Advice | Decoding Democratic Defeat: A Cultural Communication Autopsy

Last updated:Nov 09, 2024 4:38 PM IST

The Democrats offered lectures, not solutions. Their tone-deaf campaign, blind to the American struggle, alienated the very voters they needed to win

The Harris campaign simply did not appear authentic. (Reuters)

It’s time for Trump 2.0. Opinion polls had predicted a historically close, one-off election. But contrary to these predictions, the result could not have been more decisive. In 2016, many who planned to vote for Donald Trump kept quiet for fear of contempt from Democrats – a kind of déjà vu, reminiscent of the story of the ‘deplorables’. But unlike 2016, this Trump victory is more decisive, with victories in both the Electoral College and the popular vote. Political experts will dissect the reasons for Kamala Harris’ loss and Donald Trump’s victory, citing factors such as the economy, wars, immigration and law and order.

Here are a few factors from a cultural communication perspective.

Not authentic

The Harris campaign simply did not appear authentic. While we may accept that politicians are rarely completely sincere, there remains at least the expectation that we know more or less where they stand on important issues. Even when they change positions, there is usually clarity about the reasons and timing behind those shifts. However, the Harris campaign struggled to establish and maintain a coherent message.

Instead of changing her position due to new information, intellectual growth, or compelling events, it seemed like Kamala Harris would say anything to get you on her side. Both the campaign and the candidate issued numerous political, economic, and foreign policy statements that seemed disingenuous. To those outside her base, Harris came across as over-rehearsed, uncomfortable in unscripted discussions, and seemed to make the election about “Why not Trump” rather than “Why Harris.” As a result, Trump remained in the spotlight while Harris appeared on the periphery, hesitant about when to act.

Both campaigns used and criticized edited clips, fake videos and staged images, but the Harris campaign failed to deter this as it struggled to define itself in the first place.

The ‘Messenger Syndrome’‘

In her individual capacity, Kamala Harris couldn’t shake the perception that she is merely a messenger — a vessel — for Biden. In any institutional hierarchy, people are bound by decisions made by others above them, but the way these decisions and positional constraints are formulated and communicated is critical. Even if they don’t get what they expect, the target audience wants to know that the person they have chosen or will choose represents them honestly, speaks for them, has their best interests at heart and has their backs, not just gets in the way of itself. making deals to get or stay in power.

Default messenger syndrome also reflects an inability to take responsibility for actions and consequences, or to show that you are also a stakeholder. It reflects a lack of principle or thought about anything – just a messenger. Harris’ inability to convey anything that would separate her from her boss left the messenger tag irrevocably stuck. And in any case, the people who were tired of Biden’s policies didn’t want more of the same. The Harris campaign lacked any political identity.

Doomsday Scenario and Demonization

Some people thrive on toxic negativity, but many do not. The daily doomsday talk about Trump’s victory, the constant negativity and demonization of Trump was exhausting. He has his faults in abundance, but it wasn’t clear what Harris had to offer. The Harris campaign seemed to be about “Let Harris talk about Trump.” For the most part, constant negativity doesn’t work.

Think about this: if you are stuck in an environment full of doom and gloom, you will become distant. If people are constantly in your ear and criticizing every other individual while projecting themselves as your savior, you would be looking for a way out. Not everyone is looking for fluff or a checklist of buzzwords either. A combination of pragmatic optimism and authenticity can give people confidence and hope. But the Harris campaign came across seemingly oblivious to the realities on the ground, especially in small towns and rural America. Instead, it catastrophized everything, portrayed everyone as victim or perpetrator, or served up empty platitudes. That approach simply did not provide any assurance about the candidate’s ability to hold the most powerful position in the world.

Kupamanduka Mentality

In the midst of social media and news media, more and more people now live in their small, tightly closed cocoons, even resisting the possibility that anything else exists outside of them. Only those who look or think like this are allowed to enter or be seen as worthy people. It’s akin to being part of an organization that doesn’t hire outsiders, or if it does, expects them to conform to predetermined views. No new perspectives develop and there is no deviation from the status quo. Such organizations stagnate, become irrelevant and eventually sink into the dust of mediocrity.

The target group (voters) changes, evolves and moves away from such obstructive entities. People who cannot face anything new or need a blanket of their equality to feel relevant and safe cannot think beyond themselves. Organizations, institutions and political parties need visionaries who can look beyond themselves or their term(s). After the beating, Democrats can either continue to blame others or get out kupamanduka mentality – a frog living in a well and not knowing that there is a whole world out there: limited knowledge and inability to learn and grow.

Delusion

Some people take a few crumbs and build an entire story around them, using their insecurities, mental flaws, preferential biases, or pure hatred. For some, apophenia causes them to see connections, patterns, signs, and symbols in most random places and objects. The more such delusions spread, the more one moves away from logic, reality and clarity. Already in those blind cocoons, the Harris campaign seemed confident in its understanding of polls and trends, making connections and drawing its conclusions: it believed what it believed. She saw nothing wrong or missing in her agenda, priorities or communications. Despite being given multiple perfectly curated platforms, Kamala Harris couldn’t see past the fables woven around her by her own team and legacy media outlets. For many, Trump may not have been the candidate of choice, but that doesn’t mean they would be attracted to someone who seemed distanced from reality.

In these elections, the electorate has broken away somewhat from the monolithic frameworks. Although the percentages vary—Latinos, Asians, whites, African Americans, men, women, new voters, older people, and so on—people across the board voted for both candidates, for both parties. The Harris campaign did not spot these moves early enough and expected select groups to keep pace and do (vote) as stated. It smacks of elitism and virtue signaling, especially when the campaign struggled to convey even any authenticity.

Instead of blaming “uneducated white women,” as panelist on the ABC show The view did the morning after, Democrats must be sincere in their introspection. If interested (and that’s the operative word): Dems can only improve from here, but it requires taking ownership, getting real, and coming clean. The party, or at least its most visible and loudest voices, have taken it to the radical end – so far away that the centrists and moderates appear to them to be right-wing. Common sense, merit, responsibility, logic, success, luck, excellence – it has all been turned into dirty words, and continuing with that will not work.

The United States is a highly ambitious society that still values ​​hard work and the pursuit of happiness, and needs politicians who embody these values ​​themselves. This is democracy: you win some, you lose some. Introspect, learn, get real and prepare for next time. For now, the electorate has spoken.

Postscript:

• Some of the solid Blues and solid Reds have been mismanaged financially for decades, but because the lack of political change is a given, there is no accountability or concern, while taxpayers continue to pay the price for political apathy and lack of vision.
• Speaking of cultural communication, “Fight, fight, fight‘ has largely cemented Trump’s path to the White House. Whether you support Trump or not, it will remain one of the most iconic images.

Divya Sharma, PhD, is a professor of Justice and Law Enforcement. The opinions expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of News18.