Author: Jadenne Radoc Cabahug
Charlie Kirk, CEO and co-founder of conservative youth organization Turning Point USA was shot and killed during a debate style event at Utah Valley University on September 10.
Videos were immediately posted to social media of the moment the podcaster was shot in the neck, with the chaos of students screaming and fleeing the scene following immediately after.
The right-wing American activist and influencer led the effort to engage young Americans as leader of Turning Point USA, an organization that pushed for conservative ideas aiming to reach college campuses, typically more liberally.
Kirk would debate with “woke college students” while asserting beliefs such as “abortion is murder and should be illegal” and “Kamala Harris is a DEI candidate.”
One YouTube video titled “1 Conservative vs 25 Liberal College Students (Feat. Charlie Kirk) | Surrounded” garnered 38 million views. His conservatism enraged and inspired college students alike through his efforts.
22-year-old Tyler James Robinson is accused of 31-year-old Kirk’s killing and has been charged with capital murder, a felony discharge of a firearm and obstructing justice. Robinson has also been charged with witness tampering after telling his partner to delete text messages and stay silent if questioned by authorities. Prosecutors are currently seeking the death penalty for Robinson.
Kirk’s death has had a profound ripple through the political world, garnering mixed reactions globally, from President Trump ordering flags on government buildings be flown at half-mast, to vigils being held for the conservative podcaster in places like Australia and South Korea.
Trump has called Kirk a “martyr for America’s freedom” during a memorial service held on September 21st. Some politicians in the Republican party have used Kirk’s death to rally younger conservatives for upcoming local, state and even the national midterm elections taking place a little over a year.
However, for some Americans like Theresa Bennett, a global environmental policy exchange student at Sciences Po, she hadn’t heard about Kirk before his death.
“One friend texted me that Charlie Kirk got killed, and I was thinking, ‘Man, who is that?’ After learning more about who he was, I don’t think that’s crazy at all. I didn’t have a big reaction to it, not because I don’t care about him or because of his views, I’m so numb to violence especially as an American,” Bennett said.
Originally from New York state, Bennett said constantly seeing domestic and international news on social media feeds has caused her to see violence as an everyday norm. As she was preparing to leave for Paris from Washington D.C., martial law was put in effect and she saw the troops arriving in the city.
“Compassion fatigue is a very real thing when you’re constantly getting exposed to horrible tragedies, it just gets to a point where you’re so desensitized to it and you’re not as impacted,” Bennett said. “Like with this ongoing genocide in Gaza and being exposed to horrific images and stories of what’s been going on everyday… I feel more impacted by that, even though it’s been going on for so long than I do by hearing some random guy has been shot and killed in the U.S.”
Bennett said she thinks the mixed reactions to Kirk’s death shows how polarized the U.S. and the rest of the world is at the moment.
“People identify with someone like Charlie Kirk that belonged to the far right and they see his death as a threat to themselves,” Bennett said. “I can’t help but wonder, is it really just about teams? Why wasn’t the flag raised at half mast for the state senator that was assassinated? She, her husband and her dog were killed and Trump didn’t speak on that.”
Bennett said the main focus of what happened to Kirk should be on gun reform and ending gun violence in the U.S. She also said in conversations in relation to Kirk’s death is how others have engaged with this tragedy in comparison to others.
“It’s so interesting to see people who are engaging with this as a tragedy, who have been completely silent on the genocide in Gaza, who have never shared a single thing about children getting shot in schools, but then they’re like, ‘pray for Charlie Kirk and his family.’” Bennett said. “Why? Why is this what compels you to speak? But these other issues aren’t reason enough?”
Another master’s student from New Caledonia said Kirk’s assassination hit really hard for him as someone who considers himself Christian conservative. The student believes in giving more power to the region as well as supporting local businesses and affairs, and more conservative economic policies.
“I feel like what happened to him could happen to me maybe one day for something that I said or something that I will say and that I believe in,” the student said. This particular student has asked to remain anonymous since his political beliefs may cause him to be ostracized in his day to day life.
