Opinion In a closely-fought race, why Trump may have an edge over Harris

Now, the pinup statistic. Even among those who think Trump is an extremist showboat, Kamala is behind 15 per cent on the economy. Her earlier debate victory now seems quite unreal. Indeed, she only leads Trump on soft matters like protecting democracy, abortion rights and unifying the country. These are sophomore subjects, with no clear answers.

To argue that Kamala will protect democracy is too convoluted to casually pass around as America has had free and fair elections for centuries. To insist, in addition, that the Democrats alone can unify the country appears vague to the majority. The White population, in particular, already feels quite unified in the USA.

Trump is back, and on top, largely because his solutions are easy and crisp. To create jobs in America, his quick answer is to raise US tariffs so high that the Chinese get altitude sickness. China is the main enemy but the Germans and French also better shape up, or else. When it’s about migrants, it’s again simple: Build a wall along the border.

Incidentally, Trump’s attack on migrants is unlike India’s “sons of the soil” movements where employment competition is the dominant concern. In the US, the anti-migrant feeling isn’t about jobs but is colour-coded and cultural. But Trump gets an added bonus, for many migrants already in don’t want fresh ones for fear of losing their jobs.

Trump’s economic fixes are elementary too. They’re like a DIY handbook or an IKEA flat pack instructions pull-out. All it requires is anger and a serviceable brain. On the other hand, Kamala’s job and subsidy manifesto is complicated. It needs as much time and attention span to understand as it does to learn a foreign language.

On global affairs also, Trump is done with delicate negotiations which take generations to resolve, if at all. Trump believes he has cut to the chase, called the military-industrial complex’s bluff and will downsize NATO. This alliance was built to cart American weapons across Europe for the sake of peace in that continent, but failed. Over time, this beast of burden has simply become a burden. It eats trillions of dollars, but promptly loses every war it has fought. It lost Korea and Vietnam and, under Biden, scampered, tail down, from Afghanistan. Funnily, America financed all this, but her shores are an ocean away. The Europeans, who truly benefit from NATO, are free riders.

Kamala’s projects, in comparison, are not quite as straightforward. Her avowal of green technology, for example, has a futuristic dimension but it can tangibly hurt our present lives as phasing out petroleum could mean tremendous job losses. Kamala was, in fact, forced to accept fracking which she once opposed, not too long ago. Nor does Kamala have a clear-cut plan to keep illegals out. Her project requires hiring hundreds of officials and a continuous spending of federal funds. These people could also be inefficient. Trump’s vision of building a wall has an easy appeal. Additionally, if anything, Trump should know how to make a wall for construction is his billion-dollar business.

Also, Kamala’s flagship drive to legalise abortion nationwide has limited resonance. Otherwise, abortion rates have already fallen by over 50 per cent since the 1980s. Women today hold jobs, exercise greater control over their sexual lives and have better birth control devices like IUD. Consequently, the abortion issue is not helping Democrats gain ground as they once hoped it would. This is why there are so many young women in Trump’s rallies. The cause is wokishly attractive but has as much impact as switching off all fun lights to save the green planet or finishing food on your plate to save starving children in Africa.

Finally, the lady elephant in the room. In the US, and elsewhere, patriarchy is reluctant to vote a woman to high office. Trump may be extremely boorish at times but does that always matter? The famous rapper, Kid Rock, a Trump supporter, said: “You think I like Trump because he’s a nice guy? I’m not electing the deacon of a church.”

The writer is a sociologist