The conclusion of the 2024 presidential election is anticipated to be a culmination of an unprecedented and peculiar political cycle. The campaign has been fraught with surprising elements, from intra-party dissent to attempts on political figures’ lives. Social media trends like Kamala Harris’s “Brat summer” and Donald Trump’s engagement with comedic podcasts exhibit the unconventional nature of this election cycle. However, amidst this chaos, the superficial quality of political rhetoric and economic misunderstandings prevalent in modern American democracy often distracts from the essential realities of the contest. Notably, Kamala Harris’s approach to her candidacy raises serious questions about her commitment to substantive policy-making, as her campaign has largely focused on distancing herself from previous positions rather than grappling with the complexities facing voters.
Harris’s campaign struggles underscore the notion that she is, at best, a candidate of convenience rather than genuine conviction, primarily deriving her nominee status from her role as vice president over the past four years. This association inherently contradicts her attempts to rebrand herself as a “candidate of change,” revealing a dissonance that seems challenging for even the most skilled politicians to navigate. Nevertheless, the general election looms with the perception of a tightly contested race, fueled by Harris’s alignment with the prevailing political regime that remains intent on preserving its influence and control over American governance.
In contrast, Donald Trump embodies a variety of flaws, particularly regarding libertarian principles and fiscal responsibility. However, he is also framed as a victim of political persecution, facing numerous legal challenges that many argue are politically motivated. While critics label him a “radical,” valid concerns surrounding his time in office point to continuities with the previous establishment rather than radical changes—issues such as escalating government spending and ongoing ties to influential establishment figures highlight the complexities of his political legacy. Trump’s capacity to inspire animosity among established political adversaries further complicates the narrative, as evidenced by the hostility he receives from figures like Mitch McConnell and elites within the Republican Party.
The media’s role in shaping perceptions around the candidates cannot be overstated, as it has largely been an ally to Harris’s cause. A recent example of this dynamic revealed the media’s inclination to misinterpret Trump’s statements, especially regarding military matters, reflecting a broader trend of manipulation present in political discourse. This not only illustrates the media’s partisanship but also indicates how a Trump victory could signify a substantial shift in public sentiment that challenges the entrenched propaganda narratives perpetuated by the media and ruling elites. The prospect of a Trump win, potentially fueled by voters disillusioned with the current regime, represents a challenge to the status quo that aligns with historical voting patterns seen in previous elections.
Joe Biden’s recent comments disparaging Trump supporters further illustrate the regime’s perception of dissenting voices within the electorate. In this context, Trump has accidentally become a symbol for those opposing the established order, allowing his potential victory to threaten the existing power structure heavily reliant on a compliant electorate. A win for Trump would likely engage a diverse voter base, reminiscent of the coalition that supported Barack Obama, which progressives might find deeply troubling, as it disrupts their narratives and agenda, particularly in light of traditional voter concerns regarding economic and societal challenges.
While a victory for Trump would not resolve the systemic issues plaguing the federal government, it would highlight the extent of political control exerted by Washington elites and signal their readiness to prioritize ideological causes—such as the promotion of unlimited abortion access—over critical economic issues like inflation and public safety. The considerable influence of the regime in American governance raises apprehension about the future political environment should Harris emerge victorious, likely leading to intensified use of state power and stringent adherence to institutional ideologies. Given these factors, many argue respectfully but assertively that a defeat for Harris could demonstrate a significant repudiation of the restrictive political narrative and a commendation for grassroots political empowerment.