Do Not Make Us Come Down There

When Joe Biden endorsed Kamala Harris for the Democratic presidential nomination, she quickly gained momentum. Grassroots groups like Black Women for Harris, Win with Black Women, and Black Girls Vote organized a Zoom call that drew 44,000 participants, raised $1.4 million USD, and recruited 10,000 new volunteers. This surge of support kicked off a series of advocacy groups for Harris, from Women for Harris to Men for Harris—and even Republicans for Harris.

While there is no official Canadians for Harris group, she has the backing of myself and many other Canadians. Although we cannot vote or donate, we are closely following her campaign, discussing it with our American friends, and urging them to vote. A Harris victory would be symbolically significant as she would become both the first woman and the first Black South Asian president. She supports progressive policies on women’s rights, climate action, and economic reform—issues that also affect Canada. Plus, she has a personal connection to Canada, having lived in Montreal during her youth. A win for Harris would resonate with many Canadians.

Voting Has Become Harder

I have been engaged in politics for decades. I have voted in every election since I was eighteen and have always encouraged others to do the same. But over the past two decades, voting has become increasingly difficult. Social media’s rise and traditional journalism’s decline have led to the spread of disinformation, shaping and polarizing voters’ opinions. Climate change has struggled to capture the public’s attention, with many politicians either hesitating to introduce progressive policies or actively campaigning against them. It is hard to vote when all politicians seem the same, endlessly discussing economic growth while the environment collapses around us. A so-called “green economy” is still a capitalist one, structured to benefit the wealthy.

Harris and the Democrats are branded as radical leftists by their opponents, but to many Canadians, all American politicians appear right-wing. The Democrats are more educated and secular compared to the conspiracy-driven, religious Republicans, but both are still right-leaning. Democrats are more libertarian when it comes to women’s autonomy over their bodies, while Republicans are more libertarian on gun rights, yet neither party fully addresses the most critical issues. People do not get the chance to vote on the things that really matter. They do not get to vote on whether military profiteering and wars should continue. They do not get to vote on whether billionaires should exist while so many people struggle to survive.

Similar patterns exist in so-called left-wing Canada. Our Liberal government introduced a reasonable carbon tax but then also built new oil pipelines. Our Conservative opposition would scrap the carbon tax and boost oil production. The New Democratic Party (NDP) offers only modest relief to those enduring environmental collapse. Each election, it becomes harder to find a compelling reason to vote.

Voting for Harris Is Hard

I have reservations about Harris. During the presidential debate, Harris was poised, articulate, and well-prepared with facts and reasoned arguments. However, she often felt heavily scripted, repeating talking points about her middle-class upbringing, giving little opportunity to hear her speak off-the-cuff. This is true of many politicians—they play it safe.

Harris panders to the right. We have heard numerous times that she owns a Glock and enjoys shooting it at the range, reassuring the right that she will not take away their guns. She highlights her endorsement from Dick Cheney. Remember Cheney’s role as vice president during the Iraq War and his support for torture? Harris also flipped on her stance on fracking to win Pennsylvania.

The most troubling issue is Gaza. With reports of 40,000 civilians killed—primarily women and children—allegations of sexual violence by Israeli forces, and the war expanding into Lebanon and other nearby countries, global attention is desperately needed. Yet, what we get from Harris is a script: Israel has the right to defend itself, the suffering is terrible, we need a ceasefire deal. Meanwhile, the Biden-Harris administration just sent billions in new military funding. The only presidential candidate standing against the genocide is Jill Stein of the Green Party, who has no chance of winning or making a significant impact.

Voting for Harris Is Harm Reduction

I dislike strategic voting, the practice of voting for a candidate you do not fully support just to avoid splitting the vote and electing someone worse. I have often voted for the Canadian Green Party despite the risk of inadvertently helping the Conservative candidate win. I value voting on principle.

Yet, I would vote strategically for Harris to avoid the greater risk of a Trump victory. That is my most pressing concern. In 2016, Trump was already known to be a self-serving, misogynistic liar. By 2024, he is a bankrupt, vindictive felon. A second Trump presidency poses even graver dangers. With Roe v. Wade overturned, a federal abortion ban looms. Trump’s refusal to reform border policies worsened the immigration crisis, and mass deportations could be enforced with military power. He could weaponize the president’s office for personal vengeance and perpetual power, and he may form an alliance with Russia.

