Donald Trump’s impending return to the U.S. presidency promises potentially profound conservative reversals in domestic and foreign policy. However, the inexorable logic of history suggests a progressive trajectory in the long run.
By Chudi Okoye
In March 1933, after a meeting with Franklin D. Roosevelt, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.―a distinguished jurist and recently retired justice of the US Supreme Court, then 92―famously quipped that the newly inaugurated president was “a second-class intellect with a first-class temperament.” This observation pointed to the new president’s unique mix of charisma, resilience, and optimism, even if not of a cerebral bent—traits that had won over the American public at a particularly difficult time.
If I were to adapt Holmes’s observation and apply it to Donald Trump, I might say he possesses a second-rate intellect, with great cunning and a canny political instinct. It’s how he was able to win 51% of the popular vote and significant projected share of electoral votes (301) in the 5 November 2024 presidential election; and is now poised to return to power despite the upheavals of his first tenure and a post-presidency marked a myriad of legal issues, controversies, and divisiveness.
We must acknowledge, at the outset, that the Democrats faced electoral backlash for their policies in the Middle East, specifically for supporting Israel’s use of disproportionate force in its ongoing war with Hamas and other regional actors, and its perpetration of what the International Court of Justice and other bodies consider plausible genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Yet this was not an overriding factor, and the argument becomes somewhat complicated when considering the candidate who ultimately triumphed in the election.
So, why did Donald Trump win?
While opinions vary on this question, his re-election speaks to a complex mix of voter sentiment and societal undercurrents, similar to historical figures in the U.S. and U.K. who staged comebacks after losing power. In this piece, I will look―with studied objectivity―at the overlapping dynamics at play, and also explore the potential impact on both America and the world.
Donald Trump’s re-election is testament to his resilience and ability to connect with certain segments of the public, even through his many controversies. It also serves as a stark reminder that history often defies linear expectations, sometimes characterized by disconcerting reversals. History also teaches us, however, that even the most forceful leaders cannot permanently halt the natural cycles of change, nor bend history fully to their will. By examining the forces behind Trump’s comeback and drawing on historical cycles, based on Hegelian dialectics, we may begin to understand the tides that have led us to this moment, and where those tides might carry us in the years ahead.
Trump’s Resurgence and Historical Echoes
Donald Trump’s impending return to the presidency positions him among a unique class of political leaders who have achieved non-consecutive terms in the U.S. and beyond. In America’s 235-year presidential history, only Grover Cleveland previously accomplished this feat, serving as both the 22nd (1885-1889) and 24th (1893-1897) president. His comeback was fueled by public frustration with his successor, Benjamin Harrison, and inspired by Cleveland’s reputation as a steadfast reformer willing to confront corruption for public good.
In a similar―if opportunistic―fashion, Trump has portrayed himself as the champion of the ‘forgotten man,’ presenting a defiant stance against what is depicted as a liberal elite establishment. Although his first term record did not remotely match this image, his populist appeal has persisted, resonating with segments of the electorate seemingly disillusioned by mainstream politics and re-attracted to his brash and iconoclastic style.
In contrast to the United States’ two presidential comebacks, Britain’s parliamentary system has yielded at least 14 prime ministerial returns over the 303 years since the inceptual premiership of Robert Walpole beginning in 1721. Prominent figures such as Winston Churchill, who returned to power in 1951 after losing in 1945, exemplify this trend. Churchill’s return was a response to changing public priorities amidst concerns over perceived socialist excesses of the Labour government under Clement Attlee, as well as escalating Cold War tensions.
In America, Trump has similarly tapped into complex anxieties surrounding demographic shifts and supposed economic distress. By invoking the concept of a “real” America with his rallying cry to “Make America Great Again,” he has fostered a divisive rhetoric that inspires intense emotions within various population segments. This sentiment extends from nativist and xenophobic attitudes to the frustrations of working-class voters, culminating in hard-line stances on immigration and a focus on cultural particularism—trends similarly seen in contemporary nationalist eruptions in Europe.
Trump’s strategy reflects the broader appeal behind the political comebacks. Churchill and other prominent British comebacks—like Robert Peel, Viscount Palmerston, Benjamin Disraeli, William Gladstone and Harold Wilson—each resonated with their times, often either supporting British imperial ambitions or championing progressive reforms. These figures adapted to shifting political landscapes to achieve their returns, echoing Trump’s ability to capture and channel popular discontent.
Trump secured significant electoral support by harnessing a wave of grievance among voters alienated by conventional politics. According to exit polls, he won 57% of overall White vote—a demographic that comprised 71% of the electorate—with Whites without college degrees showing particularly strong support at 66%. Trump had overwhelming appeal among those prioritizing concerns about immigration (90%) and economic issues (80%), as well as individuals presumably facing financial hardships (74%). Dissatisfaction and anger were seemingly a factor, sentiments expressed by 73% of voters among whom Trump made significant inroads―he won 56% of those describing themselves as “dissatisfied” and 72% of those “angry” about America’s trajectory.
Religion played an undeniably pivotal role in Trump’s resurgence—a remarkable outcome given his history and ambiguous personal relationship with faith. He garnered 58% of the Catholic vote and 63% among Protestants and other Christian groups, collectively representing 64% of the electorate. While Harris dominated among other faiths and the religiously unaffiliated, these groups comprised only 36% of voters. Trump’s support was particularly striking among White Christians, securing 72% of White Protestants and other non-Catholic Christians, and an overwhelming 82% of White evangelicals. The influence of White Christian nationalism proved more statistically significant than other frequently cited factors: immigration (cited as the top concern by just 11% of voters), the economy (primary for 32%), or LGBTQ issues (with LGBTQ voters making up 8% of the electorate and breaking heavily for Harris at 86%). Indeed, non-LGBTQ voters, representing 92% of the electorate, split more modestly between Trump (53%) and Harris (45%). These patterns suggest that the contentious issues surrounding immigration, the economy, and sexual orientation may be, to some extent, proxies for deeper identity-based anxieties.
