A political analyst in the US called Donald Trump’s victory ‘magic realism’. Intellectuals in America are in shock. They are aghast to see the margin of Trump’s victory and are trying to figure out the reason. They are struggling to understand if it is the defeat of elite politics or a rejection of democracy as was being played out in America. But what surprised me more was the reaction of certain sections in India. Instead of mourning the defeat of an Indian-origin candidate, they are celebrating the victory of an American Christian, supported by an evangelical church. These are the same people who were angry when Hindus were targeted in Bangladesh and in Canada by the ‘forces of evil’. 

Kamala Harris is the daughter of a Hindu mother. She is proud of her Hindu origin. A Hindu woman who went on to become the Vice President of America and finally a candidate for the post of president, is a remarkable story. Unlike Hillary Clinton, she is not the product of entitlement or member of American establishment; she is an outlier who rose from humble background to become the Vice President of America by sheer grit, talent and hard work.

Why Are Indians Happy?

But why are these people happy in her defeat? Is it because she did not pay any lip service to Bangladeshi Hindus, like Trump did? Or is it because the politics of Kamla Harris—she is not divisive and she talks about democracy and constitutionalism—makes these people uncomfortable? Is it because she does not support the politics of majoritarianism? Or that she speaks for people of all faiths and does not discriminate between people on the basis of their race and gender? Or is it because she does not crack crass and sexist jokes like Trump does? 

Those who are celebrating Trump assuming that he is a friend of India and that India will benefit from his presidency are living in a fool’s paradise. They are victims of false consciousness and prisoners of a fantasy. It is important to remember that Trump is an American and the President of the United States. His promise is to make America great again—not India. Any steps Trump takes to fulfil his promise of making America great again will likely come at India’s expense, as well as that of the rest of the world. If taking strong measures against India becomes necessary, he will not hesitate to do so.

Trump Politics Is Transactional

We must remember that his politics is not doctrinaire but purely transactional. India will soon face the impact of his cynicism. He will likely impose restrictions on the entry of Indians into the United States, with the H1B visa program being the first casualty. Trade with the US will become more challenging as he will pressure the Indian government to “cut tariffs” and may even “impose higher tariffs on Indian goods”. Even before his election, he had grouped India with Brazil and China on the issue of tariffs and called India a “very big abuser of tariffs”. If he follows through on his promise to expel immigrants—a major commitment to his American voters—Indians will not be exempt.

However, the situation would have been similar with Kamala Harris too. Had she been elected president, she would have also prioritised America’s interests, despite her Indian heritage. Therefore, regardless of who wins, India has no reason to celebrate. India must focus on protecting its national interests, and it is always preferable to deal with a leader who is predictable and stable. Trump, however, is an unpredictable figure with an unstable character and did not have a clean record during his first term as president.

Trump’s Biggest Supporters? Conservative Christians 

I am sure those who are rejoicing Trump’s victory must be aware that Trump represents a revival of ‘Christian nationalism’, which many like Bishop Michael Curry called a ‘threat to America’s soul’. The New York Times reported, “He (Trump) says he will affirm that God made only two genders, male and female. He will create a task force to fight anti-Christian bias. And he will give enhanced access to conservative Christian leaders, if they elect him.” He says, “We have to save religion.” The New York Times writes, “And for nearly a decade, right-wing Christian power has intensified, largely under Mr Trump’s watch. He won the White House in 2016 promising that “Christianity will have power.”

Trump’s strongest support comes from Middle America, a bastion of conservative Christians. In this election, evangelical churches were especially active among Latin American Christians—who traditionally vote for the Democratic Party—convincing them to support Trump. And they succeeded. More than 40% of Latinos backed Trump, contributing significantly to his substantial victory margin.

Does this mean that those in India who champion Hindu nationalism are now endorsing the rise of Christian nationalism? If so, why do proponents of Hindutva decry Christianity, alongside Islam, as an inimical force threatening India’s unity and integrity, alleging that it channels millions of dollars to convert Hindus to Christianity?

What Golwalkar Said

It is worth remembering that long ago, Golwalkar, a father figure of Hindutva, named Christians as one of the three enemies of India and accused Christian missionaries of working under the guise of humanitarian aid to make India a Christian land. He wrote, “Such is the role of Christian gentlemen residing in our land today, out to demolish not only the religious and social fabric of our life but also to establish political domination in various pockets and, if possible, all over the land.” He further stated, “Wherever they have stepped, they have drenched those lands with the blood and tears of the natives and liquidated whole races. Do we not know the heart-rending stories of how they annihilated the natives in America, Australia, and Africa?”

I don’t know whether the RSS has changed its stance on Christian missionaries or their ideology. Nor do I know if the RSS has reached some form of truce with Christian nationalism. The undeniable fact is that Trump’s America subscribes to the notion of a clash of civilisations and champions Christian causes. Despite its best intentions, Hindu nationalism cannot align with Trump’s Christian nationalism without undermining the very ideology of Hindutva. This raises the question: why is there so much support for Trump?

Is it not ironic that, on one hand, followers of Hindutva issue a clarion call in India for Hindu unity, while on the other, they are unwilling to support a woman of Hindu origin who has achieved significant success abroad—something that should inspire pride among Hindus? Does this not point to a kind of ideological confusion and contradiction within the movement that claims to make India great and position it as a Vishwaguru? This deserves serious contemplation.

(Ashutosh is the author of ‘Hindu Rashtra’ and co-founder of SatyaHindi.com)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

A political analyst in the US called Donald Trump’s victory ‘magic realism’. Intellectuals in America are in shock. They are aghast to see the margin of Trump’s victory and are trying to figure out the reason. They are struggling to understand if it is the defeat of elite politics or a rejection of democracy as was being played out in America. But what surprised me more was the reaction of certain sections in India. Instead of mourning the defeat of an Indian-origin candidate, they are celebrating the victory of an American Christian, supported by an evangelical church. These are the same people who were angry when Hindus were targeted in Bangladesh and in Canada by the ‘forces of evil’. 

