[Trump's Return and the US Series] ④ The 2024 US Presidential Election Viewed Through the Lens of Industrial Policy Debates

I. Analysis of the 2024 US Presidential Election and Prospects for Domestic Politics

The 2024 US presidential election concluded with the return of former President Donald Trump to the White House. Trump secured victory by a wider margin than expected, winning all seven swing states—Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and North Carolina. The fact that Trump led Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, in the national popular vote holds significant meaning. Trump's victory on his third attempt, after trailing in the popular vote in both the 2016 and 2020 elections, can be interpreted as a reflection of structural changes in American politics and shifts in voter political inclinations. This paper analyzes the reasons for Trump's victory, examines the key economic and social issues addressed in the 2024 election, and reviews voter behavior. Through this, it aims to elucidate the impact of the election results on the American political landscape and identify areas the Democratic Party must consider leading up to the 2026 midterm elections and the 2028 presidential election.

1. Reason for Trump's Victory: Inflation

When the Biden administration was preparing for reelection in 2024, there were significant concerns about the president's low approval ratings. The Biden administration had successfully passed major legislation in Congress during its unified government period from 2021 to 2022 (117th Congress), establishing policies for the middle and lower classes. Specifically, these included the American Rescue Plan Act for relief to those affected by COVID-19, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act for improving outdated infrastructure, the Honoring our PACT Act for veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the Safer Communities Act for limited but strengthened gun control, the CHIPS and Science Act to foster semiconductor production and research, and the Inflation Reduction Act, which encompassed environmental policies, healthcare, and tax reforms. Among these, the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, which aimed to actively attract foreign investment to the US, align with the 'America First' policy of the first Trump administration and can be seen as part of an industrial policy, a rare feature in American politics.

However, the problem was that domestic prices had risen too high for the effects of these concrete and substantial policies to be felt. This marks the first time since 1980 that inflation has been a prominent issue in a US presidential election. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter, seeking reelection, faced difficulties due to the oil shock, rising prices, and the Iran hostage crisis, ultimately losing to Ronald Reagan. Since the Reagan administration, inflation has not been a major domestic issue in the US. While there are various reasons for this, the prevailing interpretation is that globalization and the spread of free trade led to the export of inflation-inducing factors from the US. This situation changed with Trump's election in 2016, which led to increased tariffs and restricted the free movement of goods. Then, the COVID-19 pandemic, beginning in late 2019, disrupted supply chains. During the late Trump administration and early Biden administration, the government injected money to provide relief to those affected by the pandemic, leading to a rapid increase in prices. By June 2022, the inflation rate reached 9.1%, the highest since the Carter administration.

However, by the middle of the Biden administration, the inflation rate began to decrease, falling below 4% in 2023. While the Biden administration likely wanted to convey to voters that the inflation caused by necessary relief measures during the COVID-19 pandemic was being effectively controlled and prices were stabilizing by the third year of the term, the general sentiment among voters was that prices had simply increased compared to four years prior. Even with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell's decision to lower interest rates a few months before the election, not many voters recognized this as a decision stemming from confidence in price management. Ultimately, the election landscape was shaped by a judgment on the economic hardships faced by households due to inflation.

2. Reason for Trump's Victory: Illegal Immigration and Border Issues

Illegal immigration is not a problem that can be easily resolved. There are two main reasons for its complexity. The first is economic. The US agriculture, livestock, and fisheries industries cannot operate without the labor of undocumented immigrants. For example, in agriculture, approximately 50% of the total workforce consisted of undocumented immigrants in the mid-2000s, and this figure remained around 40% in the 2020s. Considering this reality, the economic shock that would result from deporting all undocumented immigrants is easily imaginable. A labor shortage would arise, leading to wage increases, which in turn would contribute to inflation and ultimately harm consumers.

The second reason is legal. According to the 14th Amendment, individuals born on US soil are automatically granted US citizenship. Even if the parents are undocumented immigrants, a child born in the US is a US citizen. In this situation, strengthening policies to identify and deport undocumented immigrants leads to difficult decisions, such as deporting parents while leaving children in the US, or deporting both undocumented parents and their US citizen children. Both scenarios are practically impossible. Due to these issues, the problem of undocumented immigration and immigration law reform has faced significant challenges. Since the 2000s, there has been heated debate surrounding the DREAM Act, proposed by the Bush administration, which would have opened possibilities for citizenship for undocumented immigrants who arrived as children (1.5 generation immigrants), and after its failure in Congress, President Obama implemented DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), providing renewable work permits for these individuals, followed by President Trump's efforts to abolish it. Paradoxically, the administration that saw the fewest undocumented immigrants enter and the most deportations since the 2000s was the Obama administration. The Bush administration experienced a significant influx of undocumented immigrants. The number of undocumented immigrants, which stabilized somewhat during the Obama administration, began to increase again in the late Trump administration, but sharply decreased due to COVID-19. Upon the Biden administration's assumption of office and the easing of pandemic conditions, there has been a surge.

