In the days leading up to Tuesday, promising reports of the Harris-Walz campaign strengthened my conviction (if you’ll pardon the crass and trivialising pun) that a Kamala victory was increasingly likely. Meanwhile, Trump and his entourage had made numerous missteps, including, but certainly not limited to, the deeply insensitive joke about Puerto Rico as an “island of floating garbage.” The Democrats were “nauseously optimistic,” and so was I. Yet, when my alarm rang at 7:25 am on Wednesday morning, and I scrolled through the BBC News alerts declaring “Trump projected to win Swing State,” “Trump projected to win Swing State Y,” my nauseous optimism had turned to pure nausea.
Of course, Twitter (X) has been filled with numerous examinations and explanations of the results, but I feel that many commentators, particularly left-leaning commentators, have missed the mark. You see, it is easy for us Brits to observe from afar, bewildered at how anyone could vote for such an unprincipled reprobate. But to take this view, and this view only, is reductionist and alienates serious reflection on how and why Trump won. Owen Jones, for example, tweeted about a Muslim Pakistani taxi driver who voted for Trump because “the prices were too high” under Biden. Despite Jones’s subsequent backtracking, the rhetoric of disdain that emanated from this tweet, and others like it, reek of an oft-found superiority complex amongst liberal elites, who simply cannot understand why issues that matter to them do not matter to the non-politicos. Of course, identity politics and cultural issues have their place and are important, but for much of the politically uninterested population, the primary concern is whether they feel better off than they did before; evidently, many Americans did not. In 2020, Biden won the vote share of earners under $50,000 55-45; in 2024, Trump shifted this vote in his favour 49-48. This class realignment towards Trump signifies the centrality of economic considerations in this election, and that cultural issues, irrespective of how important they may seem/should be in the debate, are not as important as many of the left believe.
Whilst direct comparisons between US and UK politics have several problematic implications, there are lessons here for the Labour Party. I believe their main takeaway must be the significance of individual economic prosperity. For Labour to be safe going into the next general election (as far as any political party can be safe in such a volatile world), the British population must feel better off than they did in 2024. It feels slightly facile to state, but for Labour to achieve their more expansive plans for reshaping Britain, they need to achieve the fundamental detail of winning over the electorate and being in government. From my experience in these circles, people on the left often approach politics through grand plans without considering the basics, so Labour must ensure the basics are met before enacting and relying on their ambitious agenda to carry them to victory.
“Prime Minister Keir Starmer arrives in the United States” by UK Prime Minister is licensed under CC BY 2.0.