Kamala Harris is the daughter of a Hindu mother. She is proud of her Hindu origin. A Hindu woman who went on to become the Vice President of America and finally a candidate for the post of president, is a remarkable story. Unlike Hillary Clinton, she is not the product of entitlement or member of American establishment; she is an outlier who rose from humble background to become the Vice President of America by sheer grit, talent and hard work.

Why Are Indians Happy?

But why are these people happy in her defeat? Is it because she did not pay any lip service to Bangladeshi Hindus, like Trump did? Or is it because the politics of Kamla Harris—she is not divisive and she talks about democracy and constitutionalism—makes these people uncomfortable? Is it because she does not support the politics of majoritarianism? Or that she speaks for people of all faiths and does not discriminate between people on the basis of their race and gender? Or is it because she does not crack crass and sexist jokes like Trump does? 

Those who are celebrating Trump assuming that he is a friend of India and that India will benefit from his presidency are living in a fool’s paradise. They are victims of false consciousness and prisoners of a fantasy. It is important to remember that Trump is an American and the President of the United States. His promise is to make America great again—not India. Any steps Trump takes to fulfil his promise of making America great again will likely come at India’s expense, as well as that of the rest of the world. If taking strong measures against India becomes necessary, he will not hesitate to do so.

Trump Politics Is Transactional

We must remember that his politics is not doctrinaire but purely transactional. India will soon face the impact of his cynicism. He will likely impose restrictions on the entry of Indians into the United States, with the H1B visa program being the first casualty. Trade with the US will become more challenging as he will pressure the Indian government to “cut tariffs” and may even “impose higher tariffs on Indian goods”. Even before his election, he had grouped India with Brazil and China on the issue of tariffs and called India a “very big abuser of tariffs”. If he follows through on his promise to expel immigrants—a major commitment to his American voters—Indians will not be exempt.

However, the situation would have been similar with Kamala Harris too. Had she been elected president, she would have also prioritised America’s interests, despite her Indian heritage. Therefore, regardless of who wins, India has no reason to celebrate. India must focus on protecting its national interests, and it is always preferable to deal with a leader who is predictable and stable. Trump, however, is an unpredictable figure with an unstable character and did not have a clean record during his first term as president.

Trump’s Biggest Supporters? Conservative Christians 

I am sure those who are rejoicing Trump’s victory must be aware that Trump represents a revival of ‘Christian nationalism’, which many like Bishop Michael Curry called a ‘threat to America’s soul’. The New York Times reported, “He (Trump) says he will affirm that God made only two genders, male and female. He will create a task force to fight anti-Christian bias. And he will give enhanced access to conservative Christian leaders, if they elect him.” He says, “We have to save religion.” The New York Times writes, “And for nearly a decade, right-wing Christian power has intensified, largely under Mr Trump’s watch. He won the White House in 2016 promising that “Christianity will have power.”

Trump’s strongest support comes from Middle America, a bastion of conservative Christians. In this election, evangelical churches were especially active among Latin American Christians—who traditionally vote for the Democratic Party—convincing them to support Trump. And they succeeded. More than 40% of Latinos backed Trump, contributing significantly to his substantial victory margin.

Does this mean that those in India who champion Hindu nationalism are now endorsing the rise of Christian nationalism? If so, why do proponents of Hindutva decry Christianity, alongside Islam, as an inimical force threatening India’s unity and integrity, alleging that it channels millions of dollars to convert Hindus to Christianity?

What Golwalkar Said

It is worth remembering that long ago, Golwalkar, a father figure of Hindutva, named Christians as one of the three enemies of India and accused Christian missionaries of working under the guise of humanitarian aid to make India a Christian land. He wrote, “Such is the role of Christian gentlemen residing in our land today, out to demolish not only the religious and social fabric of our life but also to establish political domination in various pockets and, if possible, all over the land.” He further stated, “Wherever they have stepped, they have drenched those lands with the blood and tears of the natives and liquidated whole races. Do we not know the heart-rending stories of how they annihilated the natives in America, Australia, and Africa?”

I don’t know whether the RSS has changed its stance on Christian missionaries or their ideology. Nor do I know if the RSS has reached some form of truce with Christian nationalism. The undeniable fact is that Trump’s America subscribes to the notion of a clash of civilisations and champions Christian causes. Despite its best intentions, Hindu nationalism cannot align with Trump’s Christian nationalism without undermining the very ideology of Hindutva. This raises the question: why is there so much support for Trump?

Is it not ironic that, on one hand, followers of Hindutva issue a clarion call in India for Hindu unity, while on the other, they are unwilling to support a woman of Hindu origin who has achieved significant success abroad—something that should inspire pride among Hindus? Does this not point to a kind of ideological confusion and contradiction within the movement that claims to make India great and position it as a Vishwaguru? This deserves serious contemplation.

(Ashutosh is the author of ‘Hindu Rashtra’ and co-founder of SatyaHindi.com)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

As I walked out of my Upper West Side polling station in New York City after casting my vote, the lack of energy in America’s most liberal city was palpable. The pins being sold just outside said “Keep Kamala and Carry On-a-la”, but the calmness was about to explode. 

Donald Trump’s stunning comeback forces an acknowledgement that Americans do not want to simply carry on. Much like India earlier this year. They are increasingly tired of the financial pain that started after the 2008 financial crisis, rendering many of them under-employed. The most powerful ingredients of rapid global economic growth in our lifetimes—globalisation and technological replacement—have ricocheted back to cause acute pain at the working-class Americans’ dining tables. And they are hoping, against the odds, that their ballot can overpower that bullet.