The Biden administration was aware of the escalating problem of illegal immigration. Early in its term, Vice President Harris was sent to Central America to address the root causes of illegal immigration, but this effort was unsuccessful. Furthermore, the administration requested new immigration legislation from Congress, but this also did not proceed as intended. When state governments (Texas) took the initiative to implement border closures, citing the federal government's lukewarm response, a lawsuit was filed, arguing that border jurisdiction belongs to the federal government. Although this lawsuit was ultimately decided in favor of the Biden administration (federal government) by the Supreme Court, it was difficult to escape criticism for its lukewarm approach to illegal immigration. Some viewed President Biden's stance of requiring Congress to pass legislation to resolve immigration issues as an abdication of responsibility. Others believed the issue could be adequately addressed through executive orders available to the president. Ultimately, through the efforts of President Biden and Democratic politicians, a bipartisan immigration reform bill, reflecting a significant portion of the Republican stance, was debated in the Senate. In early 2024, this bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, Independent Senator Kyrsten Sinema, and Republican Senator James Lankford, was ultimately blocked due to opposition from Trump, who was outside the legislative process. Trump believed that the immigration issue, which served as a potent campaign weapon, should not be resolved through congressional consensus before the election. Consequently, President Biden belatedly implemented a (not fully comprehensive) border closure by executive authority, resulting in a noticeable decrease in illegal immigration in the latter half of 2024. However, this was too late to assuage voter dissatisfaction with undocumented immigration.

3. Reason for Harris's Defeat: Abortion Issue

The issue of abortion became a central agenda item in American politics following the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson. This ruling significantly curtailed the abortion rights previously guaranteed by Roe v. Wade in 1973. The Dobbs decision stipulated that the regulation of abortion rights should be left to state governments, leading many states to enact laws that severely restrict abortion access, sparking widespread debate. Some strongly conservative states even implemented 'full bans' on abortion, prohibiting women from having abortions even in cases of rape or incest, without their consent. Consequently, abortion became a key issue in the November 2022 midterm elections, and it is cited as one of the reasons for the Democratic Party's unexpectedly strong performance in those elections.

Harris made the abortion issue a central message of her campaign because it was indirectly linked to Trump. The Dobbs decision was a 6-3 ruling, and the majority of the justices who supported it were conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents, with three of them appointed during the Trump administration. This fact was highlighted to argue that a different outcome might have occurred if not for the three Supreme Court justices appointed by Trump, framing it as a rhetorical point for the campaign that Trump contributed to the restriction of abortion rights. However, the issue was that Trump himself did not directly address the restriction of abortion rights. Throughout the election campaign, Trump remained reticent whenever abortion rights were mentioned. Therefore, the connection between Trump and abortion rights was only indirect, mediated through the Supreme Court, and conveying this indirect relationship effectively to the general electorate proved more difficult than anticipated. While the scope of abortion rights determined by state governments was a significant issue in the 2022 midterm elections, which were primarily state-level contests, its impact was weaker in the presidential election, a federal-level election. Furthermore, the fatigue associated with recycling this issue two years after the 2022 ruling could not be ignored.

4. Reason for Harris's Defeat: Crisis of Democracy

Another issue actively utilized by the Democratic Party was the discourse on the 'crisis of democracy.' This narrative invoked the January 6, 2021, incident where some Trump supporters, refusing to accept the election results, stormed the Capitol Building, arguing that Trump, who undermined democratic principles and was behind this event, should not be allowed back into the White House. Additionally, the four criminal indictments against Trump were mentioned. If these claims are taken at face value, there is considerable persuasive power. Although he did not directly lead the January 6th Capitol attack, phone records revealing his calls to the Georgia governor and secretary of state urging them to 'find' votes have been made public. His persistent promotion of election fraud theories, rather than conceding defeat, lends credence to the argument that he is unfit for the presidency. He was impeached twice by the House of Representatives during his term, investigated by a special counsel for aiding or abetting Russian interference in the election, and testimonies from individuals who held key positions during his first term further support the view that Trump poses a threat to democracy.

