Text/Xu Yifan and Fang Chenyu

Editor/Qi Fei

The US election, which was full of "black swans", has changed the political atmosphere this year. The second showdown between two elderly politicians originally made American voters feel tired, but after experiencing the assassination of presidential candidates and the temporary replacement of candidates, huge unpredictability lies before voters and the world.

But it is not only the election itself that deserves attention. We can also look ahead and regard 2024 as another observation node for changes in U.S. domestic politics. Whether it is the political polarization that binds the entire American society or the internal crises of the two parties such as the generational fault line, they have once again been highlighted in this year's election. However, these problems did not appear overnight, and their impact is not limited to today.

Diao Daming, a professor at the School of International Relations of Renmin University of China, has been deeply involved in American electoral politics. In an exclusive interview with Phoenix Weekly, he gave a detailed analysis of this year's election and tried to answer deeper questions: What does the election really mean? What kind of crisis of direction is the Democratic Party facing? How will Trump and the ideas he represents shape the future of the Republican Party?

Analyzing these issues may help us obtain a key that will make it easier for us to understand American elections and various political phenomena.

The Democratic Party is in the "strong round" of the volleyball game

Phoenix Weekly: The Democratic Party's pressure on Biden to withdraw from the election has a strong implication of demolishing the bridge after crossing the river, but judging from the results, it has indeed allowed Harris to gain an advantage in national polls recently. Can this prove that this is a correct decision?

Diao Daming: It has been exactly one month since Biden announced his withdrawal from the race on July 21 to the convening of the Democratic National Convention. The Democratic Party's election situation has indeed improved after the change of leadership, which has to some extent stimulated the stagnant Democratic Party.

Harris is indeed more capable than Biden in mobilizing young voters, female voters, and minority voters. By early August, the Democratic Party's comprehensive polls had broken away from the situation in which Trump had continued to slightly lead Biden since last September. Harris' lead over Trump had reached between 1% and 2%. Although the lead was slight, there had been a change in the situation.

The change of candidates also changed the Democratic Party's roadmap for winning swing state votes. Before Biden withdrew from the race, he had to win the three swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin in the Midwest to win the election. Now, the Democratic Party still has a chance to win if it can hold on to Wisconsin and the election situation in Michigan or Pennsylvania is loosened.

Currently, Arizona and Nevada in the southwest, and North Carolina and Georgia in the southeast have all seen varying degrees of changes in the election situation. According to current polls, these four states have truly "swayed" and become veritable "battleground states." This means that Harris's roadmap to the White House may be richer than Biden's, which to some extent has reversed the Democratic Party's decline and changed the rhythm of the election.

Even so, the Democratic Party's election situation still faces uncertainty.

On the one hand, it depends on whether Harris can maintain her current lead. In the past month, the Democratic Party has been like a "strong round" in a volleyball game, and it seems that it can win no matter what it plays. After the change, Harris quickly determined the running mate within 16 days, and then immediately went to seven key states to hold campaign rallies and then held a national convention. There was not much negative news throughout the process, and it seemed to be strong.

But we cannot be naive to think that a change of leadership can solve all the problems currently facing the Democratic Party. In fact, economic problems are still there, inflation has become a focus again, and border issues have not been resolved. It can be said that the current momentum of the Democratic Party reflects more of the mood of American voters. In the past, Trump's momentum was stronger than Biden's because he could mobilize Republican voters to "return to the team" to a greater extent. Now the situation is that Harris is getting more Democratic voters to "return to the team." Next, Harris and Trump will go head-to-head, and it is hard to say who will perform better.

On the other hand, if Biden had not withdrawn from the election, wouldn't it have been his "strong turn" from July 21 to now? It's hard to say. Although Harris has improved the Democratic Party's election situation, it is not good enough to win, and it cannot be regarded as a complete reversal of the Democratic Party's election situation. Therefore, it is difficult to judge whether the current change in the Democratic Party's election situation is caused by the change of people. It can only be said that the change of people did not bring worse consequences. Even if Harris wins the election, does it mean that the Democratic Party's change of people is successful? It is also difficult to make such a judgment.

The Democratic Party’s mission should not just be to win the election, but to consider the issue of governing after the victory. However, since 2020, American party politics seems to have reached a state where as long as the election is won, the issue of governing can be discussed later. Therefore, no matter which party wins the election, it is not to change the country with its own ideas in the next four years, but to win the election itself and prevent the other party from running the country. In this sense, even if the Democratic Party wins the election, it cannot be considered a victory.

If Harris comes to power, it only means one thing, that is, the Democratic Party is being dragged into identity politics. Many issues that the Democratic Party is concerned about are playing the identity card. In other words, it has reached the point where candidates must be non-white to be attractive to voters. Harris's election means that the Democratic Party will lean towards a non-white party, but a non-white party, whether in terms of ideology or group, may not be a good choice for the political ecology and future development of the Democratic Party. It is hard to say whether the United States is ready to welcome a female minority president, which will only further tear American society apart.

