Donald Trump’s victory on the 5th of November 2024 felt like a harrowing case of déjà vu for some. His election as the 47th president of America seemed to defy all rationale. He is a convicted felon, having been found guilty on 34 charges, indicted multiple times, and has been accused by lawmakers of instigating of an insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th 2020. Trump left office after his first term as perhaps one of the most disgraced US Presidents in modern memory. Whilst his victory may not have had the wide margin he claims, Trump returned and achieved re-election.

The specific voters who ensured this result are broadly disunited, having a wide collection of different political priorities. Trump appealed to both business-savvy billionaires by promising to slash corporation tax (like Elon Musk) as well as blue-collar workers in the Rust Belt with his ‘America First’ approach to manufacturing. Transgender rights, the Israel-Palestine conflict, religious interests – the reasons for voting Republican cited by those who did are conspicuously various. Nevertheless, abortion, predicted to be one of the key points of contention in the election (see here) was only a concern for 25% of Trump voters, according to an exit poll quoted by the BBC. This contrasts greatly with the 74% of Harris voters who prioritised this same issue. That is not to say that pro-life sentiment and the religious morality which underpins it was not an important issue symptomatic of the rise in conservatism. However, the issues that were of greater self-professed importance remained immigration and the economy – raised by 90% and 80% of voters respectively according to the same poll. This sense of financial vulnerability and imminent job insecurity connected many of the disparate groups in Trump’s voter base. It helped him regain the key ‘Rust Belt’ states, a set of swing states famed for their large manufacturing base including Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Despite being blue in the 2020 election, all of these states flipped red in 2024.

This fear of economic malaise speaks to the sense of vulnerability which underpins the ferocity of American conservatism at present. A recent Glamour article details several responses from young male Trump supporters and makes clear that they were at least partially motivated by the perception that they were being persecuted. The men claimed they were made to “take the blame for lots of things” that they “haven’t had an opportunity to impact” because of their identity as straight white men. Closer to home, various #Oxfesses (and yes, I’m aware that’s not a particularly authoritative source) were published directly following the election expressing essentially the same refrain:

‘who would have thought that running a platform saying ‘men are the problem’…and ignoring things like inflation, border issues and grocery shop prices would make them want to vote for you’ (#oxfess32996)

‘democrats: men suck. White men are the problem….working class men suck. Aww, you don’t like it? Why are you so insecure? Men: *votes Republican* Democrats: *surprised Pikachu face*’ (#oxfess32987)

The various privileges which ensure that these white men’s experience of ‘oppression’ does not go beyond ‘name-calling’ are beyond the scope of this article. But their insecurity – the roots could fill a whole other article – should not necessarily be dismissed as fictive. Male insecurity can fester into very real suspicion, aggressive assertions of superiority, and the scapegoating of certain groups as ‘enemies’ on which to displace frustration.

This is precisely what happened between 2020 and 2024. Commentators recognised that the limited achievements of Biden’s administration were partially because of the difficult contexts of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, Biden and Harris’ perceived failure to tackle financial insecurity (which was not necessarily reflected by reality) was noted angrily as evidence that they were leaving ordinary Americans behind to suffer. Harris’ campaign did little to assuage these developing fears, focusing instead on highlighting Trump’s personal flaws, evident lunacy and dangerous fearmongering. The Democrats emphasised the fact that Trump was an ‘unhinged and unstable’ individual backed by a ‘xenophobic’ party. Meanwhile, the 9/10 of voters who were worried about grocery prices had little care for truth. They wanted change, and Trump’s consistent guarantee of it was for 74% of his voters the single greatest motivating factor.

Not only was he seen as more convincing when it came to the economy, but Trump (though a billionaire businessman) was able to cultivate a façade of similarity between himself and his supporters. In this, he was helped by the Democratic party, whose focus on his gaffes gave those feeling persecuted (like the anonymous Oxfess authors) not only greater vindicating evidence but also the sense that they were united with Trump in defiant victimhood. His indictments and the failed assassinations in July and September were only further fuel to this particularly pernicious fire. Trump has an intense level of popularity and personal loyalty among his followers. Harris, with the added structural disadvantages of misogyny and racism that she faced, could not have matched him in this regard, especially given that she had only 107 days to campaign after Biden’s withdrawal from the race. The Democrats wanted to make Trump’s ignorance evident, and they did, but they wrongly assumed that this would be enough to undermine the cult-like following that had grown around him. The sad reality is that many voters found in Trump a peer as well as an outlet for their own intensified conservatism.

Kamala Harris, in her concession speech, urged Americans to ‘never give up the fight’ for democracy and its values of ‘kindness and respect’. Trump’s victory may have made this an upward battle, but it does not necessarily mean it cannot be won. Again, this was no ‘landslide’, no matter what Republicans insist. Trump’s margins of victory were often under 5%, but they represented persistent wins because he spoke to a consistent and insidious fear of insecurity within the populous.