This is precisely the reason why, much like the re-emergence of the former President, a defining trend is now categorising the American election cycle. And, I would argue, the Indian election cycle too.

Incumbents Beware

This is now the third presidential election since 2016 when the incumbent party has been voted out, a trend not seen since the 1970s when Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were voted in quick succession as inflation eclipsed all else. Once is an accident. Twice, a coincidence. Three times, a pattern.

In India, the lack of a majority for the incumbent party this year was an indication of that very problem that is proving difficult for any global leader to resolve. In fact, there has been a dissipation of existing power if not an outright change in every major government across the world this year—from the UK and Italy to Germany and Japan, and others.

As Bill Clinton’s political strategist Jim Carville stated prophetically thirty years ago, “It’s the economy, stupid.” But some would point out that the stock markets are at an all-time high and economic growth was at par in both Trump and Biden years. So, why the discontent? Didn’t life seem good enough?

Yes, but only for the elite, whether in the US or India. The elite are the real beneficiaries of the riches-to-riches story. How long can you ignore the larger population that now has to work an average of 2.5 jobs to keep the same lifestyle as a decade ago? In the case of India, too, yes there are cheap mobile phones and food handouts, but job prospects cannot keep up with young aspirations.

In this discontented mix, a message like Trump’s, which primarily centres around inflation and its many symptoms—immigration being an obvious one—will obviously be attractive. But so is that of any politician who offers a change in the existing status quo. It is akin to a company changing multiple CEOs in the hope its fortunes will change, not realising that the problem lies in the product itself.

The Polarisation Card Is Losing Its Edge 

This election has broken several myths—the overriding one being polarisation—including that echo chambers are permanent and defined and will not sway voters from their trenches. That certainly was the case in 2016, when Trump’s winnability was attributed to a fringe base of non-college-educated men. But in 2024, Trump’s winnability is attributed to virtually all subsets.

A case in point is young men, and shockingly for the democrats, young men of colour—whether Latino or Indian-American—swinging in Trump’s favour. The Left is finally realizing that they cannot club all minorities together, much like the Right in India is realizing the majority cannot always be a single voting bloc. Their loyalty, and more importantly, their ethics, are being questioned. I disagree. This was not a vote for the messenger, it was a vote for the message. 

This election has stuck a needle into the bubble of polarisation that the world has sworn by throughout the last decade. Both sides tried to polarise voters, whether it was Trump with immigration or Harris with abortion. But it did not work. There are voters who have chosen Trump and abortion rights. The choice is no longer binary. Above all else, the voters in America are pragmatic.

The same is true for India. The 2024 India voting reflected the discontent among ordinary voters, where the economy superseded everything else. The conservative argument of caste or religious lines shaping voting patterns is increasingly becoming redundant. 

As it has long been said, democracy is a luxury when there is not enough food on the table. But there are also similarities between the out-of-touch ‘Khan market gang’ in India and America’s coastal elite. Instead of focusing on the real issue of voter pain, the Democrats’ and the Indian Opposition’s patronising tone of ‘How could you vote for him?’ reeked of moral superiority borne out of privilege, not realism.

Only Betting Markets Got It Right  

The media and the pollsters have got it so far wrong that they are in danger of losing their voice. These echo chambers are now functioning as cheerleaders of political thought. They dole out a narrative rather than acting as arbiters of reason. It is ironic that the most truthful picture came from sources that are often the most tainted in history—the betting markets in the US and the satta bazaar in India. Whether Trump’s sweep or the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) underperformance, they were the only ones who got it right.

Kamala Played Well

Kamala Harris also emerged as a hero to many. Clearly, many things that were out of her control went wrong for her: Biden’s selfishness in holding on to power, the war fatigue, and the all-important anti-incumbency. 

When my 10-year-old daughter accompanying me to the voting booth asked me why a woman gets passed yet again for the most powerful job in the world, I told her to walk tall the next day. Because in the shortest presidential campaign in American history, of only 107 days, Kamala managed to achieve the impossible and did better than any reasonable hope. LOTUS for POTUS simply did not have enough time to bloom.

I do not think America acted like it did in 2016 and chose to vote against a female President. The pain threshold that Trump pressed on was much lower on Maslow’s needs chart for the gender ceiling in American politics to even be a conversation. A famous meme from the Kamala campaign was a father going with his daughter to the polling booth and saying he was voting for her. I believe the father did still vote for his daughter, not necessarily as a mark of support for the candidate but as an act of hope of providing his family with a better life.

Trump Needs A Hail Mary 

But will Trump be able to deliver on that hope? In the America of the 1980s, the Republican party’s modern hero, Ronald Reagan, achieved the impossible as he took on the structural inflation problem, giving birth to decades of prosperity.

For Trump to leave the legacy he wants, he will have to be in offensive tackle mode for the next four years and deliver a magical Reaganesque solution to the working class pain. Or else, given the musical chairs game global politics has become, the Dems will be back in the White House in 2028.

(Namrata Brar is an Indian-American journalist, investigative reporter, and news anchor. She is the former US bureau chief of NDTV)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the authors

It’s not misogyny that defeated Kamala Harris. There is a certain insincerity lurking behind this explanation for the decisive victory of the Republican Party, which has led to the installation of Donald Trump, once again, in the White House. 

It is the same insincerity with which the Harris-Walz campaign was carried out for months. In the face of an ‘unexpected’ debacle, the Democrats in the US, along with other politicians across the world, will do well to introspect. What, indeed, was the problem?

It is easy to employ feminism to explain away Trump’s triumph over two women in less than a decade. What is being forgotten easily here is the fact that she was recruited in a huff to replace Joe Biden, who was sure to have lost to Trump. An afterthought. The Democrats were desperate to fight anti-incumbency but addressed it from the wrong end.