The problem is that these arguments were not accepted at face value by the general electorate. Due to the already severe polarization between politicians and voters, claims that a particular politician threatens democracy are easily understood as an extension of partisan logic. However, a more significant issue is that the 'threat to democracy' narrative could have been perceived as a defense of the establishment or existing political institutions, which many general voters do not trust. For voters who believe that excluding the out-group, composed of elites and establishment politicians, from policy-making processes, while clearly distinguishing between in-groups and out-groups, is the realization of true democracy, the message of 'defending democracy in crisis' was highly likely to be misinterpreted as a message of maintaining the status quo or preserving vested interests.

II. Changes in the Voter Landscape Reflected in the 2024 Election

What, then, was the voting behavior of the electorate that led to Trump's victory? Exit poll results reveal a noticeable trend: minority voters relatively more frequently chose Trump compared to previous elections. While minority voters still predominantly favor the Democratic Party in absolute numbers, their pro-Republican and pro-Trump leanings are evident when compared to the 'Obama coalition' of 2008 and 2012, and the election results of 2016 and 2020. This trend is particularly pronounced among Black and Hispanic men. Conversely, college-educated white women voters showed increased support for the Democratic candidate compared to previous elections. Therefore, it is difficult to definitively conclude that the Republican Party has become a multiracial coalition party based solely on the results of this election. Furthermore, it is premature to interpret this as a realignment of Black and Hispanic voters. Considering the historical specificity of realignment in American politics (the long-term shift of white voters in the South from supporting Democrats to Republicans), hasty conclusions are inadvisable (Schickler 2016).

Additionally, this presidential election showed high support for Trump among white voters without a college degree. This suggests that these voters cast their ballots based on symbolic (cultural) issues rather than their economic interests. The fact that Harris was a Black female candidate, and the recent changes in the media environment have amplified localized crime in American metropolitan areas and conflicts surrounding sexual orientation, appear to be contributing factors (Pierson and Schickler 2024). It remains uncertain whether these 'culture wars' will continue to be the primary dividing issue between Democratic and Republican supporters in future elections, but they were undoubtedly a notable characteristic of this presidential election.

Finally, unlike in 2020, first-time voters cast more votes for Trump than for Harris. Typically, younger generations are considered more aligned with the Democratic Party due to a higher proportion of people of color, higher education levels, and greater acceptance of diversity compared to older generations. A poll conducted during the pro-Palestine protests that swept university campuses this summer confirmed a higher pro-Palestine and anti-Israel sentiment among individuals in their 20s and 30s compared to other age groups. However, in contrast to the first-time voters in 2020 who largely favored the progressive candidate Biden, the fact that they supported the conservative candidate Trump in 2024 requires further analysis to determine whether it reflects their stance on key election issues such as inflation and immigration, or a fundamental shift in the electoral landscape. In conclusion, changes in voting behavior were observed among minority voters and first-time voters in this election. Therefore, one should not hastily discuss changes in the American voter landscape based solely on the voting behavior observed in this election.

Another interesting point is that the dichotomy of the Democratic Party as the 'party of college graduates/high-income earners' and the Republican Party as the 'party of high school graduates/low-income earners' became more pronounced in this election (Grossman and Hopkins 2024). However, this dichotomy has several issues. First, it is important to remember that this reflects voter demographics rather than party policies. The Biden administration, not the Trump administration, implemented concrete policies for high school educated workers. While the Trump administration's tax cuts may have benefited high school educated workers, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, like previous Republican-led tax cuts, primarily benefited the wealthy. Thus, in terms of policy, the Democratic Party remains the party of low-income workers, and the Republican Party remains the party of the wealthy. However, the strategy employed by the Republican Party and Trump to win elections focused on 'cultural issues' that resonate with low-income workers, including immigration, race, and LGBTQ issues.

In this context, the concept of 'plutocratic populism' is noteworthy as it effectively summarizes the Republican Party's governing philosophy (Hacker and Pierson 2020). This concept is highly useful for understanding the current state of American politics since the 1980s, or more narrowly, since the Democratic Party adopted neoliberal economic policies in 1992. The essence of plutocratic populism can be summarized as follows:

1) Since Reagan in 1980, the Republican Party has been the party of the 'haves.' Each time the Republican Party has held power, it has faithfully implemented policies that serve the interests of the 'haves,' such as tax cuts, deregulation, and privatization.

2) Republican policies have led to severe economic inequality (while some economists who disregard the link between markets and politics may argue otherwise, numerous political science studies have verified that 'policies have exacerbated inequality').

