As America hurtles toward what may be its most pivotal election in a century, an eerie sense of déjà vu hangs in the air, not just in the United States, but around the world, where the election will have consequential effects.
Unlike 2016’s shock victory, however, the nation seems resigned to the possibility of Donald Trump’s return to power.
The polls paint a picture of a country split down the middle, with Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Trump locked in a razor-thin battle that could be decided by just a few thousand votes in key battleground states.
“We are the underdogs,” Harris recently confessed in a letter to supporters, warning that victory might hinge on “a handful of states where polling shows the race between a point or two.”
It’s a stark admission that captures the gravity of the moment, as both candidates recognise that their path to victory runs through the same narrow corridor of battleground states that decided the 2016 election.
What makes this election particularly pivotal isn’t just its closeness, but what’s at stake.
Trump has been remarkably candid about his intentions, promising to wield presidential power in unprecedented ways.
He’s openly declared he would use the FBI to investigate political opponents – a plan that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions may have inadvertently made easier to execute.
This time, unlike his first term when institutional guardrails largely held firm, Trump appears poised to push the boundaries of executive power to their breaking point.
The implications for American democracy are profound.
During his first term, Trump’s approach to governance often bypassed traditional channels and institutions, with increased use of executive orders and emergency declarations to achieve policy goals.
His resistance to the peaceful transfer of power following the 2020 election represented an unprecedented challenge to democratic norms that had been respected by all previous presidents.
Now, with the benefit of experience and a clearer understanding of the system’s pressure points, Trump’s potential return to power carries even weightier implications.
The former president’s vision for his second term reads like a dramatic re-emergence of a dictator.
Having learned from his first term’s constraints, Trump has vowed to appoint officials who won’t say “no” – a particularly pointed concern given his current legal entanglements as a convicted felon.
His recent comment about there being too many “bad genes” in America has sent shockwaves through immigrant communities across America, while his promise to “protect women, whether they like it or not” has raised alarms about reproductive rights.
On the economic front, Trump’s proposals suggest a return to aggressive protectionist policies that economists warn could reshape global trade.
His pledge to replace income tax with tariffs has raised concerns about disproportionate impacts on lower-income Americans, while his promise to double down on trade wars with China and other nations threatens to further disrupt global supply chains and potentially accelerate inflation.
The coalition supporting Trump’s return is a fascinating mix of seemingly contradictory forces.
White evangelicals rally behind a thrice-divorced, non-churchgoing businessman found guilty of various charges.
Their unwavering support appears rooted not in Trump’s personal character but in his promise to advance cultural policies that align with their worldview.
Meanwhile, some of America’s wealthiest individuals, including Elon Musk – who’s reportedly spending a million dollars daily in Pennsylvania alone – are backing a man who threatens to upend the very economic system that made them rich.
Of Trump’s 26 biggest billionaire donors, many represent a curious alliance of private family-held corporation owners, tech investors, and finance executives.
Their support seems driven by a combination of anti-regulatory promises and direct business interests, creating an unusual alliance between populist rhetoric and elite financial backing.
The racial dynamics of a potential second Trump term cannot be ignored.
His first administration’s policies and public statements often intensified rather than healed divisions.
From his response to the Charlottesville protests to his characterisation of Black Lives Matter demonstrations, Trump’s approach to racial issues has frequently been divisive.
His campaign messaging continues to exploit racial tensions rather than address underlying inequities, with his statements about crime in major cities and immigration often employing language that critics view as racially coded.
Immigration remains a cornerstone of Trump’s political strategy.
His proposed “largest domestic deportation operation in American history” has created widespread fear among immigrant communities.
The plan goes beyond mere border control, suggesting a fundamental reshaping of America’s role as a destination for global talent and its relationships with neighboring countries.
The comment at his campaign in New York, while making a closing argument, that an American territory, Pueto Rico, is a moving island of garbage, reveals a lot about his party’s views of America’s geopolitics.
The implications of a Trump victory extend far beyond policy changes. His presidency could fundamentally reshape American democracy itself.
He’s already promised to be “a dictator on day one” – a statement his supporters write off as hyperbole but his critics take deadly seriously.
The parallel some draw to 1920s Russia, when millions fled amid political upheaval, might seem dramatic, but it reflects genuine fears about America’s democratic future.
With over 65 million early votes cast, the election’s outcome may ultimately rest with those still undecided – particularly less-engaged rural and young voters susceptible to social media influence.
This dynamic showcases democracy’s vulnerability to populist messaging and the growing influence of digital platforms in shaping political outcomes.
The resistance to Trump’s potential return includes unlikely allies.
Republicans like former congresswoman Liz Cheney have joined forces with traditional opponents, arguing that a second Trump presidency poses too great a risk to American democracy.
However, these voices of opposition within the Republican Party remain relatively isolated and appear insufficient to significantly impact Trump’s base of support.
As November 5th approaches, America stands at a crossroads.
The choice isn’t merely between two candidates but between competing visions of what America represents.
Will the nation’s democratic institutions bend or break? Will American role as a global beacon of democracy dim or endure?
The answers to these questions could reshape not just the United States but the global order that has relied on American democratic and military leadership for decades.
The dynamics are too fluid to set expectations, and the race remains too close to call.
Any prediction of victory for either candidate amounts to mere speculation in a society equally divided between Trump’s brand of conservatism and those resisting it.
Fingers remain crossed.
America has overcome challenges before. This is just another test of its resilience, albeit perhaps its most serious one yet.
The nation’s fundamental character as a multicultural democracy hangs in the balance, awaiting the verdict of an electorate that seems as divided as it is uncertain about the future.
I have written so far about what happens should Trump win.
But what he loses?
Trump will never accept defeat. It’s heads for Trump, tails for the loser. It is impossible for him to accept defeat.
And I think that is what we should expect from this election – a Trump claim of winning, when he loses.
There will be a lot of lawsuits.
Chaos beckons.