While he does agree with Kirk on certain issues such as Christian and pro-life values, he disagrees on issues like Kirk’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict as the student recognizes the human rights abuses being committed. He also disagrees with Kirk’s economic policies.
Although the student is not American, he recognizes the similarities between the American and French conservative values. Abortion and national identity are some of the few pointed out as different, however, the immigration conversation is similar between the two.
The New Caledonian attended a commemoration for Kirk in Paris on Friday, September 19 in the 8th arrondissement, where he saw different formations of French right wing groups come together.
“You can see the French right wing is using Charlie Kirk’s death in order to boost themselves politically speaking,” he said. During the event, he thought it was interesting how different groups were able to come together despite their political disagreements as they related to the American political activist.
In conversations about Kirk’s death, the master’s student said some people on the opposite political aisle don’t understand why he felt so impacted by his death. He’s even heard of completely opposite reactions like celebrating the assassination.
“What’s bothering me is that, in western universities, it’s impossible for people to debate with each other, to understand another person’s position,” he said. “It’s not even about agreeing, it’s about understanding with reason and intelligence. So the fact that we came to this point that we consider the political opponent as an enemy, it really is a problem.”
Academic, former U.S. Ambassador to the Central African Republic and professor at Sciences Po, Jeff Hawkins said he sees Kirk as a “martyr for free speech.”
“It seems clear to me he was killed because of the things he said. That is unacceptable, tragic and profoundly undemocratic,” Hawkins said. “Limiting the way people talk about Kirk and his overtly partisan legacy, though, is also undemocratic.”
Kirk was known for his controversial takes on podcasts, on college campuses and on YouTube videos where he would debate students.
On the subject of race, Kirk made comments such as “Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more,” said on the Charlie Kirk Show on May 19, 2023.
When asked if he would support his 10-year-old daughter in aborting a pregnancy were she to fall victim of sexual assault on the debate show Surrounded, Kirk said he would advocate for her to have the child.
Regarding gun violence, he said: “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational,” – Kirk commented during a TPUSA Faith event, the religious part of his conservative group, Turning Point USA.
“Although many of the things Kirk has said can be considered as hate speech, still, ‘hate speech’ is protected by the First Amendment just like any other public discourse,” Hawkins said.
Kirk’s ideals and political career boosted conservative ideas among young voters in key battleground states across the U.S, with tens of thousands packed an Arizona stadium for Kirk’s memorial and the Republican party has said this will only push more young people to the right.
Vice President JD Vance has promised to “crack down” on the ‘radical left’ on a podcast episode for The Charlie Kirk Show. He is leading a witch hunt against those he accused of promoting political violence in the aftermath of Kirk’s death.
“Given Kirk’s vigorous struggle for the right to express his own, sometimes provocative views, I assume he would be horrified by attempts to suppress the views of others,” said Hawkins.
It is reported that more than 145 people were fired, suspended or pushed to resign for things they said related to Kirk or his assassination in person or on social media. The state department also revoked the visas of six foreigners after social media comments about Kirk’s death. One Argentine national wrote in a post that Kirk was a person who was “spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric.”
Overall, Americans remain divided between empathy, disdain or apathy on Kirk’s assassination based on their political party or his role as a symbol of freedom of speech, showing just how deeply partisan the country has become.
]]>In this op-ed, the author analyzes the Democrats’ campaign, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses while also assessing their potential for self-evaluation and learning from past mistakes, ultimately leaving us with a thought-provoking question: are the Democrats losing the ‘blame game’ as well?