A Guilt Bait

Harris was used by her party as guilt-inducing bait in the 2024 presidential election, and her defeat has important lessons for everyone. First and most obviously, you cannot guilt-trip voters into supporting you unconditionally. The Harris-Walz campaign doubled down on making the undecided voter feel guilt-ridden for even considering a change. There was a complete lack of self-awareness on the part of campaign designers and ideological Democrat voters that their policies may have anything to do with people’s dissatisfaction. Or they knew and smugly brushed it off, armed with weapons of collective guilt. This smugness caused a swing.

The most palpable example of this is the Democrats’ tone-deafness around the war in West Asia. In a year marked by relentless anti-war campaigns and demonstrations, Democrats believed Dick Cheney to be their trump card. Cheney’s hawkish attitude as George W. Bush’s vice-president left a legacy of violence and human rights violations in the US and everywhere else the country intervened militarily. Harris’s claims to usher in peace fell flat in the face of such crude irony. Depending on how disappointed or angry they were, anti-war Democrats sat the election out, cross-voted for Trump, or voted for the third alternative to mark their dissent.

Thick Cosmopolitanism

Democrats’ adaptation of what political scientists call the theory of ‘thick cosmopolitanism’ in the domestic domain of immigration did not work in securing them a consecutive second term. The theory argues that when people realise their ingroup’s culpability in causing harm to people living in distant nations, they adopt a cosmopolitan helping demeanour. The inherent limitation of the theory, as demonstrated by Nicholas Faulkner, and the revelation of Democrats’ hypocrisy ensured that voters rejected their guilt-tripping political campaign. This may partially explain why a substantial diaspora cohort swung towards Trump. 

But Democrats were counting on brow-beating dissent with guilt. Unfortunately for them, this strategy backfired. Scholars Gunn and Wilson propose that collective guilt, an important political tool, is often undercut by defensiveness. The Democratic Party forgot that just as an attack on personal identity makes an individual defensive, people are wont to react with defensiveness when their social identities are threatened. Calling voters racist and sexist before, during, and after the polls, Democrats inspired a surge of defensiveness across multiple demographic groups.

Nobody Knew What Kamala Was About

Kamala Harris’s campaign raised and spent more money than Donald Trump, but what was the substance? The political messaging barely managed to escape the rhetoric of ‘Save America from Trump’. Reeling under high inflation rates, American voters felt invisible when no concrete policy measures were offered for this ‘Save America’ operation. The Republicans are guilty of running the same banal campaign, but they had anti-incumbency on their side. Memories of Trump’s previous presidency were fading, and that helped him. Trump’s campaign counted on the fickleness of public memory and put its bets on people’s ability to forget the past when they are obsessing about ongoing concerns. 

Team Harris, on the other hand, weaponised memories of the fractured American past to make this election about correcting historical wrongs. Psychologists warn that people do not necessarily react well when confronted with problematic actions of their own. Political scientist Eunbin Chung proposed in the context of East Asia that national identity affirmation can be employed “as a way of disarming the defensiveness that is prompted from recognising guilt of one’s country, allowing more prosocial responses to emerge”. Democrats, however, fell short in offering a positive spin to the American identity in a bid to counter its chequered racial history. 

Competitive Defensiveness

Add to this the Biden administration’s no-limits support to Israel despite the growing anti-war chime even within the rank and file of the Democratic Party, and we got a game of competitive defensiveness all around. The leadership and the voters stopped listening to each other. 

To peg this defeat as only a misogynistic mistake, therefore, is oversimplifying the matters. This is how Democrats wish to continue to play the guilting game without a shred of introspection. 

(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

It’s not misogyny that defeated Kamala Harris. There is a certain insincerity lurking behind this explanation for the decisive victory of the Republican Party, which has led to the installation of Donald Trump, once again, in the White House. 

It is the same insincerity with which the Harris-Walz campaign was carried out for months. In the face of an ‘unexpected’ debacle, the Democrats in the US, along with other politicians across the world, will do well to introspect. What, indeed, was the problem?

It is easy to employ feminism to explain away Trump’s triumph over two women in less than a decade. What is being forgotten easily here is the fact that she was recruited in a huff to replace Joe Biden, who was sure to have lost to Trump. An afterthought. The Democrats were desperate to fight anti-incumbency but addressed it from the wrong end.

A Guilt Bait

Harris was used by her party as guilt-inducing bait in the 2024 presidential election, and her defeat has important lessons for everyone. First and most obviously, you cannot guilt-trip voters into supporting you unconditionally. The Harris-Walz campaign doubled down on making the undecided voter feel guilt-ridden for even considering a change. There was a complete lack of self-awareness on the part of campaign designers and ideological Democrat voters that their policies may have anything to do with people’s dissatisfaction. Or they knew and smugly brushed it off, armed with weapons of collective guilt. This smugness caused a swing.

The most palpable example of this is the Democrats’ tone-deafness around the war in West Asia. In a year marked by relentless anti-war campaigns and demonstrations, Democrats believed Dick Cheney to be their trump card. Cheney’s hawkish attitude as George W. Bush’s vice-president left a legacy of violence and human rights violations in the US and everywhere else the country intervened militarily. Harris’s claims to usher in peace fell flat in the face of such crude irony. Depending on how disappointed or angry they were, anti-war Democrats sat the election out, cross-voted for Trump, or voted for the third alternative to mark their dissent.

Thick Cosmopolitanism

Democrats’ adaptation of what political scientists call the theory of ‘thick cosmopolitanism’ in the domestic domain of immigration did not work in securing them a consecutive second term. The theory argues that when people realise their ingroup’s culpability in causing harm to people living in distant nations, they adopt a cosmopolitan helping demeanour. The inherent limitation of the theory, as demonstrated by Nicholas Faulkner, and the revelation of Democrats’ hypocrisy ensured that voters rejected their guilt-tripping political campaign. This may partially explain why a substantial diaspora cohort swung towards Trump. 

