“Promises Made; Promises Kept” ~ President Elect Donald Trump in his Victory Speech, 6 November 2024.
What Happened in 2024?
It’s all over. One of the most contentious and unpredictable election campaigns of two candidates for the Presidency of the United States has come to an end in former President Donal Trump securing a convincing win over sitting Vice President Kamala Harris. In an article in The Associated Press, just three words were used to the describe the win by Trump: inflation; immigration; and culture. Of these, the lesser known is the word “culture” which has more philosophical overtones than practical nuances.
The differing rhetorical styles of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris were likely central to each candidate’s appeal in the 2024 election. Trump’s language has consistently emphasized populist themes, the “Make America Great Again” mantra, and strong critiques of establishment politics. He often frames himself as a champion for “forgotten Americans,” using straightforward and occasionally provocative language that resonates deeply with his followers. His messages focus on economic revival, a firm stance on immigration, and an emphasis on national pride and independence, aligning closely with themes of patriotism and self-reliance. This tone energizes his supporters, who see him as someone willing to challenge elite interests.
On the other hand, Kamala Harris’s rhetoric highlighted unity, progressive ideals, and social justice. She presented herself as an advocate for a more inclusive and diverse America, pushing for policies centered on equality, climate action, healthcare accessibility, and criminal justice reform. Her approach was typically more measured, aiming to bridge divisions among various communities. Her messages strongly resonated with voters who prioritize social progress and equity, drawing support from those who see diversity and inclusion as integral to the country’s future.
What may have led to Trump’s victory was his direct, populist style, which appeals to the concerns of Americans who feel disconnected from the more progressive, policy-focused discourse in Washington. Trump’s approach can feel relatable to voters focused on economic stability, border security, and traditional values. Meanwhile, although Harris’s rhetoric appeals to progressive-minded voters, it may not have fully addressed the economic concerns and cultural issues central to Trump’s base. Trump’s ability to channel frustration with the status quo helped distinguish his rhetoric and solidified his appeal to a substantial part of the electorate, resulting in his win.
What Happened in 2016?
In What the Hell Happened? Donald Trump’s former communications director, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, and political strategist Jennifer Palmieri examines the surprising outcome of Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The central idea is that Trump’s win wasn’t accidental but the result of complex social, political, and media forces that many political experts underestimated.
First, the book contends that media—especially social platforms—was instrumental in magnifying Trump’s voice. Social media, in particular, boosted Trump’s message by prioritizing attention-grabbing content. Through these platforms, Trump could sidestep traditional media barriers, directly engaging with and energizing voters through his unconventional communication style. Trump’s populist message and focus on economic issues struck a chord with voters experiencing job loss, economic instability, and a sense of being left behind. Many saw him as a leader willing to confront what they perceived as a “rigged” system—a stance that sharply contrasted with establishment politicians.
The book also critiques the Democratic campaign’s missteps, particularly its reliance on identity politics, which didn’t fully address the economic concerns of swing voters in key states. Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” comment, for instance, is highlighted as alienating some undecided voters who might otherwise have supported her. Another important aspect is the impact of misinformation and partisan media, which created a fragmented and polarized media environment. The book suggests that this “post-truth” climate worked in Trump’s favor, as rebuttals to falsehoods often failed to gain traction.
Finally, the book explores Trump’s use of fear-based rhetoric, which tapped into anxieties around immigration, national security, and economic worries. This strategy helped him to mobilize voters seeking protection and change.
In sum, What the Hell Happened? portrays Trump’s victory in 2016 as the product of several intersecting trends, from media dynamics and populism to anti-establishment sentiment and strategic campaign weaknesses, reflecting broader societal shifts in American politics.
Understanding Democracy and Leadership
Both the 2016 and 2024 Trump victories bring to bear the relevance of understanding the different nuances of democracy, its political philosophy and its effect on the voting public.
In democratic societies like the United States, electing leaders combines values of competence, popular appeal, and public opinion. The ideas of ancient philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, joined by the pragmatism of Machiavelli and the liberty-focused views of John Stuart Mill, shed light on the inherent challenges of democratic systems. These perspectives, though from different eras, remain relevant to understanding why certain leaders—such as Donald Trump—gain significant traction, tapping into the unique dynamics of the American political landscape.
Socrates and Plato expressed skepticism about the ability of the masses to choose wise leaders. In works like The Apology and The Republic, they argued that most people lack the philosophical insight needed to recognize true wisdom in rulers. In Plato’s ideal world, only those who have pursued deep understanding, like philosopher-kings, would lead. Applying this to American democracy, where voters often select leaders based on personality or political messaging, we see a recurring question: are voters informed enough to make wise choices? Socrates might argue that charisma and rhetoric too often overshadow genuine ability, and Plato might suggest that a leader’s appeal could replace qualities of wisdom or virtue. The electoral successes of leaders like Donald Trump, whose charisma and media influence are undeniable, reflect these age-old concerns about the electorate’s capacity to choose leaders with the necessary depth of insight and experience.