3) In reality, the American political system contains many elements that can be described as 'plutocracy.' A prime example is campaign finance law. Since the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the influence of wealthy donors, including Super PACs that emerge during every election cycle, on elections and policy-making processes is immense.

4) However, the 'haves' face a significant obstacle: the democratic electoral system based on the principle of 'one person, one vote.' A billionaire has one vote, and a poor homeless person also has one vote. Regardless of their wealth or network of influential politicians, it is useless if the politicians they support do not win the election.

5) Consequently, a small number of 'haves' who pursue the maximization of their self-interest and actively support the Republican Party have turned their attention elsewhere. In this process, they discovered the front line of the culture war. They seek to secure a broad base of support by utilizing Protestant values, traditional family views, long-standing racial hierarchies, and the national identity of the United States (however, the 'haves' themselves are not genuinely interested in these issues).

6) In other words, the Republican Party is a party that (1) pursues the maximization of profits for a small number of 'major donors,' and (2) secures votes from the 'have-nots' by utilizing traditional values and national identity for electoral purposes. The first part is plutocracy, and the second part is populism, combined they form plutocratic populism.

The fact that Donald Trump, during his first term, did not implement specific policies for high school educated white workers, with the exception of the tax cut bill; conversely, President Biden pursued industrial policies for their benefit; and yet, they did not make a rational choice and leaned towards Trump in this election can be fully explained within the context of plutocratic populism.

III. The Future of the Democratic Party

Trump's return to the White House outwardly signifies the end of the neoliberal economic policies that began in the 1980s. These policies operated by minimizing government intervention in the market, promoting investment through tax cuts, and aiming for economic growth. After the end of the Cold War, the US pursued multilateral free trade and strengthened its integration with the global economy, but these economic policies ultimately resulted in increased economic inequality. In particular, with job outsourcing and the economic decline of traditional manufacturing regions, many middle-class voters experienced economic hardship. This allowed Trump to tap into the sentiments of 'rural, high school-educated white Christian men,' transforming their grievances into political assets. However, Trump's policies still show traces of being pro-wealthy.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party experienced the bitter consequences of the neoliberal economic policies it had maintained since Bill Clinton's election in 1992, during the 2016 election. The unexpected defeat occurred as the white working-class voters without a college degree, who had long supported the Democratic Party as part of the New Deal coalition, shifted towards Trump. In response, Biden, attempting a fundamental shift, recaptured the White House in 2020 and adopted overtly pro-labor and pro-union policies. These policies were noted for their similarity to Trump's 'America First' policy externally, and to the voice of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders, internally. The fact that the changes within the Democratic Party brought about by Biden did not lead to victory in the 2024 election serves as a starting point for examining the future of the Democratic Party.

As discussed, Harris's defeat is fundamentally a function of macroeconomic factors. However, the fact that she garnered less support from Black men and Hispanic voters compared to the past, failed to secure sufficient support from first-time voters, and that the Biden administration's efforts did not translate into the mobilization of high school educated white workers are points worthy of reflection. Some argue that the Democratic Party will not fare well in elections unless it addresses the public backlash against its progressive stance on socio-cultural issues, i.e., 'political correctness' (Lilla 2018). However, this argument is difficult to accept for several reasons. Firstly, Harris's campaign did not emphasize identity politics. Trump's campaign, apart from an advertisement concerning transgender individuals, did not focus on cultural issues as much as in 2016 or 2020. If identity politics had significantly influenced the election outcome, it would be difficult to explain Biden's victory in 2020, a period when the 'Black Lives Matter' movement, sparked by the police killing of George Floyd, was at its peak.

Even more interestingly, the analysis emerging from the retrospective review of the 2024 election is strikingly similar to that of 2004. In 2004, skepticism about the Iraq War and underlying cultural liberalism (such as the legalization of same-sex marriage and stem cell research) were intertwined. Many believed that Bush, who had narrowly won the presidency in 2000 amidst controversy, could be defeated in his reelection bid, but the result was the defeat of the Democratic candidate John Kerry. In analyzing this outcome, criticisms included the Democratic Party's failure to connect emotionally with the general public, relying solely on rational appeals (Westen 2007), and its fixation on issues unpopular with rural white middle-class voters, such as same-sex marriage (Frank 2004). Despite minimal efforts to address these criticisms, the Democratic Party achieved victory in 2008 by nominating the first Black presidential candidate, Obama.