But Democrats were counting on brow-beating dissent with guilt. Unfortunately for them, this strategy backfired. Scholars Gunn and Wilson propose that collective guilt, an important political tool, is often undercut by defensiveness. The Democratic Party forgot that just as an attack on personal identity makes an individual defensive, people are wont to react with defensiveness when their social identities are threatened. Calling voters racist and sexist before, during, and after the polls, Democrats inspired a surge of defensiveness across multiple demographic groups.

Nobody Knew What Kamala Was About

Kamala Harris’s campaign raised and spent more money than Donald Trump, but what was the substance? The political messaging barely managed to escape the rhetoric of ‘Save America from Trump’. Reeling under high inflation rates, American voters felt invisible when no concrete policy measures were offered for this ‘Save America’ operation. The Republicans are guilty of running the same banal campaign, but they had anti-incumbency on their side. Memories of Trump’s previous presidency were fading, and that helped him. Trump’s campaign counted on the fickleness of public memory and put its bets on people’s ability to forget the past when they are obsessing about ongoing concerns. 

Team Harris, on the other hand, weaponised memories of the fractured American past to make this election about correcting historical wrongs. Psychologists warn that people do not necessarily react well when confronted with problematic actions of their own. Political scientist Eunbin Chung proposed in the context of East Asia that national identity affirmation can be employed “as a way of disarming the defensiveness that is prompted from recognising guilt of one’s country, allowing more prosocial responses to emerge”. Democrats, however, fell short in offering a positive spin to the American identity in a bid to counter its chequered racial history. 

Competitive Defensiveness

Add to this the Biden administration’s no-limits support to Israel despite the growing anti-war chime even within the rank and file of the Democratic Party, and we got a game of competitive defensiveness all around. The leadership and the voters stopped listening to each other. 

To peg this defeat as only a misogynistic mistake, therefore, is oversimplifying the matters. This is how Democrats wish to continue to play the guilting game without a shred of introspection. 

(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

Donald Trump appears to be on the cusp of winning the American presidency. He is projected to win the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania, which has made his victory almost certain. He has already picked up the battleground states of North Carolina and Georgia. Kamala Harris is staring at defeat. However, as early as last week, when over 66 million Americans had already cast their ballots for the presidential election, claims of vote rigging and fraud had begun flooding social media. It was reminiscent of 2020, when Trump took to social media to declare himself the “real” winner, sparking the “Stop the Steal” rallying cry among his supporters. Naturally, this time, around 70% of Americans believed that Trump would reject the results if he lost.

It’s almost unimaginable, isn’t it? After all, this is the American democracy that used to be the world’s gold standard, the peaceful transfer of power something other nations aspired to mirror. As an Indian who has covered many elections, I can say the contrast is striking—our democracy may have its quirks, but we are rather used to smooth transfers of power. 

Meanwhile, the America that once championed the free press and the right to protest now appears stuck in a state of democratic backsliding. Polarisation, bipartisan gridlock and eroded trust in government have taken their toll, with big-money campaigns and public mistrust steadily chipping away at the foundations. What might President Ronald Reagan think about the state of his country? He was known for his robust American exceptionalism views and often emphasised America’s moral superiority and divine mission to spread democracy.

Even so, there is no denying that American democracy’s global appeal is not diminished and democracy continues to be its most influential soft power—at least for now.

Highest Stakes Ever

The year 2024 saw elections in over 60 countries—including major democracies, such as India and the UK—but none with stakes as high as the US presidential election. Everyone’s attention has been glued to the campaign, not just because it’s America, but also because the US election results make a huge impact across continents. 

The reason is simple: US presidential outcomes still shape the global order. This election is no different. Ukraine, European allies and other democracies are all watching closely, many hoping for a Kamala Harris win for her promise of stability and continuity. Her supporters believe that her opponent, Donald Trump, would likely bring a stark shift in foreign policy, with implications for international relations, trade, climate and even global security. The Obama administration’s foreign policy centred on consensus-building and alliance-strengthening, a message that resonated globally. In contrast, Trump’s “America First” approach from 2016 to 2020 disrupted traditional alliances and fuelled nationalist movements overseas. Biden’s 2020 win restored focus on partnerships and climate action, reshaping international stances. This year’s outcome could once again redefine the global landscape.

Whither The American ‘Exceptionalism’?

Historically, we know that the US has projected itself as a global advocate for democratic values: rule of law, individual rights and a free press. During the Cold War, we might recall it pushed the narrative, quite successfully, that its democratic system stood in sharp contrast to Soviet-style authoritarianism, promoting a narrative that democracy meant prosperity, emancipation, freedom, and progress. 

The belief in American exceptionalism—an idea that the US has a unique mission to lead the world— has been exported powerfully through one of America’s greatest soft power channels: its entertainment industry. Hollywood, music and media became global messengers of the American dream. 

Take, for example, the 2011 movie “Captain America: The First Avenger”, where the hero embodies American ideals of courage, patriotism, and freedom. Or consider the unmatched cultural impact of a global icon like Michael Jackson, whose music and persona inspired generations worldwide, making him one of America’s most influential cultural exports. Needless to say, these examples showcase how American values, blended with art and entertainment, create a powerful global presence that transcends borders. 

What Constitutes America’s Soft Power?