Abortion emerged as a significant wedge issue in the election, though only 14% of voters cited it as their paramount concern―ranking behind democracy and the economy, and marginally ahead of immigration. Yet its impact extended beyond those who prioritized it as their leading issue. The electorate displayed sharp polarization on reproductive rights: among the 65% who favored legal abortion in most or all cases, Harris commanded roughly 68% support. Trump, conversely, dominated among abortion opponents, capturing over 91% of the 32% who favored restricting or banning the procedure. These stark divisions point to the enduring power of abortion as a proxy for broader cultural and moral worldviews in American politics.
Race and racial tensions are also among the most persistent fissures in American politics, yet an in-depth examination reveals a complex interplay with other electoral fault lines. Trump’s critics often claim that his politics stems from a racially charged agenda—a claim that finds some validation in his inflammatory rhetoric and behavior that borders on racial provocation. However, such interpretations risk obscuring the intricate tapestry of voter sentiment and the broader spectrum of grievances at play, necessitating a careful and layered analysis of election results. The electoral data presents a nuanced picture: Harris commanded overwhelming support among African Americans (91% of women, 77% of men), yet this constituency made up just 11% of voters. Trump’s more modest advantage among White voters (60% men, 53% women, 57% overall) derived its electoral potency from their demographic dominance, constituting 71% of the electorate, as earlier indicated. Latino voters, at 12% of the electorate, displayed a notable gender divide, with women favoring Harris (60%) and men breaking for Trump (55%).
To disentangle these voting patterns, it is critical to distinguish between ‘racist’ actions, marked by beliefs in racial hierarchy, and ‘racially motivated’ behavior, which reflects concerns rooted in race without necessarily espousing racial supremacy. African American electoral solidarity, for instance, might be interpreted as collective action toward addressing historical inequities, paralleling patterns observed among marginalized groups globally. Conversely, segments of White voters exhibit pronounced anxiety over demographic shifts, perceiving social progress as a zero-sum equation that threatens their established status and identity.
This defensive posture finds particular expression in the increasing mainstream resonance of the so-called ‘White replacement theory’—a framework peddled in right-wing media and even evangelical circles that interprets demographic and political changes through the lens of displacement anxiety. Trump’s ability to amplify and harness these sentiments, though ethically unsavory, proved electorally potent.
In contemplating Trump’s return to power, it becomes clear that a singular focus on race or any single issue fails to grasp the complex mosaic of voter sentiment. The underlying discontent, fed by fears of displacement, economic hardship, and cultural shifts, has shaped a charged landscape. To understand this resurgence, one must look beyond singular narratives and appreciate the broader currents driving America’s evolving political tides.
Implications and Final Thoughts
Donald Trump’s return to power portends significant shifts in American governance through ambitious bureaucratic reforms, some of which are detailed in the so-called Project 2025 produced by his political allies. Domestically, his re-emergent presidency promises continued polarization on race relations, along with stricter immigration policies, while potentially reshaping American law with lasting consequences through conservative judiciary appointments. Internationally, Trump’s second presidency may fundamentally alter America’s global posture: questioning NATO commitments; potentially shifting America’s stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict; intensifying Middle East tensions through more ardent support for Israel and a harder line towards Iran; and favoring transactional relationships over democratic ideals in foreign policy, potentially enabling authoritarian regimes in fragile democracies like those in Africa. These changes could redefine both domestic institutions and America’s global leadership role.
In pondering the potential fallouts from Trump’s return, it may fill the progressive-minded with a sense of foreboding and disillusionment about the direction of history. Yet, as the great German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, argued, history moves by its own logic toward a teleological end, even if sometimes in reversible cycles. Hegel proposed what he called the “Cunning of Reason,” by which he meant that history ultimately fulfills its designs―evolving in unexpected and circuitous ways but all the same toward a rational end. Sometimes, this process involves setbacks and regressions, creating the illusion of stalled progress. However, history marches forward regardless, and the forces that appear to reverse it often fuel a dialectical progression. Retrogressive forces hoping to freeze the frame of history always lose out in the end, whatever their momentary tactical gain
We learned long ago from the Standard Model of particle physics that the most basic elements of matter, quarks, are quirky and unstable, though gluons make an attempt to hold them together—a fitting metaphor for society, where conflicting ideologies and values are bound together in an uneasy balance. We also learn from cosmology that we inhabit an ever-expanding universe, and from biology that we ourselves, as humans, are products of an ineluctable process of evolution, similar to everything else in nature. Even the very gods we profess to worship, themselves―though we little understand them―evolve in our very own imagination.
Nothing remains the same. Morning starts at the darkest hour of night, this sometimes being the hour of mourning. It is there in my hometown Awka―nay, Igbo―concept of light, embodied in the saying: “chi ejili abani fo.” Morning emerges from the bosom of night. That is the persistent logic of world history.
In times of turmoil, it is easy to feel that progress is an illusion, but history has shown that seemingly dark moments often precede transformative change. As Bob Marley sang in Redemption Song, “[nothing] can stop the time.” Even as we grapple with Trump’s return, we can be assured that the trajectory of history is broader and deeper than any single presidency, and that it moves by an inexorable forward logic.
While Trump’s impending second presidency may feel like a step backward to some, history’s arc is long, and, as Hegel and countless others have noted, it bends—sometimes in surprising, even cunning ways—toward justice and transformation.
