10, 9, 8... Election day is here!
As a German in USA: What's on my mind before the presidential election.
Harris or Trump? Sweet or sour? It was just Halloween, hence my association. I find neither Harris sweet nor Trump sour. The reverse is not true for me either. Some observations and experiences in the run-up to the election.
Most Americans seem to be in a kind of pressure cooker these days. “But this election...”. This is how many people start their sentences when they actually want to talk about how they are feeling at the moment. If you read the posts on X (former Twitter) or the articles on the online platform Substack, whether from Trump or Harris supporters, it seems as if the world would definitely end for half of the US population if the hated wrong candidate were to win the election. In Trump's case, after all, the other party has already survived four years of his presidency. But logic doesn't count in these times, only emotions do. And there are plenty of them.
Unlike in Germany, campaigning for the highest office of the presidency in the USA is mainly showbiz. Boring was yesterday. Trump, with his experience in reality TV, knows how to handle this better than his rival. He had himself filmed in a McDonald's branch in Philadelphia, with an apron tied around his waist, handing a portion of French fries over the counter. An opportunity for further self-dramatization was soon provided by Joe Biden: The still-incumbent president responded to a comedian who had referred to Puerto Rico as an island of trash floating in the ocean at a Trump event by mumbling something about “trash” and “Trump supporters”. Or, the big question, was it “Trump supporter’s”? The White House was still trying to limit the damage when Donald Trump had himself filmed in a garbage truck the next day. Even at a subsequent campaign event, he was still wearing the orange and yellow vest of a garbage man. That kind of thing works. His supporters cheer. Not so in the camp of Vice President Kamala Harris. When she announces Beyoncé for a campaign appearance at the Shell Energy Stadium in Houston, Texas, everyone expects the pop singer to sing as well. But she doesn't. She speaks for a good four minutes, then makes way for Kamala Harris. Those who had waited in line for up to 12 hours because they thought they were going to hear Beyoncé sing for free leave the hall, some of them booing. “Another loser” was the friendliest comment from Trump fans on X.
In September, I spent three weeks in Eureka Springs, a hippy town in the otherwise predominantly Red state of Arkansas. Red in the sense of Republican. Conservative. Eureka Springs, on the other hand, is Blue. Democratic, “progressive”. Just around the corner from where I live, a woman has put up a sign in front of her house: “Grab him by the ballot, Kamala”. The slogan alludes to a September 2005 video in which then-presidential candidate Donald Trump boasted that as a “star”, men could do anything to women, even grab 'em by the pussy.
I accompany an acquaintance to a meeting of a group of Harris supporters. They want to send postcards to like-minded people in Ohio to remind them to be sure to vote on November 5 - Kamala Harris, of course. Participants have three different text modules to choose from as a writing template. I also write a few cards, but don't sign them as I am neither a member of the group nor a US citizen. The mood is cheerful, but also intense, because everyone present is convinced that Donald Trump must be prevented from becoming president. As we talk about it, I can hear something akin to despair. One woman asks me what I think of Kamala Harris. I am honest: Harris had just been a guest on the famous talk show host Oprah Winfrey and had not convinced me. My conversation partner is surprised. She herself is convinced by Harris. Because she is pro-choice, i.e. in favor of abortion rights. And because it's time for a woman to finally take the presidency in the USA. And: to prevent Trump. This is by far the most frequent response I have received from avowed Harris voters in all this time. Some added: “She is the lesser of two evils”.
As a German, I find it hard to get used to the fact that each US state has its own voting rules for the national presidential election. In Germany, the Bundestag (national parliament) elections are held according to standardized nationwide rules. Always on a Sunday and only on that single day between 8 am and 6 pm. In the USA, the individual states are much more independent than the federal states in Germany, which corresponds to the peoples' different self-image of individuality and freedom.
One more thing strikes me: The US election campaign is primarily about domestic issues. Americans are interested in what affects them directly. The war in Ukraine? The Middle East? As a German and European, I naturally worry about how things will continue in Ukraine. Will the war spread? Will Germany and Europe become the target of a possible nuclear war? All of this is far away for people in the USA. I, who have been in the country for six months now, can understand this very well. I mention my observation to a number of acquaintances. I say that I have the impression that Americans only care about domestic issues in the presidential election. Each time I get an approving nod of the head.