American campuses have long been centres of excellence, focussing sharply on research, creativity and innovation. Known for fostering bold ideas and rigorous debate, universities like MIT, Stanford and Harvard have attracted students from across the globe, shaping generations of leaders and thinkers. This atmosphere of intellectual freedom has led to groundbreaking discoveries in fields as diverse as artificial intelligence, biotechnology and economics. Such institutions have become synonymous with American soft power, their influence felt far beyond US borders as they inspire countless young minds to think big and push boundaries

Technology born on American soil—like the smartphone, social media platforms and search engines—has radically transformed communication, reshaping media and society on a global scale. American innovation has allowed individuals worldwide to connect, share ideas and gain access to information in unprecedented ways. For better or for worse, it is embedded in our daily life. This technological legacy showcases the US as a leader in digital transformation and projects its values of freedom and connectivity, continuously amplifying America’s soft power and cultural influence worldwide.

For many young people worldwide, securing a US green card symbolises a gateway to the American dream—a chance to live, work and thrive in a land they see as one of opportunity and freedom. It’s more than just a visa; theoretically, it’s the promise of a life shaped by the ideals of self-made success. 

More Than Military Muscle

When we think of  “superpower,” the mind often jumps straight to America’s military muscle. That is because it is so tangible. But America’s soft power is less associated with its status as the sole superpower. It is actually America’s potent cocktail of military might and savvy soft power that sets it apart. This unique blend keeps the US in a league of its own, balancing brute force with influence. With an estimated 750 military bases across 80 countries, America’s footprint spans the globe like no other. You might think America’s biggest export would be weapons sales. In reality, the total US defence exports last year stood at $175 billion. In contrast, by several market estimates, its combined entertainment and soft power industry exports exceeded $700 billion. 

So, while the military might establish America’s hard power, it is the export of American culture and values that solidifies its global influence. Soft power industries—from Hollywood films and pop music to the digital platforms born in Silicon Valley—reach virtually every corner of the globe. Ultimately, America’s superiority stems from its dual influence, its capacity to enforce security globally through its military, while simultaneously cultivating a cultural resonance that inspires people across the world 

Can India Compete?

Although US soft power faces growing competition from cultural exports from India, Turkey, Korea and Japan, I believe it is India that comes closest to challenging the US soft power hegemony.

Here is why. On Diwali, I found myself window shopping in a South London mall, astonished to see festival celebrations at two separate locations on the same floor. Participants came from various nationalities. Diwali was celebrated at Trafalgar Square, and indeed all across the UK. A software engineer working for the German company SAP told me his office in Tanzania was closed for Diwali. Diyas were lit from the White House to 10 Downing Street—a glittering glimpse of India’s soft power reach.

But let’s be honest, our biggest export is cinema, specifically Bollywood’s Hindi films. Over a decade ago, I travelled for work through Central Asia, Europe and Africa to understand Bollywood’s reach beyond the Indian diaspora. I was stunned. I met a German woman who taught Bollywood dance in her studio in Hannover. This was her livelihood and she had never been to India. I met a White German mother-daughter duo who argued over who was a bigger Shah Rukh Khan fan. Both of them said they would love to visit “Mannat”, Khan’s Mumbai home. In Marrakesh, I met a 35-year-old waiter, Abdullah, who said he hadn’t missed a Hindi movie since he was 10; his ringtone was a Hindi song. He took me home, where I met his seven-year-old daughter who could sing Hindi songs I didn’t even know. The director of the Marrakech Film Festival told me that when Shah Rukh Khan arrived for the festival, there was bedlam outside the venue. She could not stop saying how big a star Khan was in Morocco. Until that moment, I hadn’t fully realised just how powerful and far-reaching Hindi cinema, songs, and dance truly were.

Some believe Indian cultural or soft power exports need more direction and support from the government. Embassies each take their own approach, but I believe it’s best for Indian soft power to spread organically, just as it has for all these years.

For now, the US remains the most influential soft power exporter. But it can slip up. India has to be ready. As divisions deepen, America’s democracy appears increasingly frail, struggling to uphold the ideals it once championed on the global stage. The question is, will it stay an inspiring example for other democracies? We will know after the election results are out.

(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

All of us can be forgiven for mistaking 2024 as the year of the longest-running live TV entertainment. Thankfully, one leg of it is over. As the votes get counted, the world can take a breather while regrouping and replenishing supplies for the second. The race to become the President of the United States has never been so absurd for the onlookers. Who or what, for example, was anyone rooting for?

According to a Pew Research Centre survey conducted in September, 69% of Americans admitted to following news about the presidential candidates for the 2024 election very (28%) or fairly (40%) closely. But what exactly were they getting or hoping to get? The survey report says, “Americans most often see news about actions on the presidential campaign trail, though they are most interested in their stances on issues”. A fair ask. Obviously unmet. 

Circus Of The Absurd

What the American voter has received so far is a concept of a plan from Trump and a promised continuum of Biden’s ‘problematic’ policies from Harris. Many Americans are sitting this election out, and who can blame them? A campaign trail inundated with descriptions of a golfer’s penis or how immigrants are eating other people’s animals, insinuations about a potential election steal on one side and an undressed stream-of-consciousness word salad on the other, has done little to convince the average American voter about the nobility and grandiosity of the White House. 

Both Trump and Harris have demonstrated an utter inability to learn from the past. While Trump got too bored of a decent, non-dramatic campaign just a few months into 2024 and unleashed his 2020 MAGA-man energy, Harris stubbornly refused to bring any course correction in her agenda on foreign policy issues despite her fellow Democrats’ public castigation. This election has been the most extensive testimony of what a lot of analysts within the US, as well as outside, have observed but have largely refrained from verbalising: both the Democrats and the Republicans fashion their electoral campaigns around the faults of the other side while doing absolutely nothing about their own. 

