The victory of Donald Trump in the last presidential elecion was a slap in the face for the global public by right-wing voters in America, particularly for those of American allies. Many experts and commentators speculated why Kamala Harris lost shortly after the election. Here, I do not talk about finesse analysis and makeshift technique of the election, but I would like to talk about the ideal way of being the leader for national unity, because Harris talked extensively about DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) issues for myopic gain of votes from specific groups, although she was regarded as the candidate of orthodox policy on key national issues such as national security and the economy. Actually, she won the support from the circle mainstream policy experts in those areas. National Security Leaders of America published the open letter to endorse Harris, with 1,049 signatories including 253 ex-generals and admirals, in order to maintain US commitment to global security and to stop Trump’s use of force against his opponents in domestic politics (1). Also, the majority of living Nobel Prize economists signed the open letter by Professor Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University to endorse Harris to stop Trump’s inflationary economic policy such as tariff hikes (2).
Of course, endorsement from renowned experts is no guarantee of winning the election, in view of rampant anti-intellectualism among American voters. However, that sort of intellectual legitimacy could have given Harris strong moral high grounds for agenda setting as the candidate of national unity, rather than flattering DEI favoring voters to attract easy votes. Also, the intellectual legitimacy could have been helpful to awaken disinformed working class to know the fact that the American economy was good not bad. Senator Bernie Sanders said that the Democratic Party be back to the working-class party (3). His idea would have been met, if the Harris team told the fact about the American economy to workers who were completely brainwashed by Trump propaganda. Actually, Republican exodus Tom Nichols of the Atlantic mentions that the Biden administration has kept unemployment and inflation low (4). Even pro-Trump Wall Street Journal admits that the US economy is growing strongly (5). Nobel economist endorsement was also helpful from DEI perspectives. The two signatories out of the three laureates this year are Americans of dual nationalities. Both MIT Professors, Simon Johnson has British, and Daron Acemoglu has Turkish citizenship. Acemoglu is a minority even in Turkey, as he is an Armenian descent, ethnicity of Christian civilization in a Muslim country. In addition to those facts of the economy and DEI issues, three laureates including Professor James Robinson of Chicago University won the prize for their research on governance and economic development, which could have been a body blow to Trump’s Russia-like oligarchic plutocracy which is bitterly criticized by his 1st term foreign policy advisor Fiona Hill (6).
One of the reasons why Harris ran such a bread and circus campaign like Trump is over-developed election industry in America. In no other countries, such detailed election analyses are provided to the media everyday by numerous polling companies. On one hand, that has helped the development of democracy in America. But on the other hand, candidates learn to follow myopic tactical advices by election professionals like a sales person following market research analyses to satisfy customers. Such passive attitude is not necessarily fit for a leader of the state. A leader must tell the public what the nation needs and show the direction to resolve them, rather than buttering up specific frustrated group of people. The candidate must listen to election strategists in the campaign but not follow their advices blindly. In the blog post last July, I mentioned to the vote grubber who behaved like a poorly educated provincial though he was graduated from Kyoto University (7). As in the case of him, election professionals fall into narrow-sighted viewpoints, but the candidate must set an agenda to resolve national problems from a panoramic perspective.
As if trying to wipe out popular misunderstandings about the state of the US economy, President Joe Biden addressed his achievements on Dec 10 at the Brookings Institution, and outlined points on the social media next day (8). The Democratic Party should have appealed their accomplishments in such key agendas of national politics during the election campaign. That was too late to stop Trump. Come to think of it, Harris ran as a sane centrist in contrast with mad right-winger Trump. However, as the campaign went on, she was labeled merely a DEI geek because she courted woke voters for myopic gains. In other words, she turned into a Trump of the left, and completely failed in showing the credential as the leader for national unity. Biden’s wrap up speech at the Brookings was a reminder that Trump inherits good economy at the beginning of his second term. As he will step down in January, he just talked about his economic policy and the results without mentioning what he will do for the future. Nevertheless, helpful to awaken the public with the panoramic view of the economy that he presented to the public.
As I mentioned at the beginning, this is not an analysis of the election, but discussion about the way of being the leader. Despite that, post-election analyses need to be mentioned. There are some unexpected things in the last presidential election, therefore, the Prediction Professor Allan Lichtman of the American University failed in making a right forecast. Based on his prediction model from president election history, Lichtman commented that Biden was advantageous over Trump as he did not make failures in the economy and foreign policy, he was the incumbent, and the third-party candidate was weak (9). Despite the poor performance at the TV debate on June 27, Lichtman argued that Biden stay in the race, as he satisfies more than 8 out of 13 requirements, which he calls keys, to win the election. Particularly, the economy was strong although discontent voters claim it terrible (10). Another historian, Professor Heather Cox Richardson of Boston College also said in the CNN interview on July 7 that it was wrong for the Democratic Party to switch to change the candidate in the midst of the election against the opposition, because the campaign was organized for the original party nominee and public attention would be drawn to the confusion within the party. Actually, when Lyndon Johnson withdrew from the election in 1968, Democratic campaign fell into chaos and they lost (11).
