When Voters Choose Their Own Chains: Trump’s Return

The results are in, and the implications are profound. Donald Trump’s victory over Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election represents more than just a changing of the guard — it signals a seismic shift in American democracy and global political order.

What makes this victory particularly significant is its intentionality. As Edward Luce notes in the Financial Times, “To elect him once may have been an accident; to do so twice came with eyes wide open.” The American electorate chose Trump despite — or perhaps because of — his legal convictions, his attacks on democratic institutions, and his openly authoritarian rhetoric. This wasn’t a vote cast in ignorance but rather a conscious embrace of what Trump represents.

The roots of this victory lie partly in economic discontent. While the Harris campaign pointed to declining inflation and modest wage growth, these metrics failed to resonate with an electorate feeling the squeeze of persistently high prices. As Owen Jones observed from his conversations with voters across America, statistical improvements in the economy meant little to those struggling with daily expenses. The Democratic establishment’s inability to craft a compelling economic narrative beyond defending the status quo left a vacuum that Trump’s populist messaging readily filled.

The implications for democratic institutions are stark. With the support of a Republican-controlled Senate and possibly House, Trump enters his second term with what he perceives as a mandate for retribution. The Supreme Court has already granted him expansive immunity for presidential actions. The guardrails that barely contained his first term’s authoritarian impulses appear weaker than ever.

The international response reveals the global stakes. Democratic allies are bracing for what French political scientist Nicole Bacharan calls “the beginning of the end of American exceptionalism.” NATO’s collective defence commitment looks increasingly fragile under a president who has said he would “encourage” Russia to act against allies who don’t meet his payment demands. Meanwhile, autocrats from Viktor Orbán to Vladimir Putin are celebrating, seeing in Trump’s victory a vindication of their own authoritarian models.

Trump’s promised mass deportations represent perhaps the most immediate threat to democratic norms. The logistics of removing millions of people from their homes would require a level of state power and disregard for civil liberties unprecedented in modern American history.

The Democratic establishment bears significant responsibility for this outcome. Their strategy of running Harris as effectively Biden 2.0, without a distinctive vision or compelling response to voter dissatisfaction, proved disastrous. As Owen Jones of The Guardian notes, “There was no clear vision, no shared rage with the American people at the state of the country.” The party’s assumption that Trump’s threat to democracy would be sufficient motivation for voters underestimated the power of economic grievance and cultural resentment.

The question now is whether Trump’s victory represents democracy’s twilight or a crisis that might yet spark its renewal. As Natasha Lennard argues in The Intercept, grassroots movements — from labour organizing to mutual aid networks — have continued their vital work regardless of who occupies the White House. These movements may prove crucial in preserving democratic spaces and values during the challenging years ahead.

What’s clear is that American democracy stands at a crossroads. Trump’s victory, far from an accident or aberration, represents a conscious choice by a significant portion of the electorate to embrace authoritarian leadership over democratic norms. The challenge for defenders of democracy is to understand this choice not as a temporary deviation but as a symptom of deeper systemic failures that require fundamental solutions.

The world now watches to see whether American democracy can weather this storm or whether, as some fear, we are witnessing the beginning of its end. The answer may lie not in Washington’s corridors of power but in the resilience of civil society and the capacity of ordinary citizens to defend democratic values in their communities and institutions.