Author: Laura Schneider
Photo credits: Vice President Kamala Harris and former U.S. Representative Liz Cheney participate in a town hall campaign event moderated by political commentator Sarah Longwell at The People’s Light in Malvern, Pennsylvania, October 21, 2024. (Eric Elofson/Harris for President)
As very opinionated American citizens living apart, my father and I had intensified our exchange of emails – yes, we are old fashioned too – in the weeks leading up to the US elections. On November 6th, with Trump’s win came my father’s final dejected email, which included a series of reflections in an attempt to make sense of the jarring news. How was it possible for such a clearly disqualified candidate – convicted felon, insurrectionist and serial liar – to be reelected, and with even greater consensus than the last time? This was the main question for which we have been trying to find an answer.
Like us, millions of people are now left grappling with the aftermath of Kamala Harris’s (disastrous) campaign. The turmoil provoked by the election results has seen countless experts and analysts from all sides of the political spectrum come forward to weigh in on the Republican victory.
While it is easy to point an accusing finger at third-party voters or to label the entirety of Trump’s supporters as racist white suprematists, this elections’ failure can only be attributed to the Democratic Party and its strategies.
After the initial surge of enthusiasm that followed Biden’s (albeit very late) withdrawal from the presidential race, Kamala Harris’s campaign took a grim turn: she decided to seek moderate Republicans’ votes and, with the exception of women’s rights, basically ignored her progressive base. While refusing to distance herself from Biden on key issues such as the genocide in Gaza and struggling to connect with minorities, Harris chose to campaign with Liz Cheney, an anti-Trump but hardcore Republican. She took the votes of her own electoral base for granted by not offering a decisive alternative to Trump’s policies, at a time when it was most needed. As she tried to appeal to supposedly ‘persuasable’ Republicans, she lost the support of many progressives who, in fact, failed to turn out to vote at the rate they had for Biden four years ago.
However, many Democrats who have been voicing their discontent on social media platforms such as X (former Twitter) seem to have a different view. These people have somehow come to the conclusion that it was the ‘wokeness’ of the Democratic campaign that cost them the election. This is a dangerous claim for several reasons. It undermines the Democratic Party’s core principles and risks alienating even further those minority groups and progressive supporters who make up a large part of the Democratic base and are already disillusioned. But most importantly, it is unfounded: most campaign ads made in support of Democratic candidates could be easily mistaken for Republican ads. Their content ranged from border control to the economic war with China and the right to own guns: this supposed wokeness everybody is raging about on social media is nowhere to be found. Overall, the divisiveness caused by this claim could also undermine the Democratic Party, right when building momentum for resistance in the face of Trump’s future policies should be its top priority.
In an electoral system as complex and nuanced as the American one there can be many reasons for a party’s defeat, but it is important to point out that, as the Democrats look back on their campaign, their focus is extremely misplaced. If there is a major takeaway for the Democratic Party from this election, it is that disregarding the progressive values that should be at its core was a move that ended up backfiring on them.
All of this is not to say that people should stop analyzing Trump’s win or that the Democratic Party and its supporters should not engage in self-reflection. But self-reflection can only work if it includes the openness to admit to one’s shortcomings and the willingness to fix one’s issues.
If key figures such as Nancy Pelosi keep opposing the idea that these elections represent a rejection of the Democratic Party and keep blaming Harris’s defeat on a supposed ‘cultural war’, in what is frankly an appalling lack of self-awareness, it is obvious that self-reflection for the Democrats is not working at all.
The Democratic Party needs to acknowledge that it was indeed rejected by the American people, not for its wokeness but for its lack of identity. As the old saying goes, ‘rejection is redirection’ and this recognition must be the first step in order for the Party to move forward.
One can only hope that the Democrats become ‘woke’ enough to realign with their values and reconnect with their base, so that four years from now the tone of my father’s emails will be much more positive.
