Old leader, but new chapter in US politics 

The 2024 US election is finally over, with Republican candidate and former President Donald Trump winning by a clear margin. The only other time in history that a US president lost an election, spent four years out of office, and was re-elected to the White House happened over 130 years ago — when Democratic leader Grover Cleveland had his first term from 1885 to 1889 and second term from 1893 to 1897.

This year’s US presidential election was unprecedented, filled with novelty and unpredictability, embodying the Chinese internet adage: “Just when you thought things could not get more bizarre, they only became more astonishing!” Regardless of who won this time, voters were destined to make political history in the US.

After a roller-coaster ride of surprises, incredulity and excitement, tens of millions of American voters naturally celebrated their victory, while an almost equal number felt disappointed by their loss. However, unlike the last election, there were few doubts this time about whether the election was fair; Harris upheld tradition by graciously accepting her loss and promptly congratulating the winner.

This is truly a new chapter in American politics, but no matter how novel or how much of a throwback it may seem, US politics is far more consistent and stable than what fervent voters might feel or believe. The fundamental systems, values, and regulations of American politics remain intact — this election particularly demonstrated its resilience and inclusiveness, while also showcasing seemingly limitless possibilities and potential for innovation. The American people have reasons to feel fortunate and proud of their democratic legal system, their political culture, and even their aged, imperfect presidential election system.

This year, American voters faced a difficult choice between old and new, conservatism and reform. The nearly 80-year-old Trump has openly questioned the election system following his defeat four years ago, faced lawsuits and convictions, and often speaks recklessly, making him far from a flawless and gentlemanly leader.

In contrast, the naturally all-embracing Harris is in her prime and seems like a new-age leader, but her policies are not very progressive. Unlike former President Barack Obama, who is half-white, Harris has no white ancestry. She embodies a unique multi-minority identity as the child of a first-generation African and an Asian immigrant, and a childless woman married to a Jewish man.

Despite voting records showing that millions of white voters — particularly those with a college education — supported Harris as a symbol of diversity and “novelty”, most voters, including many women and a large number of minorities (especially men), chose to elect a flawed but familiar “traditional” white, male leader. They perceived this choice as a return to the “old” to counter the “new”, which they rightly or wrongly perceived as “too much, too fast”.

Most American voters seem to prefer taking an old risk rather than a new one; a non-white, female president with an identity seeming to cover all minority groups still seems to be too much of a novelty, as well as an unknown factor leading to doubt and fear.

So, in this year’s US presidential election, between the known and unknown, the old and new, American voters made a choice that left many uneasy and created a new balance. Like before, there were numerous heated debates and major issues. These included the Biden administration’s economic policies over the past four years, particularly the temporary spike in US prices; addressing the challenges posed by the wave of illegal immigration on the US legal system and border security; and various “culture wars” such as women’s abortion rights, sexual orientation and identity, and the impact of so-called “political correctness” on other voices.

However, I believe that the tacit, unspoken choice between the old and the new probably played a more decisive role in driving this year’s Republican “red wave”. In other words, between a “strong, powerful, conservative” white male and a “weak, radical, novel” minority female — whether each person’s image was real or imagined — most voters chose the former. This is despite knowing that many of Trump’s actions and characteristics are not in line with the US’s old traditions, and that believing in such a charismatic leader could pose new risks to the authority of the US judicial system.

As expected, countless analyses and reviews surfaced once the dust settled on the election, with Democrats engaging in introspection and finger-pointing. It is human nature to be a “Monday morning quarterback”. However, if we fixate on traditional norms or political correctness, and overlook the choice between old and new with a minority female identity at its core, we risk speaking vaguely, lacking clarity and the courage to confront the truth. This may be a key reason why many election pundits were caught off guard.

No matter how inclusive and rational Harris’s policy proposals were, and how her policies were not entirely left-leaning or radical, much less going for socialism, her identity as a 100% minority female had a significant symbolic and actual impact, which largely decided the outcome of the election. In 2016, white female Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but lost the decisive electoral college vote to Trump. Eight years later, non-white female Harris lost the electoral college and the popular vote to Trump.

Among the electorate, conservatives still seem to be the majority and the mainstream. While there is still room for political innovation, most people saw many innovations during this election as more of the same “old” things.

I have neither the intention nor the ability to delve deeply into why the majority of American voters supported Trump, turning Harris’s potential “new chapter” into the return of an old leader. Instead, I will offer some insights on other noteworthy aspects of the old and new in this new chapter of American politics, as food for thought.

The US president has far more power to change foreign policy than domestic policy. The second Trump administration is expected to adjust US foreign policy, potentially introducing unconventional and disruptive actions and statements. There may be new approaches to the Russia-Ukraine war and responses to exports from countries like China. However, on major foreign policy issues — such as military strengthening, counter-terrorism and the Asia-Pacific — US strategies will likely remain largely consistent.

Friends in the Chinese community often pay attention to US policy towards China, which has achieved a high degree of bipartisan consensus over the past decade. Washington’s strategy toward China is well defined and clear, with any new ideas likely reflecting differences in approach, tactics and rhetoric, unless major unforeseen events arise.

In terms of domestic politics, the president has limited ability to do anything “new”. Despite passionate and stirring election slogans promising significant changes and comprehensive reforms, most domestic policy pledges are likely to fall short, except for potentially meaningful changes in illegal immigration and federal tax rates.

As I said previously, the idea that a president can make or break the US in four years is basically a short-sighted perspective. Some friends in the Chinese community believe Trump will be tougher on Beijing and aggressively push for change, while others look forward to Trump further weakening the US and helping China; both camps are likely to be disappointed.

By successfully using subtle coded language — and subsequently open rhetoric — Trump the indefatigable old leader, seized and leveraged the “mainstream” conservative sentiment wary of “others” and women, to return to the White House.

However, in this new chapter of American politics, the White House also reflects the times with some new features: the First Lady will again be a rare first-generation immigrant, and for the first time, the Second Lady is a minority Indian-American, married to a vice president-elect who rose from poverty.

While Harris — who already has many firsts to her name — was unable to take the even more novel step of entering the White House, the entire political culture and mindset in the US has changed significantly. The old and “least pernicious” US political system will keep stumbling on, lurching from side to side as it gets fixed and struggles forward and back. A diverse, inclusive, vibrant and opportunity-filled US society will inevitably guide US politics, including the presidential elections, towards further evolution and innovation.

This article was first published in Lianhe Zaobao as “美国政治开启新篇章”.

Related: Trump’s impact: A world transformed? | Bracing for Trump 2.0: A world on edge