So far, it can only be said that the choice of replacement is not wrong, but it is still difficult to judge what it means for the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party’s goal is just to win the election, it is not clear that Harris will win. If the Democratic Party’s goal is to respond to the American people and guide the direction of the United States with its ideas, then it is not fully prepared for this.

Embracing identity politics won’t solve the problem

Phoenix Weekly: Obama is also a minority president. Was he troubled by identity politics after winning the election?

Diao Daming: Obama's candidacy took place at a special time. In 2008, the United States was in the midst of a financial crisis. Everyone was trapped in it and urgently needed change and reform. Obama also worked hard to cater to the demands of domestic voters in this regard. Obviously, Obama's election accelerated the Democratic Party's shift to identity politics and, to a certain extent, stimulated the Republicans' shift to white supremacy. Although Trump has been emphasizing the shift in values ​​in terms of class and economic significance, all these changes, including Trump's rise and the fact that the Democratic Party now needs Harris to mobilize more voters, may have originated in 2008.

Phoenix Weekly: When Obama came to power in 2008, the Democratic Party was already worried. It can be said that Trump's coming to power was not accidental. How do you interpret the problems faced by the Democratic Party over the years?

Diao Daming: Since 2008, the Democratic Party has seen the changes in identity politics, the surge in ethnic minorities and the changes in the social demographic structure, and feels that this card can quickly mobilize voters, so it has chosen to fully embrace identity politics, which has led to it becoming a minority party. Some people also say that by the 2040s, white people will no longer be the majority of the US population, and the Democratic Party will have more advantages at that time, which is also possible.

But in the Western party system, which country divides political parties according to ethnicity? As the proportion of ethnic minorities continues to increase, they will strive to achieve upward class mobility, especially Hispanics and Chinese. If these people achieve class mobility in the future, the Republican Party will use economic class and income to "divide" voters, and the Democratic Party will use identity politics and ethnic labels to "divide" voters. The former is an economic identity that can be changed, and the latter is an innate and unchangeable ethnic identity. So who will succeed? This will lead to a consequence that the Democratic Party hopes that the world will become more and more unequal. If everyone is equal, it will lose the ability to mobilize and divide voters.

In fact, many African-American voters believe that the policies adopted by the Democratic Party towards them are still "plantation-style" - that is, they provide some favorable policies, but cannot help them achieve class change, and only call on this group to vote during the election. For example, some welfare policies proposed by Harris now can win people's hearts in the short term, but in the long run they will increase the government's fiscal burden and lead to higher debts, and tax revenues will not increase, which means that the inflation level will not fall, and it will not solve the problem in essence.

Democrats always say that the Republicans want to go back to the past, while the Democrats want to fight for the future, but this is just empty talk. The Democrats claim to pursue a positive, beautiful, and inclusive society, but do they tolerate white people with racial tendencies? In fact, they don't.

Although Trump's behavior is very extreme, he is making a fuss in the economic and class sense, hoping to respond to the urgent problems that have emerged in the United States in the context of economic globalization over the past period of time, while many of the Democratic Party's policies are still using changes in the population structure to win more votes. The result is that the Democratic Party has become a minority party without facing the problem directly.

The Republican Party has become completely Trump-like

Phoenix Weekly: From the Republican primary stage, we can see that Trump still has a strong dominant force in the party. The party platform is like his personal campaign platform, and the running mate Vance always deliberately imitates his style and ideas, which seems to be a sign of inheriting his legacy. Does this mean that Trump's personal bond with the Republican Party will be extremely deep and difficult to cut? In the long run, does the Republican Party still hope to cut ties with Trump?

Diao Daming: We often say that the Republican Party is a party dominated by ideas, and the Democratic Party is a party of group integration. The Republican Party has never lacked radical ideas. These ideas may be extreme, but they will indeed guide the continued development of the Republican Party. For example, when Barry Goldwater (considered the founder of the modern conservative movement) ran for election in 1964, everyone thought he was too extreme, but without him, there would be no neoconservatism, and there would be no great success of Reagan in the future.

In this election, the ideas proposed and represented by Trump have been systematized by the Republican camp and packaged as the ideal state of the United States in the post-Cold War era. These ideas will be retained by the Republican Party. If Trump is elected, his ideas will further influence and shape the Republican Party, and his personnel arrangements will also bring about changes in the composition of the Republican political elite.

Even if he loses the election, Trump's influence on the Republican Party in terms of ideology will still exist, because the Republican Party has been fully Trumpized. However, if he loses the election, Trump's influence on the composition of the Republican political elite will be relatively weak. In the future, who will continue to use Trump's ideas to promote the transformation of the Republican Party and turn it into a multi-ethnic working-class party? This is worth paying attention to. After several rounds of elections and infighting, the personnel arrangements of the Republican Party may usher in rapid adjustments, and this candidate will be identified in the 2028 or 2032 general elections.

The problem with the Republican Party is not that it has no direction, but that it lacks more and more suitable elites to achieve the greatest progress in these directions. In contrast, the Democratic Party lacks direction and ideas even more. It constantly uses small favors and policy adjustments to glue groups together, trying to cater to the demands of different groups. Its base is also constantly changing, but it can never solve practical problems.