Kamala, The Saner One

Is it not ridiculous that the Harris campaign posited her only as the saner alternative to Trump? The fact that the Democrat incumbency became a burden and not a bolster for Harris should alert us that the new president’s arrival in the White House will probably be an extension of all the gaffes this campaign saw. And what about the process of candidate selection for both parties? Declaring Trump as their candidate for the third time, the Republican Party demonstrated an utter lack of imagination at a time when President Biden’s popularity was ebbing steadily. The Democrats changed their candidate from Biden to Harris with almost nil deliberations in their convention. The working-class voters, cold about Biden, have stayed cold towards her as well throughout the campaign.

But the US presidential elections are not about the American voters alone. What happens on Capitol Hill reverberates throughout the world. When Barack Obama won his first term, the symbolism of this victory was evident from young and old Indians celebrating at the India Gate in New Delhi. Presidents come and go, but their road to the Capitol paves ways across the world for ideologies, ideas, and geopolitical ramifications.

Nobody Knows Anything

From formulating trade controls to funding wars, what the POTUS decides goes a long way for the US and the rest of the world. Both Trump and Harris turned serious policy issues into farce during the campaign by sharpening the focus only on each other’s personalities. We still do not know what Trump’s plan is for the Middle East or the Russia-Ukraine war. Or China. Or Sudan or Bangladesh, for that matter. We only know that Harris is “committed to peace”, but her party’s ongoing actions have suggested otherwise. 

At this moment, it is an exercise in futility to assess what a Trump or a Harris win might mean for India or the larger Global South. There are no guiding principles to launch any such enquiry. Any scenario study will yield only fallacious conclusions because, simply, neither Trump nor Harris has stuck to either the party line or even their own stated beliefs. Trump’s transactionalism and Harris’s hubris are enough to defy any projections.

The US presidential election was once a lesson in how democracy asserts itself. In 2024, it has become something else. 

A glorified version of Hulk Hogan wrestling with his shirt.

(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The election this year is being called one of the most consequential contests in US history and it will have a very significant impact on the world too. Here’s why.

US-China Trade War

This is one of the leading reasons for the current global fragmentation. It was Trump who initiated a shift in policy towards China in his previous tenure from 2016-2020, raising tariffs on Chinese products and vowing to narrow the trade deficit. He accused Beijing of misusing international economic institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and said it was responsible for “the greatest theft in the history of the world”.

The Biden administration didn’t totally abandon what Trump started. In fact, from AUKUS to the renewed focus on Quad, Biden shored up security alliances against China. On the other hand, the policy moves over the last eight years between Trump and Biden have resulted in China and Russia going into a tighter embrace. This has deepened the fissures between the Global West and the Global East.

Hence, a lot rests on the new US President—will the new POTUS deepen the divide, will global collaboration become even more daunting, or will the new President weigh in favour of cooperation to prevent any further global fragmentation?

Democracy vs Authoritarianism

The American society is “emotionally polarised”, as stated in a 2023 report by Carnegie Endowment of International Peace. Interestingly, it says Americans are not as ideologically polarised as they believe themselves to be, which means there are possible overlaps regarding policies on many critical subjects, such as abortion and gun violence. 

However, both sides hold a dislike for the other, preventing any meaningful conversation. The world’s oldest democracy, the US, is often seen as an example of the success or failure of democracy, especially at a time of rising authoritarianism. Consensus-building is a vital feature of a democracy. The new US President needs to be a unifier and consensus builder to stand as a true representative of the liberal world order. 

Transfer Of Power

Another critical democratic norm is to respect the mandate of the people and allow for the smooth transition of power. There is genuine concern about a repeat of the January 6 insurrection if Donald Trump loses again. The Republicans seem to be building a ground for rejecting the result in case of an adverse outcome. The rhetoric from Trump, that the 2020 election was stolen, has resurfaced in the last leg of the election.

In an unusual move but one that’s indicative of what’s at stake, a report from Policy Horizons Canada, a think tank, advised Ottawa to be aware of the possibility of a civil war in the US. Though this was only a single sentence in the otherwise long report titled Disruptions on the Horizon, it said “…ideological divisions, democratic erosion, and domestic unrest escalate, plunging the country into civil war”. Even if remote, the very fact that the possibility of unrest is being factored in is a cause of concern for a world that can ill afford any more economic jolts. 

Immigration Policy

Trump has said he will initiate the largest deportation operation in the history of America if voted to power. A Pew survey says “Roughly six-in-ten Trump supporters (63%) say there should be a national effort to deport undocumented immigrants currently living in the US.” The report points out that there is growing intolerance towards immigrants and “since 2021, the share of voters who favour a national effort by law enforcement to deport undocumented immigrants currently living in the US has increased by 11 percentage points, from 26% to 37%.”

Meanwhile, ‘Tougher’, Kamala Harris’s campaign ad, also portrayed a stricter stance on immigration. Many also believe she has stepped back from her earlier position on decriminalising illegal border crossings.

Simultaneous conflicts are currently underway from Ukraine to Gaza. The office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees says by the end of 2023, there were 43.4 million refugees globally. This is a time when countries—especially the richest nations—should approach the subject from a humanitarian point of view. In this context, a tougher immigration policy will give a cue to the rest of the world to harden borders against those in need.

Ending Wars

Which way will the Ukraine and Gaza tensions go under the new US President? Trump says he will be able to end the Ukraine war immediately. The apprehension in Europe is that he will do so by ceding Ukrainian territory to Putin. Meanwhile, there is unlikely to be a change in position from what the Biden administration took on Ukraine if Harris comes to power. 

On Gaza, Trump says Netanyahu should “get over with it fast”, indicating even further intensification of military action in Gaza. Even though Kamala has been criticised for being party to the Biden administration’s support for Israeli actions in Gaza, there are those who believe that her recent turn towards the humanitarian aspect of the conflict gives space for building pressure against Netanyahu’s illegal war.

The wars and conflicts that are leading the world into a further flux can be resolved only through the political will of the leader of the global hegemon, the United States of America.

