Nation at the Crossroads: Harris, Trump, and the Politics of Identity
The speculative 2024 presidential race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump is a watershed moment in American politics, capturing both the progress made and the significant divisions that still exist in American society.
On one side sits Harris, an immigrant’s daughter and the first female, Black, and South Asian Vice President. Her bid for the nation’s highest position would be momentous, potentially ushering in a period when the phrase “Leader of the Free World” takes on new meaning and resonance. Harris represents the changing face of America: diverse, ambitious, and forward-thinking. Her being on the ballot would send a message to millions of young women, particularly those of colour, that there are no limits to what they can accomplish. It would question long-held beliefs about who can govern and represent our country on a global scale. Trump opposes her, representing a fundamentally different view of America and its place in the world. His “Make America Great Again” slogan evokes an idealised past, which many think was great primarily for white men. Throughout Trump’s presidency, policies and rhetoric frequently disadvantaged immigrants and people of colour.
This sharp disparity elevates the possible Harris-Trump debate to more than just policy differences. It is a referendum on American identity and ideals in the twenty-first century. Do we celebrate variety and development, or do we retreat into nostalgia and division? A Harris triumph would be revolutionary on many levels. Domestically, it would change the political landscape, perhaps invigorating progressive Democratic Party members who have long called for greater diversity in leadership. Her victory could inspire the party to pursue more ambitious measures on racial justice, immigration reform, and gender equality. However, it may cause conflicts with more moderate elements, potentially sparking internal arguments about the party’s direction. On the global stage, a Harris presidency would send a strong message about American ideals and potential. It would show the world that the United States is capable of electing a woman of colour to its highest office, maybe encouraging similar development in other countries. This could dramatically boost America’s soft power and moral authority, notably in debates over human rights and democracy.
Nonetheless, Harris’ triumph would most likely not put a stop to the racial and gender-based insults she has received. If anything, issues may worsen once she enters the office. The brutal truth of racism and sexism in American society would require a national reckoning. How Harris oversees these obstacles may create key precedents for future leaders from underrepresented communities. Her administration would undoubtedly receive severe scrutiny and criticism from right-wing media and lawmakers, perhaps deepening political polarisation. People would evaluate every decision and policy through the lens of her identity, regardless of its justice. This could make governance difficult, but it could also allow Harris to directly face and combat systemic racism and sexism from the highest office in the land. A Harris presidency might potentially have a big impact on the Republican Party. It could compel the GOP to re-examine its approach to diversity and inclusion, potentially leading to efforts to promote more female and minority candidates. Alternatively, it could push some party members even further to the right, emphasising white grievances and conventional gender roles.
It is impossible to emphasise the effects on young people, particularly young women and people of colour. A new generation of civic leaders and political activists may be inspired by seeing someone who resembles them in the Oval Office. It has the potential to change people’s conceptions of what leadership entails and who is qualified for power positions. Of course, Harris’ probable candidature poses significant problems. Will she endure the same gendered and racialised attacks that have plagued Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? How would foreign actors, particularly those in regions with limited histories on women’s rights, react to a female president of the United States? These problems highlight the continual efforts needed to achieve true equality. Ultimately, a Harris-Trump election would push America to confront its past, present, and future. It would evaluate its commitment to the values of equality and representation. And it would provide an opportunity to demonstrate to the world that leadership knows no colour or gender — that America’s strength resides in its diversity and willingness to change. Whatever the conclusion, such a competition would be a momentous milestone in our country’s history. It would show how far we’ve gone while simultaneously exposing how far we still have to go to achieve the full potential of American democracy. Harris’ candidature, whether won or lost, would be a testament to progress and a challenge to continue working towards a more inclusive and equitable society.
However, if Trump wins, all of this gets more complicated, as the consequences will be far-reaching and significant, both domestically and internationally. Such a conclusion would represent a dramatic shift in American politics and morals, with far-reaching implications. Domestically, a Trump victory over Harris would most certainly be interpreted as a rejection of progress towards more diversity and inclusion at the highest levels of government. People may see it as America’s determination to favour familiarity and existing power systems over innovation and representation. This could chill future candidates from underrepresented communities, discouraging them from running for high office. A Harris loss may cause a confidence and strategy crisis in the Democratic Party. It could lead to introspection about whether the party went too far left or was not progressive enough. There may be disagreements regarding the importance of identity politics in campaigns, as well as whether focusing on diversity harms or benefits political prospects.
A Trump victory will undoubtedly empower his supporters and the more extremist parts of the Republican Party. We could witness a rise of populist, nationalist language and actions, such as tighter immigration laws, rollbacks of environmental regulations, and a more isolationist foreign policy attitude. The consequences of electing a candidate with legal issues would be serious. The tacit acceptance of behaviour that was formerly regarded as disqualifying for high office has the potential to undermine public officials’ norms and standards. This could have long-term implications for the rule of law and the accountability of political leaders. Internationally, a Trump victory over Harris may send a worrying statement about American values and interests. It could be interpreted as a rejection of the progress represented by Harris’ campaign, implying that the United States is not prepared for diverse leadership at the highest levels. This might undermine America’s soft power and ability to advocate for democracy and human rights around the world. Given Trump’s previous criticism of traditional alliances and international organisations, US friends, particularly in Europe and Asia, may be concerned about his return. This could cause allies to reconsider their relationships with the United States, potentially leading to the pursuit of more autonomous policies or alternative partnerships.
In contrast, some authoritarian countries may see Trump’s election as confirmation of their own leadership styles and a loss of American moral authority on problems of democracy and human rights. If Trump’s prior cynicism towards environmental rules and international climate agreements persists, the worldwide fight against climate change may suffer. This may impede global efforts to address this crucial issue. A Harris loss might be demoralising for women and minorities around the world, implying that even in one of the world’s oldest democracies, non-traditional candidates are still unable to reach the top offices. This could hinder efforts towards more diversity in leadership positions around the world.
A Trump victory over Harris would put America at a crossroads, forcing the country to choose between two starkly divergent visions for its future. It is expected to exacerbate existing political and social differences, challenge long-held beliefs about progress and representation, and compel a national debate about America’s identity and values in the twenty-first century. Such an outcome would not be the end of the push for greater diversity and inclusion in American politics, but it would be a severe setback. It would force change advocates to reorganise, rethink their techniques, and seek new ways to achieve their goal of creating a more inclusive America.
