Amid the cries of adoration, the tears of disbelief, and the malevolent anti-Trump boos of the Democratic faithful, Vice President Kamala Harris looked out over her captive audience in the face of overwhelming defeat and declared:
‘At the same time, in our nation, we owe loyalty not to a president or a party, but to the Constitution of the United States, and loyalty to our conscience and to our God. My allegiance to all three is why I am here to say, while I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fueled this campaign – the fight: the fight for freedom, for opportunity, for fairness, and the dignity of all people. A fight for the ideals at the heart of our nation, the ideals that reflect America at our best. That is a fight I will never give up.’
Were these the words of a gracious leader accepting defeat at the hands of a greater challenger or were they the words to stoke the flames of dissent in the broader disaffected base?
Had President-elect Donald Trump used language loaded with rebellious double-speak, global media, politicians, and pundits would have protested en masse at such callous rhetoric that could chip away at the edges of the deeply fractured American society. ‘Insurrection!’ they would have foamed through gritted teeth. ‘A threat to democracy! The President should be seeking to unite, not separate!’
Instead, there was silence. Her words drifted idly by as news outlets struggled to stifle their disappointment and disbelief at the magnitude of the defeat to the big, bad, orange man. Ms Harris used the word ‘fight’ 19 times in her speech. Granted, the use of emphatic rhetoric can oft be seen as a tool used to motivate a base, to invite emotion, to steel resolve – and it may well be a sound explanation for the tone of the speech we heard from the VP, but should not the same measure be applied to all?
This is precisely why the Democrats lost. The majority of the American people have seen through the divisive politicking and outrage-peddling that has been employed as a political tactic against President Trump. That is not to say the Trump campaign is without sin. But it is apparent, through every press conference, through every interview and public appearance, that President Trump has never hidden who he is. He has consistently been the man you either love or love to hate. Where there are inconsistencies in his narrative, it is likely that he, at least, truly believes what he says, even if untrue. Does that vindicate or indemnify him against any perceived crimes or faults? Not at all. But he has presented a clear platform that voters can either choose to approve or reject wholesale. There is no ambiguity. That is not so with the Democrats. In an attempt to be all things to all people, they have found themselves as nothing to anyone. Harris is viewed merely as a puppet on a string dancing to the tune of Democrat power brokers.
Are the Democrats intending to drive dissent and division in America throughout Trump’s second term as President? Accepting the result does not mean the Democrats will allow Trump to govern freely. If history repeats, the real work will now begin to undermine, pressure, ridicule, and infiltrate the President and his inner circle in an attempt to depict ‘The Donald’ as a despotic dictator hellbent on the destruction of democracy. It will be a great hypocrisy if those on the left move to divide America in the interests of a future spot in the White House, that will make it near impossible for President-elect Trump to heal the United States; an oxymoron grows more and more apparent each day.