]]>Auteur : Quentin Charlaix
L’idée d’une guerre civile, d’une société divisée, hante les États-Unis de façon cyclique depuis leur création. La guerre de Sécession en incarne l’apogée, en laissant un héritage mémoriel important par l’opposition entre un Sud rural et esclavagiste, face à un Nord urbanisé et industriel. Rares sont les voix qui qualifient les États-Unis comme un ensemble culturel cohérent, lui préférant l’expression de « Salad bowl » qui illustre bien le multiculturalisme sur lequel repose l’architecture du pays. Les États-Unis sont également l’un des pays occidentaux (et du monde en général) les plus inégalitaires en termes de répartition des revenus et des richesses, inégalités qui se greffent souvent à des considérations ethniques (les familles d’origines asiatiques possèdent en moyenne deux fois plus de richesses que les familles blanches et douze fois plus que les familles noires). Face à un état des lieux pessimiste, que mettent en valeur les études du profil des électeurs lors des dernières élections ? Le vote est-il révélateur d’une réconciliation impossible entre plusieurs Amériques ?
Un « gap » peut en cacher un autre
Si la plupart des médias ont mis en avant un « gender gap » qui aurait structuré le vote des électeurs américains, l’analyse ne peut se réduire à celui-ci. Les femmes dans leur globalité ont majoritairement voté pour Harris, à hauteur de 53% d’entre elles, pour un constat inverse chez les hommes, dont 55% ont donné leur voix à Trump. Phénomène constaté dans de nombreuses démocraties, les femmes auraient tendance à être plus progressives et donner leurs voix à des candidats plus portés à gauche. Les hommes, eux, se tourneraient de plus en plus vers l’extrême-droite. Une opposition idéologique qui se retrouve particulièrement aux États-Unis à travers le droit à l’avortement, que le précédent mandat de Trump avait sérieusement mis à mal. Pour rappel, celui-ci avait nommé trois juges (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett) à la Cour Suprême, confortant ainsi la majorité républicaine et permettant ensuite l’abrogation de l’amendement Roe vs Wade qui dépénalisait l’avortement sur l’ensemble du territoire américain depuis 1973. Une opposition également accentuée à travers les réseaux sociaux et l’émergence de courants masculinistes, dont le slogan « Your body my choice » (ton corps, mon choix), symbole ultime d’un virage réactionnaire et anti-féministe, est devenu viral depuis la victoire du candidat républicain.
Cependant, le « gender gap » n’est pas la seule analyse à tirer des élections, d’autant plus que les analyses détaillées nuancent cet aspect. Car si les femmes dans leur totalité ont voté majoritairement pour Harris, les femmes blanches ou caucasiennes, elles, ont penché en faveur de Trump à 53%. En réalité, l’écart entre les groupes ethniques semble encore plus important et structurant que l’écart entre les genres. 57% des blancs ont voté pour les républicains, 85% des noirs pour les démocrates. Si on s’intéresse aux autres groupes ethniques, l’opposition se retrouve à nouveau : 54 % des asiatiques pour Harris et le résultat grimpe à 60% des non-blancs de façon globale. Seul le vote hispanique/latino s’explique réellement par le « gender gap » : 60% des femmes hispaniques ont voté Harris, contre seulement 43% pour leurs homologues masculins.
En outre, d’un point de vue religieux, les catholiques et protestants ont majoritairement voté pour Trump, tandis que les juifs ont soutenu à 78% Harris. Cette opposition est expliquée par une Amérique encore profondément construite et imprégnée par le racisme. Donald Trump incarne ainsi le champion d’une Amérique blanche, traditionaliste, qui à la manière des autres mouvements d’extrême-droite dans le monde, propose une porte de sortie de la crise sociale par l’écrasement des minorités (rejet de l’immigration, opposition des discriminations positives, etc.). Soutenu directement par les mouvements néo-fascistes et néo-nazis états-uniens, Trump est souvent resté dans le flou dans son rapport à ceux-ci. Ainsi suite aux attaques racistes de Charlottesville en 2017 (1 mort et plusieurs dizaines de blessés), Trump avait déclaré « qu’il y avait des gens très bien des deux côtés », en désignant les manifestants et contre manifestants (mais pas les terroristes directement). Kamala Harris s’impose ainsi comme un vote d’opposition, de barrage face à la montée de l’extrême-droite auprès des minorités directement menacées par celle-ci.