(Maha Siddiqui is a journalist who has extensively reported on public policy and global affairs.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

Days to go for the most high-profile election in the universe. As the two candidates enter the final lap of campaigning, the messaging has decidedly gone off-colour. The Kamala Harris campaign recently ran a commercial on Snapchat and Instagram, scripted around the love life of black voters. In the commercial, depicting a speed dating scenario, a man is seen approaching a group of women holding balloons. The young ladies enquire about the man’s job, his finances, and his height. They react positively to all his answers. Then they ask him the crucial question: does he plan to vote? He responds, “Nah, not my thing”! The ladies are not impressed and they all pop their balloons, indicating it is a deal-breaker. The commercial generated backlash, with commentators saying it dehumanised and belittled the black community.  

The Donald Trump campaign also ran into a controversy because of sexually implicit messaging used in a speech. Shocker. The former US president, now seeking a second term, talked about legendary golfer Arnold Palmer. Nothing wrong with that, you would say. Except that, of all things, he was discussing the size of Palmer’s genitalia. This could have been a part of what is being called Trump’s ‘bro whispering campaign’; a swaggering, alpha-male, no-holds-barred style to reach out to men between the ages of 18-30 years. In 2018, he called a former key White House aide of his a “dog” and a “crazed, crying lowlife”. In this campaign, he referred to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, as “mentally impaired”.  

Crude messaging and the erosion of decent political discourse has now become a global trend. Ad hominem attacks, targeting the person instead of ideas or policies, is becoming the norm. Racist remarks and misogynistic statements are rampant.  

“We Do Not Want To Become A Mixed Race”

In 2022, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s comment was straight out of the Nazi playbook when he said, “We are not a mixed race… and we do not want to become a mixed race”. Former President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, on hearing about a journalist’s death in 2016, blurted, “Just because you’re a journalist you are not exempted from assassination, if you’re a son of a bitch”. In 2017, Brazil’s former President Jair Bolsonaro, crossed the line, “I’ve got five kids but on the fifth I had a moment of weakness and it came out a woman”.

President of Poland, Andrzej Duda, has called LGBTQ rights an ideology more destructive than communism. Former United Kingdom Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, in one of his columns, wrote that women wearing the burqa looked like letter boxes or bank robbers. In 2021, former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan said, “If a woman is wearing very few clothes, it will have an impact on men unless they’re robots. It’s common sense.”  

There are countless examples in India. Last year, an MP from the ruling dispensation used communal slurs on the floor of Parliament. The Home Minister, in 2018, termed illegal immigrants as ‘termites’. And we remember Prime Minister Modi, with his catcalls of “Didi, O Didi” aimed at West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, during the 2021 assembly elections. Misogyny lost.  

Social Media Has Made Us Less Empathetic

One of the significant factors contributing to the lowering of political discourse has been the rise of social media. While it has provided a convenient outlet for people to share their thoughts, these platforms can also foster echo chambers, where individuals are primarily exposed to ideas that align with their own. This can lead to a lack, or limited understanding, of alternative viewpoints. It leads to a decline in empathy and ‘otherisation’ of opponents, as well as an increased willingness to engage in personal attacks and harassment. Legacy media has also played a part, by prioritising sensationalism and opinion, instead of fact-based reporting.  

Would it be fair to say that this is a recent phenomenon in politics? Not by a long shot. In 1931, Winston Churchill described Mahatma Gandhi as a “seditious, half-naked fakir”. In the nineteenth century, an American President was vilified as a “liar”, “despot”, “usurper”, “thief”, “ignoramus”, “swindler”, “fiend”, “buffoon”, “butcher”, and a “devil”. Even Abraham Lincoln was not spared.  

(Additional research: Ayashman Dey)

(Derek O’Brien, MP, leads the Trinamool Congress in the Rajya Sabha)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

This combination of photos shows Vice President Kamala Harris, left, and Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump.
| Photo Credit: AP

U..S Vice President Kamala Harris has taken the lead over her Republican presidential rival Donald Trump in several key battleground States like Arizona, Michigan and Pennsylvania, according to various polls released here.

Ms. Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate, enjoys a slight lead over former President Trump in Michigan, as per the latest poll released by UMass Lowell’s Center for Public Opinion and YouGov. Ms. Harris is slightly leading 48% to 43% in the Great Lakes State against Mr. Trump, it said.

“For a swing State, this margin is good news for the Vice President’s campaign,” Rodrigo Castro Cornejo, UMass Lowell political science assistant professor and Center for Public Opinion associate director, said.

If Mr. Trump wants to beat this margin, he has an uphill battle to fight in the Great Lakes State. “The Trump campaign,” Mr. Castro Cornejo said, “has a negative favorability in Michigan that needs to be overcome if they want to remain competitive in the State.” Ms. Harris stands at 48% against Trump’s 46% in Pennsylvania, the UMass Lowell’s Center for Public Opinion said.

“The presidential race remains very close in Pennsylvania with the coming weeks a crucial time for both campaigns,” Mr. Cornejo said.

“As can be expected in a highly competitive race with few undecided voters, get-out-the-vote strategies will become increasingly important to mobilise supporters and ensure they go to the polls on Election Day,” he said.

According to a new poll from Fox News, Ms. Harris has a slight lead over Mr. Trump in Georgia but trails behind in Arizona.

In Georgia, Ms. Harris has 51% of votes against Trump’s 48%, the poll said. However, in Arizona, as per the Fox News poll, Mr. Trump leads Ms. Harris by a similar margin. He has the support of 51% against Ms. Harris’ 48%.

According to Real Clear Politics, which tracks all major polls, Mr. Trump trails Ms. Harris by two percentage points nationally, while in the battleground States, it is a statistical tie. Ms. Harris leads Mr. Trump by 0.3 percentage points in battleground States, it said.