Explaining the causes of Donald Trump’s resounding victory in the last elections requires examining several factors to avoid oversimplification. The economy, of course, but it’s not the only factor. I can think of at least three key areas to understand this victory—or, seen from another angle, the remarkable defeat of Vice President Kamala Harris: a) electoral strategy hits and misses, b) the ability to connect with the concerns of the electorate, including socioeconomic ones, and c) deeper, less visible issues, such as the ongoing cultural revolt against progressivism.

Observing the curve of voting intentions is a good indicator of the errors in the Democratic Party’s electoral strategy. President Biden’s decline was significantly worsened by the outcome of the election debate: Trump’s lead on the charts increased considerably. But Biden’s late decision to step aside was accompanied by a hasty nomination of his vice president. No one responded to the observation made by a Democratic leader: “it doesn’t matter so much how likable and progressive we find Kamala, but whether she’s who we really need to stop Trump from returning to the White House.”

For her part, the new appointee chose a campaign focused on differentiation and contrast, reflected in the selection of her vice presidential candidate, Tim Walz, a prominent figure in the left wing of the party. This choice was the best proof that Harris did not intend to compete for centrist votes, but rather aimed to rally her supporters through the enthusiasm of progressive discourse—an enthusiasm that resonated with many in both the media and public opinion polling. Yet, it was a risky bet.

In fact, everything suggests that Harris’s message did not resonate clearly with the concerns of America’s grassroots. While the Republicans focused on addressing the concerns of rural and urban periphery communities, often with unfulfillable promises, but well focused, Harris’s message was rather generalist and loaded with progressive signals. Additionally, she faced the challenge of distancing herself from Biden’s legacy, particularly the rise in inflation and his administration’s perceived permissiveness on immigration issues.

In this context, the electoral debate between the two candidacies took place, in which Harris showed herself capable of following the script previously prepared by her advisors, while Trump chose the improvisation of an appreciably fatigued character. That is why there was consensus that the vice president emerged victorious from the debate, which many interpreted as a foretaste of her electoral victory. Unfortunately, by September, Republican voters had already decided their vote by more than two thirds of that electorate. And they did so based on the image that Trump was facing a radical leftist candidacy.

Thus began the last phase of the campaign, in which the candidates had to be especially careful to avoid unforced errors. Harris focused her speech on national unity, while directly attacking Trump. But given that her opponent had been making such personalized attacks for some time, it didn’t sound too strident for her to do so. Surprisingly, however, Trump was not at all careful about his excesses. His outbursts about black people and Puerto Ricans were present and immediately viral by the end of the campaign, boosting Democratic optimism. But then a new Trump voter appeared, one who declared that they would vote for him, even though they disliked his personal and social behavior. Thus appeared the pragmatic vote, which was only a part of the hidden vote that remained unexpressed in the polls.

All these factors seem to be agglutinated by another one of a cultural nature, more symbolic and ideological: the revolt against the progressive culture or, as it has become popular in the United States, the “woke culture”. During Hillary Clinton’s campaign, this revolt was primarily directed against the elitist image she was thought to represent. This time, while some resentment toward cultural elitism remains, the rebellion has taken on a deeper opposition to progressive values.

Thus, the alliance against Trumpism that Harris intended seems to have turned against her. Against her feminism, against young people, Latinos and African-Americans; against her calls for unions, industrial workers concerned about inflation and the protection of domestic industry; against her demand for legal abortion, the rejection of rural and evangelical women. Additionally, within the progressive camp, some have criticized Harris for not sufficiently condemning the war in Gaza or addressing the issue of gun violence in the U.S.

This rebellion against the progressive culture is not only taking place in the United States. It is a worldwide phenomenon. Everything indicates that the expansion of human rights over the last thirty years did not have the consensus it was supposed to have. For many, rather than new rights, they are expressions of desire that have become part of the progressive discourse. It seems that for some time these derivations provoked only silent resentment from a large part of civil society, but they are increasingly taking on greater expressive and political form. It has been said that some standards have been too far ahead of the common people. But if that were the case, the problem would refer to a lack of sufficient democratic deliberation, which would reflect a value imposition contrary to communicative democracy.

_{*Translated by Janaína Ruviaro da Silva from the original in Spanish.}