Une (nouvelle) guerre civile est-elle inévitable ?
Les divisions raciales, religieuses et genrées révélées par le vote aux présidentielles menacent-elles profondément l’unité du pays ? Dans un pays qui possède le plus haut taux d’armement par habitant au monde (120 armes pour 100 personnes), où les oppositions politiques sont très ancrées géographiquement (États démocrates et républicains), avec des précédents historiques de violence interne, la perspective d’une guerre civile semble devenir de plus en plus tangible. Cela se ressent de plusieurs manières. L’achat d’armes à feu a ainsi explosé depuis la pandémie de Covid-19 et plus de 18 millions d’armes à feu ont été vendues en 2021, ce qui en fait la deuxième année la plus active pour les ventes d’armes depuis au moins deux décennies. Le profil des acheteurs a également changé : la même année, la moitié des nouveaux détenteurs d’armes à feu étaient des femmes et la moitié étaient issus de minorités ethniques. Les États-Unis enregistrent également une augmentation importante du nombre de groupes paramilitaires, à la fois d’extrême-droite et d’extrême-gauche. Leur prolifération et leur puissance de feu conduisent régulièrement à des morts, comme à Kenosha en août 2020, où deux militants antiracistes ont été abattus. Le point culminant reste l’assaut du capitole, le 6 janvier 2021, auquel nombre de milices néofascistes comme les « Proud Boys » avaient participé.
Le spectre d’une guerre civile a également resurgi en février 2024, lorsque de fortes tensions ont éclaté entre le Texas et le gouvernement fédéral. En effet, le Lone Star State contestait à l’État fédéral le droit de gestion des politiques migratoires, en dénonçant une « invasion » en provenance du Mexique. Le Texas, accompagné par d’autres États républicains, avait alors amassé des troupes de la garde nationale (normalement réservées en cas de catastrophes naturelles). De façon générale, selon une étude de l’université Quinnipiac de 2022, 53% des Américains estiment que les divisions vont empirer dans les années à venir, et 80% des sondés citaient des menaces intérieures quand on leur demandait quelle était la plus grande menace du pays. Enfin, selon une étude réalisée en 2022 par Yougov, 32% des interrogés se déclarant comme républicains, annonçaient que la situation aux États-Unis serait meilleure si les États-Unis devenaient deux pays (l’un composé des « blue states », les États démocrates, et l’autre des « red states », les États républicains).
Début 2024 était sorti Civil War, de Alex Garland. Celui-ci dépeignait les États-Unis en guerre civile, marqué par l’éclatement du pays en de nombreux États indépendants. Si le film se concentrait plus sur le travail de reporter de guerre que sur les raisons ayant mené à l’éclatement de la guerre, il n’en demeure pas moins un témoin important de la forte résurgence de cette idée dans l’imaginaire de la société américaine. Les analyses du profil des électeurs confirment l’idée de division, sous fond de critère raciales, religieux et idéologiques. Si prédire la séparation des États-Unis reste extrêmement complexe, cette idée apparaît cependant de plus en plus probable.
]]>Alors que les résultats des États clés tombent un à un en faveur de Donald Trump, nombreux sont les Démocrates qui en veulent aux candidats de plus petits partis restés dans la course, au premier rang desquels la candidate du Parti Vert Jill Stein. Sensible à la douleur des Palestiniens pour certains, opportuniste pour d’autres, qui est cette femme politique qui se présente pour la troisième fois aux élections présidentielles ?
