From my notes
A loud and clear mandate, falling on open wounds that unleash storms of reaction.
As in all elections, winners and losers show tears and shouts of joy on one side and on the other. In the last election in the United States, Trump protested boldly and fiercely, and in the Democratic camp the hubbub exclamation of victory was mixed with an air of revenge.
A loud and clear mandate, falling on open wounds that unleash storms of reaction.
The storming of the Capitol, the accusations of fraud and the accusations that came through the atmosphere were so intense that Trump decided not to attend the inauguration, breaking a protocol respected by all previous presidents for more than a century and a half. Vice President Mike Pence made the move.
Since Biden and Harris took office, there have been many turbulent waters. From the outset, there was a significant shift towards progressivism, driven by the most radical wing of the Democratic Party, which felt empowered by the results of the polls.
It is clear that these progressive policies, such as those associated with the movement woke up and gender identity, which was not well received by the majority of citizens, both within the countryside and in urban centres. The pressure of these agendas, and their persecution of those who did not agree with these ideas, especially in schools and social spaces, was creating a wall of silent rejection.
By wide-opening borders, offering benefits to millions of migrants and creating “safe haven states” where they could work without legal barriers, obtain driver’s licenses and, in some places, permissive “petty theft” policies without consequences, the vandalism increased. and exponential looting. This undermined the confidence of citizens. In addition, the abolition of voting ID in some states has negatively affected the credibility of the electoral authorities.
This approach to migrants has led to growing rejection. The cost of these programs exceeded the coffers of the recipient states, who were forced to request federal funds. the common citizen saw a greater inclination of his government to help migrants than the citizens themselves, and worse, in an environment of high prices, from fuel to basic foods.
Those elections were also influenced by President Biden’s overt old age and cognitive decline, which had been felt for years and became apparent during his mandate. The coronation of Kamala Harris as a candidate, which contributed to her poor performance in the campaign, protected “safe” voters for the Democratic Party.
A resounding victory for Trump/Vance, who, in addition to winning the Senate, could retain Congress, having left the Democratic camp in shock. Not only did they not expect it, but they accepted their defeat.
This mandate that has been received means a change in policies and, with it, the continuity of a state of questioning and opposition. The movements with their respective agendas represent disruptive activities.
In the universities, where the pro-Hamas and anti-Zionist movements have achieved such a high profile nationally and internationally, this new administration faces another obstacle. Further complicating the picture is the war in Ukraine, which consumes billions of dollars and presents an increasingly diffuse horizon of victory.
In the next installment, we will address the new actors and policies that the Trump/Vance administration will implement.
This is just the beginning…
Interview: A Conversation on U.S. Politics Post-Election with Political Analyst Dr. Jane Smith
Editor (Time.news): Welcome, Dr. Smith! It’s great to have you here to discuss the tumultuous political landscape following the recent U.S. elections. The phrase “a loud and clear mandate, falling on open wounds” really strikes a chord with what we’ve seen politically. Could you elaborate on what this means for the current state of politics in America?
Dr. Smith: Thank you for having me! The phrase encapsulates the divide we are experiencing in American society. Essentially, the recent elections revealed deep-seated fractures — both emotionally and ideologically — that are now more visible than ever. The reactions have been intense, with the fervor of some groups manifesting in actions like the Capitol storming, which, as we know, was fueled by a series of unfounded allegations regarding election fraud.
Editor: Speaking of reactions, we’ve seen a mixture of triumph and revenge across party lines, particularly after Biden’s victory. How do you think this dynamic affects governance?
Dr. Smith: Absolutely, the emotional aftermath of the elections has added complexity to governance. On one hand, the Biden administration has leaned into progressivism, energized by its more radical factions. However, this has caused discontent among those who feel alienated by certain policies, such as those surrounding issues of gender identity and ‘woke’ culture. This faction-driven governance risks further polarization instead of uniting the country.
Editor: The progressive policies have indeed stirred debate, especially in educational and social contexts. What implications does this have for public opinion and voter trust moving forward?
Dr. Smith: Great question! The progressive agenda, particularly surrounding identity politics, has not resonated well with many citizens, creating a significant backlash — a “wall of silent rejection,” as some have called it. Furthermore, the lack of voter ID laws in various states has influenced perceptions of electoral integrity, which can erode public trust in electoral processes. This might have long-term repercussions on voter participation and engagement.
Editor: It seems that immigration policies have been another major point of contention. How do you think the Biden administration’s approach has impacted societal trust, particularly regarding crime and safety?
Dr. Smith: The administration’s liberal immigration policies, such as offering benefits to undocumented migrants and creating “safe haven states,” have led to increased concerns among citizens about safety and crime. The rise in vandalism and looting has been palpable. Those who feel that their communities are at risk due to these policies can develop a deep sense of mistrust toward the government, which can manifest in heightened support for more conservative or hardline political stances.
Editor: Do you believe that this current climate is a precursor to a larger political shift in the U.S.?
Dr. Smith: Yes, it certainly seems that way. We are witnessing a potential realignment of political parties. The traditional bases are being challenged as voters shift their allegiance based on the political climate and how they perceive the effectiveness of these policies. The Democratic Party, especially, is at a crossroads — it must reconcile its progressive wing with more moderate constituents to maintain a healthy coalition moving forward.
Editor: Fascinating insights, Dr. Smith. As we look ahead, what would your advice be for readers who want to engage constructively in this political landscape?
Dr. Smith: I would encourage active and respectful dialogue. It’s essential for individuals to understand the perspectives of those they may disagree with rather than retreating into echo chambers. Engaging with others, supporting community discussions, and emphasizing critical thinking when it comes to policies rather than ideologies can foster understanding. Ultimately, it’s about building bridges in a time when division seems so prevalent.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Smith. Your expertise helps shine a light on the complexities of our current political woes. We look forward to seeing how this all unfolds in the coming months.
Dr. Smith: Thank you for the opportunity! It’s an important time to be informed and involved, and I appreciate the platform to share these thoughts.