Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are off to an electric start in an unprecedented presidential election cycle. They are stealing the limelight and diverting attention away from Trump with their positive and optimistic campaign, centred on a progressive will to effect change in an America that needs to move forward not backwards. That is their pitch. The narrative they are creating is one of a hopeful future with Democrats in the White House leading the charge for normal Americans. Despite what is seemingly a concrete election strategy, they are still up against a formidable narrative in the many heads of Trumpian populism.
The narrative of neglect by DC and a sense of abandonment has been at the centre of Trump’s populist campaign since 2015. Trump’s anti-establishment voice resonated with millions across the US who have seen their jobs disappear and communities decline as a result of globalisation and Washington’s inaction. Trump was representative of a shift in the course, and a rejection of the system - one which the Democrats have thoroughly identified themselves with. They have struggled to escape the claws of Trump’s attacks on how inefficient and ineffective government is. Democrats have been associated with the failing of the existing political infrastructure in America. This narrative has been terrifically effective in tapping into the emotion of millions of disenchanted Americans who feel left behind and ignored. It is a narrative that has been so delicately constructed and purposely driven by the Trump machine, and one that will prove difficult to break for Harris and Walz.
Harris and Walz represent exactly what Trump rails against: big government interventionists. With the selection of Walz, Harris has doubled down on the progressive angle adopted by her campaign, in an attempt to contrast Trump’s negative view of the system with a positive one. Her campaign has decided not to challenge Trump on policy or record, but to go head-to-head with him on the perception of America and the system and try to ignite an emotional reaction, just like he does. Instead of playing on people’s anger like Trump’s populist appeal, Harris and Walz are attempting to appeal to people’s hope, love of country and optimism. This campaign is not one fought on sensible and rational policy debates but is being fought on feelings towards America and its direction.
This is a dangerous strategy for Harris. The Trump machine has been in full force for almost a decade. His manipulation is deeply entrenched and his calls for system-rejection are widely felt. Many have found community in the common feeling of being ‘left behind’. In key states, especially in the blue-collar Midwest, Trump’s narrative is relatable. His proposed solutions are left unscrutinised amidst his sweeping declarations about ‘broken’ America.
That is where a mistake may have been made by the Democrats. Solutions and policies could have been the focal point of their campaign. This is Trump’s weakness. He does not have the faintest of grasps on the facts. His campaign is all about emotion and Harris counteracting this with proper serious discussion about how to fix America could have elevated her above the petty arguments and childish insults levelled by Trump. It would have forced him to declare policy positions, defend his proposals with facts and figures and would have revealed him as devoid of answers. Harris has been dragged into a perception battle, and she may be standing up and fighting, but will her narrative win her votes where it matters?
Her progressive attitude may play well with young voters. It may lead her to strengthen her support in blue states, cementing her urban support, but does it reach those in key states who resonate with populist politics? Government neglect and a fear of the federal government appeals more to those less educated and working-class voters, and these are the individuals that will carry Pennsylvania for Trump and turn Wisconsin red. There is no doubt Harris will turn out the vote for her base and win the popular vote, but her narrative is not suitable and is not designed to persuade those who have been absorbed by Trump’s alternative histories and truths. These voters do not feel hopeful, and do not calibrate their politics according to socio-cultural issues. Rather they primarily vote to, simply put, get their jobs back. Harris’s lack of policy proposals will feed into the view of an overreaching federal government deaf to the people’s material priorities and will end up costing her pivotal states.
If Kamala Harris wishes to be the next US President, she needs to shift the conversation to concrete policies. She will not beat the Trump machine’s narrative; she will not break the perception he has instilled across the country. Harris needs to challenge him on answers, while showing she has an adequate plan to improve voters’ lives.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/SecretName101
No image changes made.
Comments