Auteur : Paul Chambellant
Légende image : Jill Stein à la FreedomFest à Las Vegas, dans le Nevada, en 2024. (Photo by Gage Skidmore/Wikipedia Commons)
À 74 ans, Jill Stein, candidate écologiste à l’élection présidentielle américaine de 2024, est une coutumière de la politique. Militante dès ses années au lycée lors desquelles elle « organisait des veillées hebdomadaires contre la guerre [du Vietnam] » et membre du Parti Vert depuis 2002, elle s’est depuis présentée à plusieurs élections sous la bannière écologiste. Élections du gouverneur de l’État du Massachussets en 2002 et 2010, élections présidentielles en 2012, 2016 et 2024 : sans jamais gagner, Jill Stein a su donner une certaine popularité médiatique au Parti écologiste dans un pays dominé par un bipartisme chevronné… et parfois assommant.
Elle-même en a fait l’expérience il y a quelques décennies. Avant de s’engager en politique avec le Parti Vert, cette ancienne médecin a quitté le Parti Démocrate au sein duquel elle militait depuis quatre ans, lui reprochant d’avoir « torpillé la réforme du financement des campagnes dans mon État ». Aujourd’hui son discours n’a pas changé, alors qu’elle accuse les Démocrates d’avoir trahi, « encore et encore », les promesses faites « aux travailleurs, aux jeunes, et en matière de climat ».
Obstination à se maintenir en lice
C’est d’ailleurs une des rares candidates à s’être maintenue dans la course à la Maison Blanche pour offrir une « troisième voix » aux électeurs, malgré les appels de plusieurs élus Démocrates à se retirer. Une inflexibilité qui lui vaut des critiques jusque dans son propre camp : plusieurs partis écologistes européens ont appelé à son retrait ce vendredi 1er novembre, pour ne pas pénaliser la candidature de Kamala Harris en divisant les électeurs.
Cette obstination n’est pourtant pas nouvelle. En 2016 déjà, celle qui n’hésitait pas à renvoyer les partis Démocrate et Républicain dos à dos avait récolté plus d’1 % des suffrages lors de l’élection présidentielle, au grand dam de la candidate Démocrate d’alors, Hillary Clinton. Et pour cause : si Jill Stein s’était retirée et que ses électeurs avaient reporté leurs votes sur Hillary Clinton – une hypothèse toutefois assez peu plausible compte tenu des différences idéologiques entre les deux femmes – l’ancienne Secrétaire d’État aurait alors battu Donald Trump pour devenir la première femme présidente des États-Unis.
Cette situation va-t-elle se répéter cette année ? Trump, en tout cas, a de quoi l’espérer. Il a même déclaré, le 5 novembre 2024, que Jill Stein « pourrait bien être l’une de mes personnalités politiques préférées ». De là à y voir un coup médiatique pour affaiblir la campagne de Kamala Harris, il n’y a qu’un pas. Car tout oppose l’ancien président de 78 ans et la candidate écologiste passée par Harvard : ardente défenseure du « Green New Deal » qui se dit « à la gauche de Bernie Sanders », figure de la gauche radicale aux États-Unis, Jill Stein mène une campagne axée sur l’éducation gratuite, une protection sociale universelle, et surtout l’arrêt des livraisons d’armes à Israël.
Forte popularité chez les électeurs musulmans
Élevée dans une famille juive à Chicago, cette mère de deux enfants n’en reste pas moins farouchement opposée à la politique menée par l’État hébreu depuis un an à Gaza, qu’elle n’hésite pas à qualifier de génocide. « C’est très clairement un criminel de guerre », lachaît-elle le 16 septembre 2024 à propos de Benyamin Netanyahou, Premier Ministre israélien, dans une interview avec le journaliste Mehdi Hasan. Ce discours ferme, aux antipodes des positions démocrate et républicaine sur le sujet, lui vaut une forte popularité auprès des électeurs musulmans : près de 42 % d’entre eux penchaient pour un vote en faveur du Parti Vert, selon un récent sondage du Conseil des relations américano-islamiques.
