A commentator from the Philadelphia Inquirer laid out the case of Kamala Harris’s political downfall, pinning blame on an electorate he saw as ill-informed. To his eyes, it was this uninformed majority that brought Trump back into power, constituting a historical low in voter understanding. He claimed that Joe Biden seemed popular only to the dwindling population that still picks up a newspaper.
He drew attention to two public letters received on November 23, which in his opinion, echoed claims more fitting for anonymous online comments or receptive Fox News audiences. One claimed that Trump emerged victorious ‘resoundingly.’ A curious viewpoint, considering that it ignores the fact the margin was one of the slimmest in recent memory of presidential election history.
Then there was an input from a woman hailing from Delray Beach, who saw divine intervention in Trump’s success, citing his commitment to the proverbial American dream and purported virtues. If digesting newspaper content leads to such disjointed conclusions, it seems she is interpreting ‘American values’ as infidelity, disrespecting women and fraudulent educational and business dealings.
In this commentator’s perspective, if such letter-writers were to invest more time in reading rather than in penning their views, the electorate could be better informed. But again, we see the question of how this perspective serves the public analysis of political events.
The look ahead to the coming four years is different for every American citizen. There are voices rising above the clamor claiming that American public sentiment was misunderstood – a point that led to astonishing election results. These voices suggest savoring the coming political era, aligned as it is with their views.
Even so, Trump’s final share of the votes came to 50%, merely 1.6% more than the 48.4% that went to Harris. To perceive such a tiny victory margin as an authoritative command from the populace is, quite frankly, absurd. It represents the smallest margin since the Bush and Gore contest back in 2000.
There is a call from some quarters to ‘erase our political differences and work together for the common good.’ Yet, beneath the surface, the nation is noticeably riven. With such deep divisions between ideological stances, the notion of a unified front appears somewhat utopian.
Cynicism pervades, with public trust in leadership diminishing and fears over escalating divisions taking center-stage. As the saying goes, twenty clowns might contribute to a merry circus, but they certainly do not equate to an efficient, dependable government.
For over seventy years, one observer has watched America’s political dynamics ebb and flow between the Democratic and Republican parties. However, to this observer, it appears a state of political inertia has now set in; there is dynamism, yes, but no sign of forward momentum.
The city of Washington D.C is on the brink of transformative political shifts, yet on a broader scale, the pressing issue of global warming remains largely unaddressed. Unless decisive, innovative measures are taken to combat this existential crisis, we may witness an unsettling indifference that is hardly conducive to effective, considerate governance.