and 2018, undocumented immigrants had the lowest offending rates overall for both total felony crime and violent felony crime compared to other groups. It added that U.S.-born citizens had the highest offending rates overall for most crime types, with documented immigrants generally falling between the other two groups.
There seems to be no doubt that the immigration process in the U.S. is broken and needs to be reformed. In 2024, it appeared Trump required radical solutions to win the support of a significant population group. For some time, white conservative voters have made it known that they do not wish to change the nation’s demographics to the point where they would become a minority.
Ironically, the conservative National Chamber of Commerce and countless major and minor conservative businesses involved in food production and construction support increased immigration to cover thousands of jobs that are needed.
Nonetheless, President-elect Trump announced that he will undertake the greatest mass deportation in American history. Since there are between 11-15 million undocumented migrants in the U.S., the logistics and the funding are unfathomable. Estimates for mass deportation are around $300 billion, according to the non-partisan American Immigration Council. Meanwhile, the plan’s logistics, whether it may entail internment camps, for example, remain a mystery.
Since there are over eight million undocumented people currently in the workforce, their removal is likely to create havoc in the economy. Despite being in the country illegally, their work contributes to keeping inflation low, and they pay taxes to the government. Although many citizens dislike the type of work migrants do, they might accept these jobs at higher wages. But if this happens, it will cut companies’ profits or lead to higher prices for consumer goods. Jokingly, someone commented that if mass deportation is instituted, the middle class will have to start mowing their own lawn.
Among the most serious obstacles Trump will face is deporting people to countries unwilling to accept them because of their relations with the U.S. Unless he relies on military force or provides these countries with incentives to readmit their people, there might be little else that he can do.
In the end, it appears that Trump’s voters chose to ignore his comments on immigration as mere exaggeration, in which case they did not know what they were voting for. Or it is possible that voters were pleased or not concerned with his policies and their unforeseen consequences.
Violent Crime
Crime was high on the list of people who favored Trump. However, the problem with eradicating crime is similar to dealing with economic conditions. Voters are unaware that crime has little to do with presidential power or the Federal Government. For the most part, crime is a local and state problem. The Federal budget for local police is about ten percent of total expenditures on crime. There is a federal police force, but its personnel work for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the FBI, ICE, or manage federal prisons, meaning that they are mostly not involved in local crime. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that according to data provided by local enforcement agencies (most of whom supported Trump), in 2023, crime had already declined, including the number of murders. Once again, voters’ illiteracy on the issue failed to distinguish reality from falsehood.
Foreign Policy
If the voters’ knowledge about the issues tends to be alarmingly low, it becomes worse when dealing with foreign policy. There tends to be little interest in the complexities of what goes on abroad.
Trump plans to continue his confrontation with China and our neighbors by considerably increasing tariffs or using them as a negotiating tool. However, their impact remains to be seen once people react to higher prices or unemployment at home.
Altogether, it is not easy to know how Trump voters view foreign policy. Public opinion polls and the media do not do a thorough job in attempting to uncover how people feel about the wars between Russia and Ukraine or between Israel and Palestinians, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, other than whether they support it or not. So far, his supporters, including members of Congress, have seem to have taken little notice of how he has managed to align his brand of Republican conservatism with authoritarian and demagogic political systems. It suggests that Trump’s followers will likely defer to him on whatever he does overseas if it does not involve Americans’ lives or affect their pockets.
Trump has said that he likes to end wars. This is a good sign, as long as he does not allow nations to keep territories annexed by force. Doing so would violate a principle of international law, giving other governments, big and small, de facto permission to act similarly. His penchant for military and economic supremacy as the primary and ultimate solutions to crises, suggests that critical problems, including arms control, climate pollution, human trafficking and persecution, hunger, and erosion of democracy, will not receive adequate attention.
Trump’s Transactional Views on Abortion
A significant number of voters supported Trump because of his opposition to abortion. Many, however, may not have realized that the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson overturning Roe v Wade (for which Trump claims credit) did not ban abortion nationwide; it simply allowed the states to decide on the matter.
Despite calling himself the most pro-life president in U.S. history, Trump’s stand has been transactional. Years before running for office, he had strong pro-choice views. I’m very pro-choice … I just believe in choice, he said in 1999. In 2016, he thought that being pro-life offered him a winning opportunity. He even acknowledged that there should be some form of punishment for a woman who has an abortion. But in January 2024, he insinuated that concessions needed to be made on abortion to win elections.
Following his victory, Trump has realized that abortion has become irrelevant at the national level. It is unlikely that he will be able to successfully push for a nationwide ban. Previous courts have skirted the issue by relying on the dubious effectiveness of the viability concept. Trump seems to be satisfied with allowing abortion to take place in some states and not in others. As he has said, ‘it’s all about the will of the people.’
One Last Issue
Given the close differences that decided Trump’s victory in contested states, one question whose answer we may never know is the extent to which gender played a role in the election. Trump has been victorious against two women, Hillary Clinton and now Kamala Harris, and defeated by a man. He won against Clinton in the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million. Nonetheless, he lost the election against Joe Biden securing the highest number of votes ever cast for a presidential candidate.
There were numerous reports that Black men were opposed to having a Black woman as president. Even former President Obama felt he had to denounce what seemed like toxic masculinity among Blacks. Machismo, or mistaken manliness, also played a role among Hispanics. In 2008, Hispanic males voted in droves for a Black man, but their numbers fizzled in 2024, dropping by 9-10 percent in their vote for Harris. Given the inroads Trump made among Black and Hispanic males, a degree of bigotry seems to prevail even among liberals.
In Conclusion
Donald Trump won the 2024 election because voters approved of his character and/or because they were not concerned with it. Moreover, political and economic illiteracy was (and will continue to be) a problem as long as voters have little idea about what (and why) they vote for.
Following the 2024 election results, it is safe to say that the nation’s social fabric has been significantly altered. Because the country is extraordinarily divided, as indicated by voting results, political instability and a turbulent, uncertain future might best characterize the next four years.
In the end, citizens are bound by their respect for democratic principles and values to abide by the results of the 2024 election. Nonetheless, we may have to rephrase James Carville’s famed slogan to, ‘It’s not the economy, stupid; it’s the people.’
To contact the author copy and paste my e-mail address and send via your e-mail provider.
[email protected]