Aujourd’hui installée avec son mari à Lexington, dans le Massachusetts, elle n’échappe pas pour autant aux critiques. Si certains s’étonnent de sa clémence envers Vladimir Poutine, qu’elle a eu du mal à qualifier de criminel de guerre face à Mehdi Hasan, d’autres, notamment au sein du Parti Démocrate, lui reprochent son « opportunisme ». « Si tout ce que vous faites c’est vous présenter une fois tous les quatre ans pour parler à des gens qui sont à juste titre en colère, […] vous n’êtes pas sérieux. Pour moi, ce n’est pas de l’authenticité, c’est de la prédation », tançait le 1er septembre Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, députée Démocrate réputée progressive.
Ces commentaires font écho au bilan électoral du Parti Vert, qui n’a jamais élu de candidat au niveau fédéral et dont le nombre d’adhérents a chuté de 319 000 en 2004 à 244 000 en 2024. Présent à toutes les élections présidentielles depuis 1996, le parti n’a pas réussi à s’implanter durablement dans le paysage électoral américain, ne gagnant jamais plus de 2.7 % du vote populaire. Ce score, réalisé en 2000 par Ralph Nader, lui valait déjà d’être qualifié de « spoiler » (« gâcheur ») dans la course particulièrement serrée entre le Démocrate Al Gore et le Républicain George W. Bush. Tout auréolée qu’elle soit par son soutien à la Palestine dans cette campagne marquée par la politique étrangère des États-Unis, Jill Stein échappera-t-elle à ce traitement ?
]]>Author: Max Cocard
Close to 75,000 people gathered at the Ellipse, behind the White House, in Washington D.C., on Tuesday evening in order to attend one of Kamala Harris’ last campaign speeches before the decisive November 5 elections.
The mild weather and cloudless sky allowed for a smooth campaign event, only marginally impacted by a relatively small pro-Palestinian protest, demanding an arms embargo on Israel. The stage was set with countless American flags waved by the spectators as well as the sign “Freedom” everywhere. The symbolism of the location was particularly striking, as it was here that Donald Trump held his speech leading to the January 6 events in 2021.
Young, old, men and women all gathered to listen to who could be America’s first ever female president. Hats, t-shirts, pins and other merch supporting the Harris-Waltz campaign were omnipresent. Security personnel and journalists were also significant in numbers.
A strategic build-up to vice president Harris’ appearance
The first hour included music, campaign videos and extracts, the national anthem, as well as campaign speeches by seemingly “regular” Americans, carefully selected by the Democrats to talk about specific issues.
They covered key electoral themes, from abortion rights, small businesses, the economy, and military veterans to healthcare, the cost of living, January 6, and agriculture. They drew on the personal stories of citizens directly touched by these issues and highlighted how the Harris campaign could help them in their daily lives. Most importantly, they mentioned key swing states such as Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania, where the outcome of the elections is ultimately going to be decided. Their messages, addressed to the D.C. crowd, seemed aimed at a national audience.
Finally, the national anthem was performed right before Kamala Harris made her way onto the stage. The current vice-president and Democratic candidate delivered a powerful speech, despite the fact that this marked the final leg of her all-consuming campaign filled with near-daily appearances on her trail throughout the United States these past few weeks. With a regular and controlled flow she addressed the D.C. crowd in a thirty-minute speech, only interrupted by enthusiastic chants such as “USA, USA, USA”, “Kamala, Kamala, Kamala”, and “We are not going back”.
The Harris campaign’s key themes, as outlined in her speech
The themes tackled throughout her speech were unsurprisingly the same as during the rest of her campaign. She began with a reminder of how crucial this year’s elections would be for the United States. She stated: “this election is more than just a choice between two parties and candidates. It is a choice between whether we have a country in freedom or ruled by chaos and division”.
One of the key takeaways of her speech was the description of Trump as dangerous for democracy, as well as for American citizens. At the very place where January 6 occurred nearly four years prior, she reminded everyone that Trump encouraged this “armed mob” and that he has an “enemies list”, as opposed to her “to-do list”.
