Looking at Possible Effects of the Election from a Polarized American Society

The importance of this U.S. presidential election lies not in predicting which party will win; the biggest shift this election cycle is the collective vigilance and instinctive effort of the American media.

The practice of journalistic ethics and introspection by journalists — including intentionally abandoning news trends, excessive engagement in a cult of personality and caring about business above all else — is based on former President Donald Trump’s whirlwind rise in 2016 and his refusal to admit defeat in early 2020, after which his supporters staged an insurrection in Washington, D.C. in an embarrassing and disastrous rush to the Capitol to seize Vice President Mike Pence!

As a result, the media stuck to its guns. First, The Washington Post refused to bow to its many subscribers and refused for the first time in many years to endorse a candidate. The New York Times has released polls since the debate that do not favor Kamala Harris!

Harris is skilled at evading questions with elaborate language and lengthy answers, and she often uses respect for Joe Biden’s programs to shield her own policy positions. She repeatedly uses the excuse of different generations having different viewpoints to distance herself from the Biden administration’s performance and shared responsibility over the past four years. She firnly dodges questions. The media, including CNN, can be highly critical of her performance in interviews and speeches.

Secondly, it’s lucky that her running mate Tim Walz speaks relatively plainly and appears relatable and trustworthy. He easily diffuses attacks from reporters who question him aggressively, in particular stressing his experience as a high school teacher and coach. This skill takes some effort, but it pays off big time.

Furthermore, although the two parties appear to be fiercely competing, their platforms are actually not that different. Republicans, who have long praised “small government,” are now quite generous with subsidies. Meanwhile, Democrats are taking a “progressive” stance and consistently call for eliminating dependence on petrochemicals and supporting the Green New Deal. Yet West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin has helped postpone implementing such policy for years. As a friend of the energy industry, Manchin not only successfully supported the construction of a crude oil pipeline; he also caused Biden to take responsibility and criticism for postponing a plan to promote electric vehicles and zero-carbon green electricity. In contrast, by acting as a forceful critic, Harris was able to shift the dissatisfaction of Democratic supporters onto Biden, the unsteady elder leader who supported her.

Finally, as endless wars continue to destroy innocent lives in the Near and Middle East, we should look to cooperation in the face of international turmoil. In particular, we should trace the course of societal division and extremism to clarify where it comes from who bears responsibility!

Although the candidates are controlled by the nature of their parties, it is difficult for the tone of those in charge not to be harsh. It seems that this time, the U.S. media and election officials have already adjusted in order to temper the fervor of supporters. They can meaningfully lessen ethnic struggle and conflict using images and timely fact-checking.

In this seemingly unpredictable election, the issues of concern are quite focused. Whoever wins and improves the fortunes of America’s lowest class by promoting investment in high-tech industry will begin a 21st century Glorious Revolution.