Kamala Harris’s campaign is leveraged on a diminishing statistic while Donald Trump’s is the opposite

“While abortion rates are falling, immigration, which is Mr. Trump’s cause, is rising. The immigration acts of 1965 and 1990 allowed Latin Americans and Asians in and, since then, the bulk of U.S. migrants have been Mexicans. There is a sharp rise too in unauthorised migrants who, today, comprise about 25% of foreign-born people in the U.S.”

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are so far apart that only a continental drift can bring them closer. It is not just that one is African-American and the other White. Or that one is a woman and the other is a man. Or that Kamala Harris is a Californian and Donald Trump a New Yorker. More significantly, Kamala Harris’s campaign is leveraged on a diminishing statistic while Mr. Trump’s is set on an ascending one.

The two campaigns

Abortion rights are topmost on Ms. Harris’s to-do list, but how pressing is that? The rate of abortion has fallen steadily in the United States since the 1970s when the verdict in Roe vs Wade was passed. Legalising abortion did not result in more abortions, as some of the opponents to the judgment feared. Nor was there a dramatic increase in abortion clinics.

While abortion rates are falling, immigration, which is Mr. Trump’s cause, is rising. The immigration acts of 1965 and 1990 allowed Latin Americans and Asians in and, since then, the bulk of U.S. migrants have been Mexicans. There is a sharp rise too in unauthorised migrants who, today, comprise about 25% of foreign-born people in the U.S.

Between 1981 and 2021, abortion rates fell in the U.S. from 29.3 per 1,000 women in the 15-44 year age range to 11.6 abortions per 1,000 women. The fall is not because some States have put restrictions on abortion but rather on account of highly effective contraceptive methods, such as the intrauterine device. Also, more women seek careers now rather than raising children.

Caught in intersections, the Harris multicultural tent

To then peg an election campaign primarily on abortion does not resonate with women the way it used to in the 1970s. No doubt, abortions still happen, often forcing women to travel, under duress, from their home State, which restricts abortion, to another where it is allowed. This can result in fatalities, but not at an overwhelming rate. Paradoxically, women beyond the child-bearing age are very committed to bringing abortion rights back simply because they fought for it in the 1970s. It was a great advance then not only because unwanted pregnancies were high but also because single parents could now pay greater attention to child rearing than child bearing.

The tirade against migrants

In contrast to the pre-1965 profile where most migrants were White, today about 50% of immigrants to the US are from Latin America, and as much as a quarter from Mexico alone. This probably explains why Mr. Trump’s tirade against migrants from south of the border is so appealing. There are so many of them and they all look so different.

In 2022, about 10.6 million immigrants (or 23% of all immigrants in the U.S.) were Mexicans. Next were those from India (6%) and China (5%). Though 77% of immigrants are in the U.S. legally, about 25%, mostly Mexicans, are unauthorised. This was not so till 1968 when primarily Europeans and the British could enter the U.S.

Donald Trump’s grandfather was an immigrant from Germany and got in easily. Yet, he hid this ancestry for, in those days, Germans were looked down upon, much like the Mexicans are today. However, time and skin colour have erased that memory, and their descendants, like Donald Trump, have low tolerance for latter day Latin America migrants.

As the presence of migrants is combustible, all of them are clubbed together for the authorised ones are not bodily stamped. Fighting for the cause of migrants then becomes a huge altruistic effort for they cannot fight for themselves. It is home advantage for those who rally behind the “Make America Great Again” banner.

This is also the reason why Mr. Trump does not have a full cast of celebrities on stage with him. His cause needs no translation into everyday tongue. Any attempt to undermine the huge presence of unauthorised migrants will be met instantly with hostility and disbelief. Unsurprisingly, Ms. Harris tends to wander when confronted with this issue.

As abortion rights actively matter to fewer women today, Democrats are forced to frame this demand in terms of rights and that always needs explanation. As Ms. Harris readily cedes ground on this if religious leaders intervene, the moral ownership of that right is vastly weakened. When law and morality clash, morality usually wins.

That is why Ms. Harris is usually part of an elaborate ensemble in public with entertainers such as Bruce Springsteen, Usher, Lizzie, and now even Beyoncé. Barack Obama is also pushing for her onstage, and so has Michelle Obama. In the medley, one is likely to lose sight of the lead actor, Kamala Harris herself; she gets lost in the crowd.

In totality

The polls say it is an even fight but Ms. Harris’s camp is working much harder as a lot of their trek is uphill. Mr. Trump, in contrast, is on cruise control and travels light. He is the star of the show — an entertainer and political leader in one handy wrap. If he has somebody else on stage, that will be a side order. Nobody eclipses him when his show comes on.

In recent memory, the contrasting styles of the finalists has never been so stark. This is all because of the cause each one promotes. Ms. Harris’s case is loaded with itsy-bitsy, fading numbers that need a regimen of grey cells to arrange. Mr. Trump’s appeal has a gut feel that requires little explanation. He sets your heart thumping, so your brain can rest.

Somewhere along the line, by intuition or by luck, Mr. Trump has mastered the art of keeping it simple, even if it seems stupid. That is politics. 

(Dipankar Gupta taught for nearly three decades in the School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University)