She then called for a new generation of leadership, willing to listen to the people and compromise.This willingness would include working with all parties, including Republicans and independents. She dedicated her campaign to “Americans who are working hard and still struggling everyday”. Thus, she opposed further tax cuts for the rich–as was the case under the Trump Administration–and proposed a federal ban on price gouging for groceries in order to honor the dignity of work. She also addressed housing and its financial pressure on middle-class families, as well as proposed an expansion of MEDICARE.
Youth was another central theme of her speech, with a proposed child tax credit in order to lift American children out of poverty, as well as efforts to lower the cost of childcare.
Another key element concerned women’s rights and bodily autonomy. Harris expressed her desire to fight to restore the right to abortion in all US states, as currently 1/3rd of women in America live in a state with abortion bans since the controversial 2022 Supreme Court ruling Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. She specifically claimed that Trump, on the other hand, would further seek to “monitor women’s pregnancies”. With a message addressed to religious Americans, she made it clear that “one does not have to abandon their faith to simply agree the government should not interfere in women’s lives”.
Harris also expressed strong positions regarding immigration and foreign affairs. She argued in favor of compromises regarding the border situation, emphasizing the need for both parties to work together to find solutions. She promised to fight against the chaos and violence caused by transnational criminal organizations and pledged to “prosecute the cartels”. At the same time, she stressed the need for an immigration reform allowing for an earned pathway to citizenship. Regarding foreign affairs, “as commander in chief, [she] will make sure that America has the strongest, most lethal force in the world”, as well as ensure that US soldiers are properly honored and respected, all the while strengthening “America’s global leadership” alongside strategic allies.
The American public reacts in the final leg of her campaign
Her “closing argument speech” was intended to demonstrate her superiority over her Republican rival, in front of the overall sympathetic D.C. crowd–already widely in support of her policy proposals–but also addressing the rest of the United States watching her address on live television. Her concluding remarks insisted that “Trump will cause more chaos, divisions, and policies which only benefit the ones at the very top”. On the contrary, she pledges to “seek common ground and common-sense solutions”. Constructing a narrative, rooted in the American dream of ideals of freedom and opportunity, that she herself experienced, she describes her candidacy as one overcoming “fractions and divisions” in addition to “fighting for the people”, regardless of whether she has their vote.
Most spectators seemed convinced by her performance, as most of them were already Democratic partisans:
It was Isabella’s* first time at a presidential rally, as this is the first time she has the right to vote. She believes that the results are going to be close and that scares her, especially regarding potential claims of “a stolen election” and “backlash, regardless of who wins”. Finally, Inauguration Day and potential protests are also elements of concern. Overall, she considers the rally was a great experience and was especially pleased by the diversity of Democratic supporters forming an overall “bigger and more supportive community”.
Peter* believes that Kamala Harris is much calmer, more moderate and–simply put–“more normal” than Donald Trump. Both candidates’ campaign rhetoric has been too aggressive for his liking with personal attacks being the norm rather than the exception. He believes that these elections are very important for the near future of the world. Due to Peter’s family’s European roots, he also cares about the future of transatlantic relations, especially regarding NATO and the Eastern front. Yet, despite the historic importance of these elections, Peter expresses his belief in the bureaucracy and administration doing their job–regardless of the winner–and serving as “safeguards for democracy”, if needed.
Katelyn* came because she “thought it would be important to support Kamala, given how close the race is”. She is also uncertain and scared about the results and “really hopes that Kamala will win”. She liked Harris’s speech although she wonders if it would have been more useful to solely focus on swing states and perhaps skip D.C. this close to the election’s date.
Key issues of the interviewed people were mostly reproductive rights (including, but not limited to birth control and access to abortion), as well as safeguarding democracy and opposing Republicans’ Project 2025.The final, prioritized issue for interviewees was the promotion of economic growth, especially for those “struggling to finish the month and to afford basic necessities”, as Katelyn* explained.
*All names have been altered to preserve anonymity.
In this series, we cover the US elections in detail. Stay tuned for more information as the elections approach.
]]>