Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are so far apart that only continental drift can bring them closer. It’s not just that one is African-American and the other is white. Or that one is a woman and the other is a man. Or that Kamala Harris is from California and Donald Trump is from New York. More importantly, Kamala Harris’ campaign is based on declining figures while Mr Trump’s campaign is based on rising figures.
two campaigns
Abortion rights are at the top of Ms Harris’s to-do list, but just how pressing is it? Abortion rates in the United States have declined steadily since the Roe v. Wade decision in the 1970s. Legalizing abortion would not lead to more abortions, as some opponents of the decision feared. Nor was there any dramatic increase in abortion clinics.
While abortion rates are falling, immigration, which is Mr. Trump’s cause, is rising. The Immigration Acts of 1965 and 1990 allowed Latin Americans and Asians to come in, and since then, the majority of American immigrants have been Mexicans. There has also been a rapid increase in unauthorized immigrants, who today account for about 25% of foreign-born people in the US.
Between 1981 and 2021, the abortion rate in the US fell from 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women in the 15–44 age range to 11.6 abortions per 1,000 women. The decline is not because some states have banned abortion, but because of highly effective contraceptive methods such as the intrauterine device. Also, more women now pursue careers rather than raising children.
Then again, the election campaign primarily on abortion does not appeal to women the way it did in the 1970s. No doubt, abortions still occur, often with women forced to travel from their home state, which prohibits abortion, to another state where it is permitted. This may result in death, but not at an excessive rate. Paradoxically, women past childbearing age are committed to bringing back abortion rights only because they fought for it in the 1970s. This was a major advance then, not only because the number of unintended pregnancies was higher, but also because single parents could now focus more on child rearing rather than having children.
condemnation against immigrants
In contrast to the profile before 1965, where most immigrants were white, today about 50% of immigrants to the US are from Latin America, and a quarter from Mexico alone. Perhaps this explains why Mr. Trump’s rhetoric against immigrants coming from south of the border is so appealing. There are lots of them and they all look very different.
In 2022, approximately 10.6 million immigrants (or 23% of all immigrants to the US) were Mexican. This was followed by people from India (6%) and China (5%). Although 77% of immigrants are in the US legally, about 25%, mostly Mexicans, are unauthorized. It was not until 1968 that mainly Europeans and the British could enter the US.
Donald Trump’s grandfather was an immigrant from Germany and came here easily. Nevertheless, he hid this ancestry, as Germans were looked down upon in those days, just as Mexicans are today. However, time and skin color have erased that memory, and their descendants, like Donald Trump, have less tolerance for later Latin American immigrants.
Editorial Neck and neck: on the US presidential election
Since the presence of migrants is flammable, they are all lumped together, as authorized people are not physically stamped. Fighting for the welfare of migrants then becomes a major altruistic endeavor because they cannot fight for themselves. This is a domestic advantage for those who rally behind the “Make America Great Again” banner.
That’s why Mr Trump doesn’t have a whole host of celebrities on stage. Their purpose does not require translation into everyday language. Any attempt to weaken the massive presence of unauthorized immigrants will be immediately met with hostility and distrust. Not surprisingly, when Ms. Harris is faced with this issue, she tends to wander.
Because abortion rights matter actively to fewer women today, Democrats are forced to frame this demand in rights terms and it always requires clarification. Since Ms. Harris easily gives up her authority if religious leaders intervene, the moral ownership of that authority is substantially weakened. When law and morality conflict, morality usually wins.
That’s why Ms. Harris is usually part of a wide-ranging group in public with entertainers like Bruce Springsteen, Usher, Lizzie and now even Beyoncé. Barack Obama is also pushing to bring him on stage and so is Michelle Obama. In the medley, one is likely to lose sight of the lead actress, Kamala Harris; She gets lost in the crowd.
overall
Polls say it is a neck-and-neck fight but Ms Harris’ camp is working harder because much of her journey is uphill. In contrast, Mr. Trump is on cruise control and travels light. He is the star of the show – an entertainer and political leader. If there is anyone else on his platform, it will be an additional order. When his show comes on, no one ignores him.
In recent memory, the contrasting styles of the finalists have never been more apparent. It’s all because of the cause that everyone promotes. Ms. Harris’s case is filled with tiny, vanishingly small numbers that require a system of gray cells to arrange them. Mr. Trump’s appeal is deeply felt, requiring little explanation. It gets your heart beating so your brain can rest.
Somewhere, whether by intuition or luck, Mr. Trump has mastered the art of keeping it simple, even if it sounds silly. This is politics.
Dipankar Gupta is a retired professor of sociology at Jawaharlal Nehru University.
published – October 30, 2024 12:08 am IST