Some argue that democracy is failing, that it exists to serve capitalism, and that capitalism will never address the climate crisis. The collapse of civilization, they say, is already in progress. Perhaps, they suggest, a Trump-like win is inevitable, and the entire system must crumble for humanity to rebuild. But a Trump win now would cause immense suffering. A Harris win would at least slow the collapse and reduce that suffering. Voting for Harris is an act of harm reduction.

Do Not Make Us Come Down There

Here in Canada, we expect our own federal election in 2025, and the U.S. election feels like a preview. Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are faltering in the polls after years in office, and he may soon face pressure from within his party to step down, much like Biden. Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative leader is dubbed “Trump North” for his populist rhetoric, attacks on the media, and right-wing base.

My American neighbors, we Canadians do not want another Trump presidency. Do not make us come down there. Do the right thing: vote for Harris. Once Trump is soundly defeated, hold Harris accountable on urgent issues like Gaza, the growing war, and the dire need for climate action.

Subscribe to my Essays on Substack

Image generated by DeepAI

His Rhetorical Style is Reminiscent of a Country Preacher

How Does Donald Trump Do It?

Donald Trump shocked the world when he won the U.S. presidency in 2016. His defeat in 2020 left many hopeful that his political influence would fade. Yet here he is in 2024, in strong contention for the presidency. Initially, the MAGA campaign pummeled Joe Biden in the polls. When Kamala Harris took his place, she was buoyed by an outpouring of donations and endorsements. She pulled into the lead in August. Still, outspending Trump by tens of millions and even pulling in Republican endorsements, her lead remains tenuous—no greater than four percentage points. Trump winning in November is a real possibility.

It’s baffling to many how Trump has maintained his political popularity. In 2016, he was already criticized for being self-serving, misogynistic, and dishonest. By 2024, he’s a bankrupt, vindictive felon. A second Trump presidency poses even graver risks: with Roe v. Wade overturned, a federal abortion ban is a looming possibility; his defeat of border security reforms exacerbated the immigration crisis; and mass deportations may be enforced using military power. His administration could weaponize the president’s office for personal vengeance and perpetual power, He may form an alliance with Russia. Democracy will be corrupted.  

So, why would anyone vote for Trump? To understand, we need to explore the feelings of alienation and discontent among his supporters—a backlash rooted in a culture war of the 21st century. Trump taps into this with remarkable skill, using old-world communication patterns that resonate deeply with his base.

Strangers in Their Own Land

A useful lens for understanding Trump’s appeal comes from Arlie Russell Hochschild’s book Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right (2018). A liberal sociologist from Berkeley, Hochschild spent five years in conservative Louisiana, listening to the grievances of right-leaning Americans.

I relate to Hochschild’s findings. My background shares some similarities with the Louisianans she studied. I come from a large, low-income, Christian family. I remember the resentment of taxes. It makes some sense because this population preferred to give to others though their churches. Unfortunately, churches cannot scale to address global problems like climate change.

The environment is the key paradox Hochschild addresses throughout her book. Louisiana, one of the most polluted states, is also strongly opposed to environmental regulation. Across the U.S., states with higher exposure to pollution tend to lean Republican. Why? Less regulation may bring short-term job gains, but long-term pollution is destroying their land and health. Louisianans, like many others, seem numb to this damage. There’s a failure to see that green jobs could also sustain their communities.

Education, or lack thereof, plays a role here. Beyond formal degrees, education teaches critical thinking and how to assess information. Fox News, while a popular source, cannot be the only source. With the collapse of traditional journalism, a vacuum has formed, allowing disinformation to thrive. Hochschild describes this as a “deep story” of resentment—where people feel left behind and insulted by stereotypes of “rednecks” or “white trash.” Self-reliant and proud, these individuals feel alienated from a world they no longer recognize, as if they are “strangers in their own land.”

A Culture War

The 21st century brings rapid and unsettling change. The global population has surpassed eight billion. Climate change threatens ecosystems, food supplies, and health. Economic inequality is deepening social unrest. Pandemics have strained healthcare systems, and technological advances, while beneficial, are also reshaping jobs, creating disinformation, and undermining trust. Amid these shifts, some people envision a future of environmental sustainability, social justice, and economic equality. Others long for a simpler, more familiar past—a world they believe worked better for them.

This conflict between progress and nostalgia is the heart of the culture war. It pits left against right, progressives against conservatives, diversity against patriarchy. While change is inevitable, it stirs anxiety, especially among those who feel they are losing ground. The old guard is lashing back, and they’re not alone—many others sympathize with their discontent.

