America isn’t ready for a female president, some still insist. But let’s be honest. That perspective feels misplaced, especially when you look at how far women in the U.S. have come in leadership. Take Kamala Harris, a woman who rose from attorney general to senator to vice president, proving her capability in roles that few have ever occupied.
The reason Kamala didn’t cross the finish line in this election had nothing to do with gender; rather, it was an unintended consequence of her campaign strategy. Somewhere along the way, her team misread the landscape, choosing character attacks over pressing issues Americans were concerned about. Unfortunately, this decision shadowed the real crises Americans wanted her to address. Economic instability, immigration, security, and global tensions. These issues begged for a solution-focused approach, not a personality debate.
Meanwhile, the Trump campaign showcased a classic approach to PR. Simplicity and clarity. They honed in on America’s core concerns and distilled their message down to digestible bullet points. Trump’s team turned “the economy,” “border security,” and “energy independence” into mantras, issues on which Americans could hang their hats. Whether voters agreed with his solutions or not, they understood what he stood for.
Kamala’s campaign, on the other hand, fixated on Trump. Her message, time after time, looped back to why Trump was the problem. It was puzzling to see Democrats, seasoned in strategy, veer down a path that deflected from their own platform. As the election progressed, the refrain of “Donald Trump did this, Donald Trump did that” grew louder, often drowning out her policy proposals. In essence, Kamala became one of Trump’s most vocal promoters and campaigners, inadvertently amplifying his influence.
Voters had questions. On inflation, immigration, and rising tensions abroad, people sought real answers. Instead, Harris’s responses often redirected back to Trump’s flaws. Campaigns are battles of ideas, not slates of indictments. And in this instance, Harris’s message on the economy, security, and governance faded into the background, obscured by her focus on Trump’s character.
Her approach didn’t just cloud her plans; it was an assist to the opposition. The clearer Trump’s agenda appeared, the murkier Harris’s became. And for many undecided voters, the signal was lost. An age-old Yoruba saying comes to mind: “You can’t ignore the leprosy to focus on dandruff.” It speaks to misplaced priorities, to the idea that critical issues require singular focus, not distractions.
In the annals of U.S. history, Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump now share a rare title. The presidents who made remarkable comebacks. Cleveland, the only president to serve non-consecutive terms (22nd and 24th), and Trump, who now serves as the 45th and 47th president, are united by more than just their shared distinction of rebounding into the Oval Office.
Both were larger-than-life New Yorkers who campaigned as reformers, pledging to fix a broken system. Cleveland, the former mayor of Buffalo and governor of New York, had no federal experience before his presidency. Likewise, Trump, a real estate mogul, rode into Washington as an outsider, drawing voters with his anti-establishment stance.
Their similarities extend beyond politics. Both avoided military service, Trump citing bone spurs, Cleveland paying a substitute. Both faced public scandals that tested their resilience. Cleveland’s extramarital affair became the scandal of his era, just as Trump’s Access Hollywood tape ignited controversy. Their personal lives even mirror each other, with significant age gaps between them and their wives, Frances Folsom for Cleveland and Melania Trump for Donald.
Yet, beyond these similarities lies a powerful historical footnote. Trump’s grandfather, Friedrich, immigrated to America from Germany in 1885, the very year Grover Cleveland took office. It’s a curious overlap in America’s story of outsiders and underdogs who found their way into the heart of the nation.
With Trump back in office, many anticipate a shift in America’s approach to global crises. Trump’s rhetoric, often contentious, contrasted with a cautious stance on military intervention during his first term. Now, with international conflicts escalating, particularly in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, some hope his aversion to prolonged conflicts will foster de-escalation.
It’s no secret that Democrats, despite their progressive image, have historically initiated more wars than Republicans. Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Bill Clinton all led America into conflicts, while only two Republicans, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, declared war. Trump’s approach, while divisive at home, may well steer America toward restraint abroad, an unexpected prospect for those weary of war.
Kamala Harris’s campaign may have missed the mark, but the lessons from her bid are invaluable for future leaders. Americans want more than character judgments; they want solutions. For the Democratic Party, the takeaway is clear: authenticity and focus on issues resonate far more than attack ads and personality critiques.
America’s history is filled with comeback stories, and Trump and Cleveland stand evidence to that. Now, as America faces an uncertain world, perhaps it’s time for Washington to focus not on tearing down opponents but on building up real answers, answers as compelling as the country’s storied past and as vital as its future demands.
Shaakaa Stephanie
University of Agriculture,
Makurdi, Benue State