Phoenix Weekly: Compared with four years ago, can we now say that "Trumpism" is a term with clear semantics and a clear context of use? Will "Trumpism" continue to dominate the Republican Party in the future, regardless of whether Trump is active on the political stage?

Diao Daming: The understanding of the word "Trumpism" should be contextualized. It has different meanings in the United States and on the international stage. Generally speaking, the so-called "Trumpism" is mentioned more frequently on the international stage, referring to the strategic contraction of the United States, which brings its own resources and power back to the national framework, making the United States a country with leadership but more emphasis on sovereignty and internal affairs, and all external efforts should be based on the premise that the United States obtains more benefits. It can be said that "Trumpism" has completely changed the United States' positioning of its role in the world after the Cold War.

At the domestic level, "Trumpism" accepts the ideas of traditional Republicans and even some radical Republicans on certain issues, such as tax reform and immigration policy, but it is not conservatism in essence, but populism. It is the maximum embodiment of Western populism and the product of the combination of conservative ideas of the Republican Party since the 1980s. It can be said that "Trumpism" is populism with a conservative color, and those who oppose "Trumpism" within the Republican Party are conservatives who oppose populism.

According to "Trumpism", a powerful political force has formed within the Republican Party. For example, the "MAGA faction" is a populist faction that has accepted conservative ideas. They are already part of the Republican establishment and are also the "main force" supporting Trump. It is difficult to identify Trump as a non-establishment or anti-establishment faction today, after all, he has been president for four years. If there must be a distinction, the Republican Party should be divided into "MAGA faction" and "non-MAGA faction".

The two parties have not yet escaped the generational crisis

Phoenix Weekly: When Biden and Trump were competing, both parties were considered to be experiencing a generational crisis, and no middle-aged politician had the influence to fight against them. Now that the Democratic Party has handed over the baton from Biden to Harris, the Republican Party is still centered on Trump, but he is also looking for a successor. Is the generational crisis still a problem for both parties?

Diao Daming: If we talk about the generational crisis in presidential politics, for the Democratic Party, from 1992 to now, except for Obama, all presidential candidates were born in the 1940s. Because Obama was ahead of his time (becoming president), people thought that those born in the 1960s could already take power, which led to the decline of those born in the 1950s. As a result, in the 2016 election, the Democratic Party candidates were still those born in the 1940s.

Therefore, Harris' unexpected appearance seems to have eased the generational crisis faced by the Democratic Party to a certain extent, making the Democratic Party look younger. But in fact, Obama had already done this 16 years ago, so it can be said that the Democratic Party is still standing still, but the situation has not deteriorated further.

If Harris is elected and seeks re-election, it means that the Democrats born in the 1970s will lose the opportunity to participate in the 2028 general election. From this perspective, she has not brought about any fundamental changes to the intergenerational crisis facing the Democratic Party. Perhaps after two or three presidential elections, the intergenerational issue may be truly adjusted.

For the Republican Party, it will also be difficult to get people born in the 1970s to take office in the future. For example, if Trump supports Vance, who was born in the 1980s, to run for office in the future, what will those born in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s in the party do? Trump's choice of Vance may accelerate the generational change in the Republican Party. In the short term, it is indeed eye-catching, but in the long term, if a smooth and effective generational change cannot be achieved, there will still be great risks.

Although there is no set age for becoming president, there are general rules. However, due to many factors, such as political polarization and the rise of social media, some people quickly become popular at a young age, rise to relatively high positions, and even take advantage of some crises to get to the top. For the same reason, some older politicians also have more possibilities.

Phoenix Weekly: Although the US political polarization is severe, at least during the election period, both parties still have to win over centrist voters. Can we say that the existence of centrists is still crucial? To some extent, they are the counterforce to political polarization?

Diao Daming: The so-called "centrists" should be understood from two dimensions. One is the centrists in the sense of elites. Due to political polarization, this type of centrists is becoming less and less. Only in some very special circumstances, such as when the Senate votes 50 to 49, do they have room to survive. The other is the centrists in the sense of voters. The so-called centrist voters are those who make different choices based on different issues.

Middle voters have always existed and still account for 30% to 40% of the total number of voters in the United States, but they have not affected the trend of political polarization. This means that this part of the people lacks enthusiasm for voting. The reason why they are unwilling to play their value is also because they are disappointed with American politics and therefore have an indifferent attitude.

But if they don't vote, it doesn't matter how high their share is. When the value of middle-class voters decreases, the two parties will return more to their base and resort to more extreme positions, as long as they can get enough votes from their base to fight head-on.

Only when middle voters believe that the election is of great significance will they come out to vote. From this perspective, although Harris always talks about preventing Trump from making a comeback, if middle voters believe that Trump will bring risks and Harris' policies are not attractive, they may still be unwilling to vote.

Ohio Senator J.D. Vance (right) and Trump's sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump cheer for the former president as Trump stands in the middle, smiling, on the first day of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July 15, 2024.