Trump’s Old-World Communication Style

One of Trump’s strengths in this culture war is his ability to connect with those nostalgic for the past. His rhetorical style is reminiscent of a country preacher, relying on emotion and simplicity to resonate with his base.

In the presidential debate, Harris was poised, articulate, and well-prepared with facts and reasoned arguments. But how much of what she said was memorable? Trump, on the other hand, broke the internet with his absurd claim about people eating pets. This may have seemed ridiculous to many, but it dominated the conversation. Trump’s appeal lies in his ability to bypass intellectual objections with repetition and emotional appeals—techniques well-honed in oral traditions.

In Orality and Literacy, Walter J. Ong explains how oral cultures used repetition, cliché, and aggregation to ensure ideas were memorable and passed down. Trump employs these same tactics, making him a master of old-world communication in a modern context. While Harris’s intellectual rigor appeals to the literate, Trump’s emotive rhetoric strikes a chord with those who prefer storytelling and simple narratives.

Trump Remains a Real Threat in November

As November approaches, enthusiasm for Harris is high, but Trump remains a real threat. His base won’t be easily swayed by facts or policy arguments. To reduce that risk, we must recognize the emotional and cultural appeal that Trump has to his supporters. Engaging with them on a personal level, outside of the MAGA echo chamber, could reveal more common ground than we expect. As Hochschild observed in Louisiana, people are often kinder and more generous than their politics suggest.

Subscribe to my Essays on Substack

Not a literal cyborg, but a human leader elevated and elected through the new media landscape of Web 3.0

Cats have oddly found themselves at the center of the Republican bid for the 2024 presidential election. First, it was J.D. Vance, who criticized Democrats as “childless cat ladies.” Then, it was Donald Trump, who falsely accused immigrants of eating dogs and cats during a debate. This fixation on cats aligns with Trump’s rise through social media—a realm where facts are flexible, misinformation spreads quickly, and cats are undeniably popular (recall the phenomenon of “I Can Has Cheezburger?”).

It seems distant now, but in the early 1990s, the web consisted mainly of static websites that could only be updated by programmers—what we now refer to as Web 1.0. Back then, people relied on traditional media and authoritative news sources that adhered to fact-checking standards. Presidents like George Bush and Bill Clinton were elected through traditional means and media.

By the mid-2000s, the web transitioned to Web 2.0, characterized by interactive, user-generated content and social networking. Suddenly, everyone was participating online. Cats, dinner pictures, and selfies dominated platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. The Democrats quickly adopted social media for campaigning and fundraising, culminating in Barack Obama becoming the first “social media president” in 2008.

While social media democratized content creation, it also challenged traditional journalism. Fast, free news from “citizen journalists” replaced more credible sources, and sensationalism often ranked higher than accuracy. Misinformation and disinformation flourished, with the 2016 U.S. election becoming a glaring example. The Russian government interfered with the election through hacking and disinformation campaigns aimed at sabotaging Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and boosting Trump’s. Trump, in turn, became the second “social media president.”

By 2020, governments had enforced identity verification for political ads on social platforms, and people became incrementally savvier in media literacy. Joe Biden won the 2020 presidency, and Kamala Harris now appears poised to win in November of this year.

Around the mid-2010s, the web began evolving once again. Web 3.0 introduces another fundamental shift in how we interact with information, characterized by the rise of distributed computing and artificial intelligence. While its full impact on culture, media, and politics remains uncertain, there are three likely outcomes:

1. Enhanced Digital Identity: Improved digital identity systems will secure personal data and permissions, increasing privacy and data portability. This could reduce the misuse of personal data for political targeting and limit mass disinformation attacks as people move away from social media giants.
2. Decentralized Computing: The decentralization of computing will disrupt traditional news and financial channels, changing how people learn about politics and fund political campaigns.
3. Artificial Intelligence in Decision-Making: AI will increasingly assist people with cognitive tasks, facilitating more trustworthy research and informed voting decisions.

Kamala Harris could soon become the first woman—and the first Black and South Asian American—to be president. As Web 2.0 continues to falter under the weight of disinformation and a toxic culture, Trump may well be remembered as the last “social media president.” But who will be the first “AI president?” Not a literal cyborg, but a human leader elevated and elected through the new media landscape of Web 3.0. Perhaps we will find out by 2028 or 2032.

Update 2024-10-03. TrumpGPT – John Miedema. This may answer the question. 😉

Subscribe to my essays on Substack