There is no knowing whether Biden could have outcompeted Trump had he stayed in the race. However, the Democratic Party fell into myopism as they were upset with unfavorable impression of the TV debate. Thus, their impromptu switch of the candidate and election tactics gave an impression to voters as if the Democratic rule had been a failure. Also, Harris had some weaknesses while not possessing Biden’s strength. Shortly after the election, Allan Lichtman concluded that xenophobia, misogyny, and disinformation helped Trump win the election (12). Particularly, Elon Musk launched innumerable propagandas to misinform voters about the economy, to agitate hatred against undocumented immigrants, and to blame “wokeness” of the establishment and the “legacy media” (13). Nevertheless, focusing myopically on DEI issues, the Harris team fell into prey of Musk’s demagogy. In addition, she did not have Biden’s advantage of the working-class base. When Biden stepped down from the race, the UAW was still loyal to him, and they did not switch to Harris immediately (14) (15) .
Quite interestingly, there is a nation-wide superstition that the Republican Party is better at managing the economy, since it is the party for the business. That is flatly rejectable as Nobel economists endorsed Harris solidly, for fear of Trump’s inflationary policy. However, Musk exploited preexisting popular misunderstanding for his disinformation activities. Also, there is a political danger in populist economic policy even though it is assumed pro-business, as Roberto Foa of Cambridge University and Rachel Kleinfeld of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argue in their jointly contributed article to the Harvard Business Review. Those populists are not market-friendly. Their economic incentives like tax cuts are not coupled with fiscal austerity. But they don't care about ideological consistency as they just want to cling to power. Their antagonism with established government agencies devastates the policy-making process of the country (16). No wonder, Nobel economists strongly oppose Trump’s economic policy.
Had Harris set agenda on key issues for the nation, she could have made an appeal that she had better credentials to be the leader than Trump. Actually, she won the TV debate in September. Trump was severely blamed for his cats-and-dogs eater remark against Haitian immigrants. In addition, his lies were fact-checked by numerous experts and the media (17). Nevertheless, Harris pursued myopic gain of votes through disproportionately focusing on DEI issues. However, America has a history of minority conformism as seen among immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe blending into the WASP in the 19th century. Likewise, Indians are successful in rising up the social ladder in the Anglo-American cultural sphere today, like Republican primary candidate Nikki Haley, ex-British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, ex-Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, etc. Harris herself is also an Indian descent. Some Indian descendants even align with white right wingers. British Conservative MP Suella Braverman is a notorious example. The Second Trump administration is appointing such Indians as Kash Patel to the FBI Director and Vivek Ramswamy to the co-leader of the DOGE with Musk. Remember that there are extremists more ruthless than white right-wingers among the minority.Harris may have followed ex-President Barack Obama’s advice, but such extensive focus on DEI gave an impression to swing voters that she was too leftist, not centrist.
As I mention repeatedly here, this post is not about election tactics. Also, I understand that any election candidate cannot always focus on talking about lofty policy ideals as not all voters are well educated or highly trained to think of national politics from country first perspectives. In order to outcompete the rival, a candidate turns into a vote grubber out of necessity. However, we have to remember that Democratic predecessors, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, did not speak so much for instant gain of votes as Harris did. There is so much to be learned how to be the real leader the state in the populist era, from why Harris failed to stop a demagogue like Trump came out of vulgar reality show. And, how can countries other than America stop the emergence of mini-Trumps? Above all, we need to question whether the leader should overreact to day-by-day trends of the voter.
Foot note:
(1) "NSL4A Endorses Kamala Harris for President of the United States"; National Security Leaders for America; November 4, 2024
(2) "23 Nobel economists sign letter saying Harris agenda vastly better for US economy"
(3) Twitter; Bernie Sanders @BernieSanders; November 7, 2024
(4) Twitter; Tom Nichols @RadioFreeTom; November 6, 2024
(5) Twitter; Herbie Ziskend @HerbieZiskend46; October 31, 2024
(6) "‘Everything Is Subservient to the Big Guy’: Fiona Hill on Trump and America’s Emerging Oligarchy"; Politico; October 28, 2024
(7) "Democracy in Africa and Western countermeasures against Russian penetration"; Global American Discourse; July 10, 2023
(8) "Biden looks back at his economic record in speech at Brookings Institution"; PBS News; December 10, 2024
Twitter; The White House @WhiteHouse; December 11, 2024
(9) "Historian who predicted 9 of the last 10 election results says Democrats shouldn't drop Joe Biden"; USA Today; June 30, 2024
(10) "Why Joe Biden Should Stay in the Race"; Harvard Griffin GSAS News; July 3, 2024
(11) Twitter; Christiane Amanpour @amanpour; July 7, 2024
(12) "What... Happened... | Lichtman Live #87"; YouTube; November 8, 2024
(13) "The Misinformation Take Over | Lichtman Live #88"; YouTube; November 13, 2024
(14) "UAW president: ‘We’re not going to rush’ Harris endorsement"; Hill; July 23, 2024
(15) "UAW endorses Harris, giving her blue-collar firepower in industrial states"; AP News; August 1, 2024
(16) "When Populists Rise, Economies Usually Fall"; Harvard Business Review; October 10, 2024
(17) "Six highlights from Harris-Trump debate"; BBC News; 11 September, 2024