Aristotle, while more optimistic about democracy, also believed in the importance of virtue and experience in rulers. Unlike Plato, he thought the collective judgment of an informed public could contribute positively to governance, offering a check on leaders and helping to balance power. In the U.S., where the democratic model values the input of the people, Aristotle’s perspective is mirrored in the expectation that voters will choose leaders who act in the public interest. Yet, his emphasis on virtuous leadership suggests a warning against electing leaders based on popularity alone, emphasizing instead the value of moral and practical qualities. In recent U.S. elections, many voters have shown a preference for leaders they feel connect with their lives and values. Trump’s success in appealing to voters as an outsider who speaks their language reflects a preference for relatable figures over traditional politicians. Aristotle might understand this desire for leaders who seem grounded in real concerns, yet he might also worry about the possible impact of such a populist approach on the integrity of governance.
Machiavelli brings a further layer to understanding leadership in democracies by emphasizing the pragmatic nature of power. In The Prince, he suggested that successful leaders often have to act strategically—even ruthlessly—to secure and maintain authority. To Machiavelli, a ruler must understand his people and, if necessary, use cunning to gain their loyalty. This perspective is relevant to American elections, where campaigns focus on creating appealing images and narratives that resonate with the public. Trump’s appeal, especially in 2016 and 2024, can be seen as a reflection of Machiavellian tactics: his populist rhetoric and ability to present himself as an anti-establishment figure attract a solid base, even if it means embracing divisive language. For some supporters, these actions are necessary to challenge the political status quo, illustrating Machiavelli’s belief in the importance of strategy, image, and rhetoric in holding power.
John Stuart Mill, focusing on liberty and the role of an informed electorate, offers yet another viewpoint. In On Liberty, Mill argued that democracy thrives when citizens are free to express diverse ideas and engage in meaningful debate. He stressed that an engaged, educated populace strengthens democratic choice, as people would ideally vote based on careful consideration rather than impulse. But Mill also had a provocative view on voting: he suggested that educated, high-standing individuals should have more influence in elections, proposing that a professor might receive three votes while a less-educated person, like a farmer, might receive one. Mill believed this system would give greater weight to those with a broader understanding of societal issues, ensuring more thoughtful decision-making. While such an idea contradicts American values of equal suffrage, it raises questions about the impact of voter education and experience on election outcomes. Mill’s vision may resonate with concerns about misinformation and partisan polarization, where some fear that voting choices aren’t always informed by a broad understanding of policy and governance.
Einstein, although not a political philosopher, also weighed in on the responsibility of leaders, emphasizing ethical behavior and social responsibility. He believed that leaders should prioritize the public good, advocating for unity and shared values. In a democracy, this implies a duty for both voters and leaders to consider the collective welfare over individual gain. For supporters of Trump, his actions and rhetoric signal a dedication to American values and interests, while critics worry that his approach may be divisive, potentially compromising the unity Einstein believed leaders should uphold.
My Take
These philosophical perspectives underscore the complex task of electing leaders in a democracy, where the choice ideally reflects both the collective will and a commitment to public welfare. Leaders like Donald Trump illustrate how charisma, pragmatic appeal, and personal image play powerful roles, while traditional standards of competence and virtue often come second. Ultimately, a functioning democracy must balance popular choice with the qualities that make for truly effective and ethical leadership, ensuring that the principles of liberty and public responsibility are upheld alongside the practicalities of power and persuasion.
In the context of the word “culture” as a determinant of an election, slogans are essential in election campaigns because they condense detailed political ideas into a few memorable words that reflect a candidate’s core message, values, or goals. A powerful slogan offers an emotional connection, making it easier for people to relate to a candidate or cause. Its simplicity helps it reach a broad audience, often shaping public perception and encouraging people to vote. When a slogan is effective, it becomes more than just a campaign tool—it embodies the movement, drawing support by appealing to shared hopes, concerns, or aspirations.
One of the most effective examples is Barack Obama’s 2008 slogan, “Yes We Can.” This phrase captured the optimism of a historic time and Obama’s themes of hope and change, connecting with voters who desired a transformative leader. “Yes We Can” was inclusive, uplifting, and broad enough to resonate with diverse groups, emphasizing teamwork and possibility during a period of economic uncertainty and a strong desire for reform.
Likewise, Donald Trump’s 2016 slogan, “Make America Great Again,” was highly effective. It implied a return to a better past, resonating with people who felt overlooked or left behind. The slogan became symbolic of Trump’s populist appeal, drawing on national pride and identity, especially for those who felt alienated by globalization and political elitism. This positioned Trump as a defender of the “forgotten” American, energizing a wide base of supporters.
On the other hand, slogans that fall flat often lack clarity, emotional pull, or are too vague. Hillary Clinton’s 2016 slogan, “Stronger Together,” was well-meaning but didn’t spark the same level of enthusiasm. It emphasized unity, but for some, it felt too broad and lacked the urgency or directness of Trump’s message. It struggled to connect with voters concerned about economic disparity and cultural identity.
Past unsuccessful slogans often fail to capture the moment’s urgency or align with voters’ feelings. For instance, John Kerry’s 2004 slogan, “Let America Be America Again,” drawn from a Langston Hughes poem, didn’t provide a clear direction in the highly polarized post-9/11 era. Similarly, Mitt Romney’s 2012 slogan, “Believe in America,” while patriotic, lacked a compelling vision, especially when compared to Obama’s focus on hope and change.
A winning slogan has to be more than catchy—it needs to encapsulate the heart of a candidate’s vision in a way that feels personal and motivating. When a slogan achieves this, it often becomes a defining element of the campaign, rallying people to vote.
Slogans also help create a brand. Donald Trump had one: Kamala Harris seemingly did not. However, given the short period she had since she became a nominee, she did a great job, running an effective and compelling campaign.