New challenges emerged starting with Obama's election. The backlash against Obama, the first Black president, swept through the political landscape. Initially, the Obama administration pursued neoliberal policies that favored Wall Street interests in its efforts to overcome the financial crisis, which had significantly aided Obama's election. Many voters expressed dissatisfaction with the massive tax funds mobilized to rescue failing corporations, leading to the rise of the 'Tea Party movement' (Skocpol and Williamson 2012). This movement became a driving force behind the Republican Party's landslide victory in the 2010 midterm elections. Meanwhile, Obama's racial identity became a prominent political issue. Notably, the spread of the 'birther conspiracy' theory, which falsely claimed Obama was not born in the US and thus ineligible to be president, is significant. The fact that Trump was a leading figure in perpetuating this conspiracy theory is also an interesting point. Despite these challenges, Obama was reelected in 2012.

Obama's political successes in 2008 and 2012 led the Democratic Party to mistakenly believe that the US was moving in a progressive direction. The Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, should also be understood in this context. Having produced the first Black president in history, the Democratic Party believed it was ready to elect its first female president (Hillary Clinton). Following this trajectory, aspiring presidential candidates were increasingly diverse, including Hispanic, Black women, and gay individuals. Among the candidates who ran in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, only Biden and Sanders were white men. The other candidates included women (Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar), a Black candidate (Cory Booker), a Black woman (Kamala Harris), an Asian candidate (Andrew Yang), a Hispanic candidate (Juan Castro), and a gay candidate (Pete Buttigieg). At that time, the Democratic Party chose Biden, a centrist candidate with a traditional image, and achieved a positive outcome.

Ironically, the Democratic Party, which failed in 2016 and 2024 with female or minority candidates, is likely experiencing the wave of sexism and racism inherent in American society, possibly amplified by Trump's emergence. Therefore, to regain the White House in 2028, it might be advisable to support a centrist white male candidate who could be described as a 'younger Biden.' However, other considerations are necessary. If the goal is to win back the white working-class voters who have left the Democratic Party, then a 'younger Sanders' who exhibits a more labor-friendly stance than a centrist candidate might be more appropriate. Biden transitioned from a centrist stance to a pro-labor orientation after taking office. Harris's failure may be attributed to her identity (gender and race), but it could also be due to her perceived inability to distance herself from the influence of vested interests, including Wall Street. In other words, a young white male candidate is needed who can appeal to white voters without provoking identity politics. Candidates fitting this description include current Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear.

Alternatively, if the Democratic Party decides to replicate the formula of defeat in 2004 and victory in 2008, it could adopt a counter-strategy. This would involve fronting candidates who hold progressive positions on cultural or economic issues. Numerous politicians fall into this category, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, progressive Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

Historically, the Democratic Party has been a coalition of groups with diverse interests (Grossman and Hopkins 2016). The New Deal coalition encompassed not only industrial workers, immigrants, and minority groups but also white Southerners who were overt segregationists. The Obama coalition also united traditional Democratic supporters, such as low-education white workers, with minority groups and college-educated elites. Consequently, compared to the Republican Party, which is relatively based on values and ideology, the Democratic Party exhibits a wider range of changes and sometimes produces contradictory policies. It is difficult to definitively state what identity the Democratic Party should adopt to compete with the Trump-ified Republican Party, and it is unlikely to maintain the neoliberal economic policies that characterized the Clinton and Obama eras. However, this does not mean it will become rigidly a pro-labor, pro-minority party. In the context of American elections, where fundraising and spending are liberalized, it is extremely difficult to be free from the influence of 'major donors.' ■

References

Frank, Thomas. 2004. What’s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Grossman, Matt, and David A. Hopkins. 2024. Polarized by Degrees: How the Diploma Divide and the Culture War Transformed American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Grossman, Matt, and David A. Hopkins. 2016. Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hacker, Jacob S., and Paul Pierson. 2020. Let them Eat Tweets: How the Right Rules in an Age of Extreme Inequality. New York: W. W. Norton.

Lilla, Mark. 2018. The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pierson, Paul, and Eric Schickler. 2024. Partisan Nation: The Dangerous New Logic of American Politics in a Nationalized Era.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schickler, Eric. 2016. Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932-1965.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Skocpol, Theda, and Vanessa Williamson. 2012. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism.New York: Oxford University Press.

Westen, Drew. 2007. The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.New York: Public Affairs.

■ Ha Sang-eungProfessor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Sogang University.

■ Contact and Editing:Lee So-young, EAI Research Assistant

Inquiries and Editing: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 205) | sylee@eai.or.kr