Subscribe
The Defeat of Kamala Harris and the Return of Donald Trump
In recent years, Kamala Harris had been presented as the face of the progressive future of the United States. A woman, both African-American and Asian, she embodied the progressive dream of an inclusive and multicultural leadership. The perfect choice to defeat those “villainous” Republicans and usher in a “new world order.”
When Joe Biden chose her as his running mate, many commentators called it a groundbreaking step, a turning point in American history. Harris was not just a politician; she was a symbol, a banner for those who believed the United States could become the beacon of a new global order that unconditionally advanced woke ideology.
However, despite the praise and media enthusiasm, Kamala Harris’s political career has been riddled with controversies. During her tenure as California’s Attorney General, Harris faced accusations of upholding policies that perpetuated mass incarceration, particularly affecting minorities. Later, her tenure as Vice President was widely criticized for her inability to address key crises, such as the migration surge at the southern U.S. border. Her public appearances were often deemed unconvincing, with repeated gaffes and an attitude perceived as distant and inauthentic.
Harris’s rise to prominence was fueled by a combination of identity politics and media support, which painted her as the inevitable successor to Joe Biden. Many saw her as the candidate who would finally break the ultimate glass ceiling—becoming the first female president of the United States. But beneath the surface, cracks in her political foundation became evident. Polls showed a lack of enthusiasm even among core Democratic voters, with many questioning her leadership skills and ability to connect with ordinary Americans.
When the 2024 elections arrived, many expected Kamala Harris to capitalize on her visibility and aim for the presidency.
The progressive media portrayed her as the figure destined to defeat Donald Trump, who was preparing his comeback on the political stage. But the progressive narrative took a hard hit: Harris not only lost but did so decisively, underscoring the disconnect between the progressive elite and the rest of the country. What did the results reveal? Republicans secured the popular vote, the House, the Senate, and the presidency of the United States. Not to mention the disgraceful scenes we had to witness in the world’s greatest democracy. Could a Republican candidate endure assassination attempts? Could they be forced to speak behind bulletproof glass? Imagine if the reverse had happened—what the reaction would have been. Instead, that gunshot made noise only as it left the barrel, and then progressive media seemed to forget all about it.
Donald Trump, for his part, once again demonstrated his ability to resonate with America’s heartland. Speaking to the “gut” of the nation does not equate to populism, contrary to what many have said. It means delivering a clear message, grounded in concrete themes like the economy, security, and immigration control, which regained the trust of the American people. While progressives continued debating gender identity and “climate justice,” Trump focused on jobs, family, and national sovereignty. The result? A landslide victory that curtailed Kamala Harris’s political ambitions and restored conservative leadership to the White House.
Trump’s campaign also underscored a broader ideological shift in American politics. His ability to galvanize voters in traditionally Democratic strongholds highlighted a growing frustration with progressive policies perceived as detached from reality. By focusing on tangible issues—rising inflation, crime rates, and border security—Trump redefined the narrative, proving that the concerns of everyday Americans could not be ignored. This victory was not merely a personal triumph for Trump but a reaffirmation of conservative values as a cornerstone of American governance.
The Italy-Albania Migration Model: An Example for Europe
While the U.S. celebrated Donald Trump’s return, Europe was discussing another conservative model that captured international attention: the migration agreement between Italy and Albania. The Italian government, led by a center-right coalition with Brothers of Italy as the main party, struck a deal with Albania to manage migration flows more effectively. The agreement stipulates that irregular migrants landing in Italy are transferred to reception centers in Albania, where their asylum requests are processed. Only those granted refugee status may eventually enter the European Union. This is a clear strategy to deter illegal immigration. A policy not “on the backs of migrants,” as some have tried to frame it, but against human traffickers exploiting the desperation of those fleeing.
This model, reminiscent of the UK’s policy with Rwanda, was met with skepticism by some humanitarian organizations and parts of the Italian judiciary. The clash was stark. Opposition parties decried it as inhumane and contrary to international law principles. The judiciary, specifically the Italian legal system, attempted to block the initiative, arguing that Albania was not a “safe country” to handle asylum seekers. Albania, it should be noted, is a nation that has applied for European Union membership.
The agreement also reflects a pragmatic approach to a longstanding issue. Italy, often on the front lines of Europe’s migration crisis, sought to alleviate the burden on its resources while sending a strong message against illegal migration. By involving Albania, the Italian government demonstrated that regional partnerships could offer viable solutions to complex problems. The arrangement not only benefits Italy but also provides Albania with economic incentives and an opportunity to strengthen its ties with the EU.
However, just a few days ago, the Italian Supreme Court issued a ruling that overturned the situation. The Court determined that the decision on which countries are “safe” rests solely with the government, not the judiciary. This verdict represents a victory for the executive branch and an important step toward more efficient migration management. Additionally, it highlighted a crucial issue: in a democracy, decision-making power on foreign policy and national security matters cannot be subordinated to judicial activism.
The Italy-Albania model has already received praise from several European countries, which see this solution as a potential way out of the migration crisis plaguing the continent. While the European Union continues to deliberate on reforming the Dublin system, Italy has shown that a pragmatic and decisive approach is possible. The message is clear: national sovereignty must be respected, and migration policies must prioritize the safety and well-being of local communities. The Italian government’s determination to implement this policy despite significant opposition serves as a testament to its commitment to protecting its citizens and reclaiming control over its borders.
The only ones seemingly unaware of the failure of opposing such an initiative are the Italian left. Let’s be clear: no one is asking the Democratic Party to support the government. That would be absurd. But there is a difference between opposing and ignoring the reality that even most European governments (not led by conservative right-wing parties) have recognized the validity of this idea. Perhaps it’s time to recalibrate the balance toward reality.
Conclusion
Kamala Harris, the symbol of the progressive narrative, lost to a Donald Trump who understood the true concerns of Americans. Across the Atlantic, the Italy-Albania migration model marks a defeat for judicial activism and a victory for those who believe in national sovereignty and immigration control.
The lesson is clear: utopian ideologies detached from reality rarely find traction in a world demanding concrete solutions. Be it elections or migration policies, pragmatism and determination continue to triumph over those who delude themselves into thinking that symbols can replace substance. And above all, there is a stark difference between narrative and real life. Journalists, analysts, and correspondents spent months telling us how bad and evil the American Republicans and the Italian right were. What happened? Donald Trump won the U.S. presidential elections, and Giorgia Meloni, besides continuing to gain support after two years in government (a rarity in Italian politics), was crowned as the most influential political figure in Europe. After decades where the left seemed unassailable because of its grip on power centers, the right now faces the task of delivering the final push. Not to become a poor copy of the left in managing power but to envision a new world in a time of war and conflict and to restore the centrality the West deserves.