And then I experience something that I had previously only read or heard from others: A Harris apologist terminates our non-existent friendship by email because I am allegedly “promoting” Trump. How? What? I am perplexed. How about talking about it again first? I write that I think it is dangerous when she and other people equate Trump with Hitler. In doing so, they would be trivializing Hitler's atrocities. But all my explanations roll off the Harris supporter's back. I would have been “offensive” to her and her friends several times. In other words, insulting or aggressive. She doesn't explain how. And I can't explain it either, as I don't know her or her friends well, nor have I spent much time with them. In any case, she doesn't want any more contact, she writes, and no further communication with me. Am I just being canceled by a “woke”? Fanatic, I think. Intolerant. Self-righteous. Annoying. And as superfluous as a goiter.
She is particularly outraged by my article Who eats cats here? In it, I would spread Donald Trump's “lies” that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, eat cats and dogs. Which is true: I never called Trump's claim a “lie.” I have not taken anyone's side. What I have done is tell the story from different sides. There's Trump, his vice-designate, JD Vance, Springfield's mayor, old-timers, migrants, voodoo, parodies of Trump's claim, lawsuits against Trump and Vance. For me, that's my job as a journalist: to provide as much diverse information as possible on a topic so that readers and listeners can form their own opinions. Or leave it at that. But this idea of “impartiality”, of “not making common cause, even if it's a good one” according to the renowned German journalist Hanns-Joachim Friedrichs, is no longer worth a penny. Old-fashioned. What counts is “attitude”. Virtue signaling. Meaning taking sides; presenting one's own opinion as fact. And not just in the USA, but in Germany and Europe too. In this sense, I confess: I am old-fashioned. But fashions always come back into fashion. I hope it will be the same in journalism.
In 2020, when Donald Trump was president, I read that he wanted to limit the length of stay for foreign correspondents to eight months. That naturally turned me against him. Will he take up this agenda again if he is elected? Maybe, hopefully he will have more important things to do. Or, as some “conspiracy theorists” suggest, is the “digital-financial complex” ultimately in charge anyway - and does it therefore make no difference who sits in the Oval Office of the White House for the next four years? And is all this excitement, whether Harris or Trump, sweet or sour, then for naught? So it will remain exciting, after the election day.
This text was first published in German on my website here.
Close to a month later, I finally read this issue of Rebecca's Transatlantic Post, and I think it's one of your best. By the way, it is a great name, me thinks.
I am most appreciative of the "German Perspective." Hitler's comments in particular. Next would be the comment on voting by emotion's vote and how Domestic Issues are paramount in US citizens' minds. Each comment is a reflection on "home."
The journalistic work you do is the breadcrumb-like trail to a time perceived by many as a better mode of journalism. AKA anchor of CBS newsman Edward R. Morrow. He earnestly worked with the best of intentions to be a reporter, not a commentator. Not that he was so objective as to forget his own personal moral base, but he was also intentional about taking ownership when he recognized that his morals accompanied his objective writings. He took the possibility of being human and perfectly imperfect and risked speaking his thoughts and observations.
Perhaps there are Germans who will read my comment. I believe that is the essence of what drives your motivation to keep doing what you are doing. Understanding our USA's Constitutional underpinnings for choosing who gets to make the final decisions of the moment at hand requires as visceral experience as a country led by Hitler or a country revolting against a Sovereign.
I remain highly optimistic about the outcome of the last election. Many people feared the result, but they represented the extremes of opinions. The Founders provided a strategy to deal with the extremes, the individuals, and the state, which worked in the 2024 election.
The battle cries of the campaigns were meant to capture the emotional responses of each person while in the voting booth. The Constitution was designed to slow decisions down and prevent the damage a pure democracy would face: mob rule. The conflict of the individual vs. group is dealt with at the State level (individual group) and the Federal level ( all of the states group).
By design, the bicameral Congress, the Executive branch, and the Judiciary must go through the Constitutional process for any changes that set or change precedent in Law.
Your reporting accurately describes what Wikipedia published about January 11, 2014. The dilemma it refers to contains the dichotomy of forces acting on November 5th this year.