At the time of writing this article, Donald Trump was leading with 267 electoral college votes versus 224 for Kamala Harris. Interestingly, while Trump had secured 51.1% of the popular vote, Harris garnered 47.4%. The narrow margin suggests that the race was far from one-sided, indicating that the support bases for both leaders were almost equally divided.
And yet, despite this close contest, it seems clear who will likely be the next president of the United States. I write this post not to dwell on the election outcome itself but to express my concern over how elections today have become deeply polarized—not just between opposing political ideologies, but more troublingly, between the supporters of these ideologies. This polarization is not limited to campaign rhetoric; it’s woven into the fabric of how we, as a society, engage with each other.
What I find particularly troubling is the way both leaders and their followers have adopted increasingly hostile, divisive language during campaigns. This creates a bitter "us versus them" mentality, where opposing viewpoints are no longer just seen as political differences but as personal attacks or threats. While this may help rally a political base, it often does more harm than good in the long run. For the nation as a whole, the outcome of an election may feel like a momentous event, but in the grand scheme of things, it often doesn’t matter as much as we’re led to believe.
The Reality of Governance Beyond the Election
In any democratic system, the outcome of an election is only one chapter in the story of a nation. While it is true that the winning party will influence policy and direction, the very nature of democracy means that changes in leadership do not halt the everyday functioning of society. Once the election is over and the campaigns subside, the country will continue moving forward, as it always has, producing goods and services for domestic use and international trade, generating revenue, and ensuring the day-to-day stability of the economy.
This brings me to a critical point: the fundamental activities of a country’s economy, diplomacy, and governance are often not as dramatically altered by a change in leadership as the election coverage might suggest. Yes, new leaders may introduce policy changes, shift diplomatic priorities, or adjust economic strategies. But the larger, structural forces—like trade, national security, and the functioning of democratic institutions—remain relatively stable, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office.
Trade with China and India: A Case for Stability
One area where this becomes particularly evident is in the realm of international trade. Take, for example, the United States’ trade relationships with China and India, two of the world’s most populous and economically significant nations. Despite the ideological differences and political posturing between different U.S. administrations, these trade relationships have endured across multiple administrations. Whether it was the trade war initiated under Donald Trump or the more cooperative stance under Joe Biden, the underlying economic forces driving these relationships remained largely unchanged.
U.S.-China Trade:
The U.S. and China share a complex, often contentious relationship, but both countries are deeply integrated into each other’s economies. China remains one of the largest trading partners for the U.S., and while trade disputes and tariffs have created short-term tensions, the reality is that both nations rely heavily on each other for trade, technology, and investment. The economic ties are simply too significant to be easily severed by political rhetoric or the outcome of any one election.
U.S.-India Trade:
Similarly, U.S.-India trade has grown exponentially over the past two decades. India is a rapidly expanding market with a growing middle class, and the U.S. has significant interests in its economic and strategic partnership with India. Both nations benefit from this relationship, whether through direct trade or collaboration on technological innovation, defence, and regional security. Like with China, U.S.-India relations have remained robust across administrations, despite political differences and shifts in leadership.
In both cases, the leaders of the U.S. may come and go, but the economic ties between these nations are too important to be drastically affected by any single election. The long-term, structural needs of both countries—to trade goods, secure markets, and maintain global economic influence—trump the momentary political discourse that surrounds an election cycle.
Election Outcomes: A Symbol, Not a Stopgap
This brings me back to the broader point. While elections matter, the day-to-day functioning of a nation often does not hinge on the winner of the election. Yes, leaders can shape policy, direct attention to pressing issues, and shift priorities. But in a democracy with a robust system of checks and balances, the institutional framework is designed to outlast any single administration or election outcome.
The economy doesn’t grind to a halt because a particular party wins. Goods continue to be produced, services are rendered, and global trade continues to flow. Many of the core functions of governance—such as managing national defence, sustaining economic growth, or fulfilling international trade commitments—often transcend partisan divides. This is why, while I may have my preferences in an election, I try not to get drawn into the binary thinking that the election results are the "end-all, be-all" of a nation’s future.
Conclusion: Seeing Beyond the Binary
In today’s polarized environment, it’s easy to get caught up in the "us vs. them" narrative that election campaigns thrive on. But it’s important to recognize that, beyond the emotions and rhetoric of the election cycle, there are long-term realities that persist regardless of who wins. Elections are important, but they do not define the full scope of a nation’s future.
The world moves forward, markets continue to grow, and governance carries on, regardless of political polarization. This is why I don't get drawn into election outcome binaries. At the end of the day, the outcome of an election doesn’t change the essential facts of governance or the necessity of cooperation on the global stage. For all the hype and noise, the work of a country—whether in producing goods, fostering international relations, or ensuring economic stability—continues long after the ballots are cast.
Share your thoughts.
Comments