Donald Trump’s victory is a product of the Democratic establishment in America and the media and experts that support them. Despite the enormous campaign warning that democracy would end if Trump won, they did everything to hand him victory on a silver platter.

Firstly, they clung to the hope that the infirm 81-year-old Joe Biden could collect his thoughts and lead a campaign. Then they assumed Kamala Harris would take over—Harris, a candidate known primarily for her lack of political achievements and leftist slogans, who became vice president because she embodied traits—gender, skin color—that complemented Biden’s weaknesses, boosted popularity within Democratic circles, but offered no strengths for winning over key swing-state voters.

If democracy was truly at stake, shouldn’t they have done everything—risking their own interests if necessary—to stop Trump? Few held this view, and any dissent was quickly suppressed. Instead of holding primaries to nominate a candidate who could genuinely challenge Trump—a historically unpopular candidate—they did everything to keep Biden in the race for at least half a year too long, only to then nominate someone incapable of defeating Trump.

Harris actually ran a decent campaign, performed better in debates, and one cannot blame her for wanting to be the presidential candidate. But this fight was not about proving that the American electorate was ready for a woman of color in the White House or realizing the agenda of the Democratic left wing; it was about stopping Trump—which meant selecting someone who could win over undecided voters in swing states, namely the Rust Belt and several southern states.

Could Harris, associated with leftist slogans, fulfill this role, even against a convicted Trump? She could not. And this should not have come as a surprise. In an election focused on immigration and the economy—areas where Trump held an edge in voter trust—the Democrats lacked credibility. This is ironic, given the American economy is experiencing high growth. But a candidate unwilling to critically address her own party’s legacy could not offer a hopeful message. And in times of fear, Trump once again had the upper hand.

Eight Lessons from Trump’s Victory

1. It is not enough to be (in one’s eyes) right. You need to reach those who do not share values that may seem self-evident. These voters operate on different criteria, rooted in deep moral beliefs—and instead of trying to change these beliefs, they must be respected and acknowledged as real—or you lose.
2. Suppressing criticism, imposing false unity, and cornering dissenting voices is a fatal flaw of both camps—right and left—but this approach led to the left’s defeat. The main idea of the establishment turned out to be misguided. Just as they once rallied around the highly unpopular Hillary Clinton, they now forced voters to support Joe Biden, who lacked the ability to fight for the presidency, and later Kamala Harris, who lacked the achievements, personality, and image to win.
3. Skin color and gender do not win elections. Obama turned what seemed like weaknesses into strength, winning by a large margin. Harris did not build a narrative like Obama or Kennedy (the first Catholic U.S. president), to make her identity an electoral asset rather than a liability for traditional swing-state voters.
4. The key lies in defining the “normal voter”—what is “normal” versus what deviates from the norm. In this battle, unfortunately, the radical right-wing nationalist won. The slogan “Kamala is for Them/They, Trump is for You” encapsulates Trump’s victory. The essence lies in framing the opponent as someone who offers foreign solutions, imposing them against society’s will.
5. Radical reshaping of the political landscape is possible. Trump accomplished this, undeniably, despite his many off-putting traits. He took over the Republican Party, making it a bastion of white nationalism, attracting enough voters (including Latinos and even Black voters) dissatisfied with the Democratic agenda and the country’s direction.
6. The mainstream media has enough influence to stifle dissent within its own ranks and push through unpopular solutions, but not enough to secure electoral victory. Too many independent forces exist, and the media’s communication dominance is insufficient for controlling the world outside their bubble, even a very large one.
7. Democrats and their allies were first too compliant with power—failing to push for an alternative to Biden—and then too politically correct and deferential to leftist values, which prevented them from critically assessing Harris’s hastily chosen candidacy.
8. Only populists offer what many voters see as a real alternative to the established consensus. This is why they win among voters who may not share radical views but dislike the status quo even more. The tyranny of the status quo works until it does not. When it stops working, the status quo loses to a radical offer.

Therefore, the challenge for all moderate forces is to build an alternative to the status quo, which can no longer win. And to do it in time, not when it is too late.

The article was originally published in Polish at: https://liberte.pl/zwyciestwo-trumpa-porazka-establishmentu/

Translated by Natalia Banaś

Continue exploring: 

Business Climate in Ukraine in September 2024: Trends, Challenges, Prospects

Fighting Back against Populist Scaremongering on Immigration and Gender