Post-shame politics and the 2024 US Elections – with Daniela Melo (Part2)
Why would Latinos vote for Trump in the US? Why do some Muslims support Le Pen in France? What role […]
Why would Latinos vote for Trump in the US? Why do some Muslims support Le Pen in France? What role […]
Why would Latinos vote for Trump in the US? Why do some Muslims support Le Pen in France? What role does identity play when it comes to backing populist forces? We continue the conversation with Daniela Melo, lecturer of social sciences at Boston University. This time we focus on how certain minorities vote, accounting, or against their own interests (and how we see that in Europe).
Play the episode on Spotify, on SoundCloud, or read the full transcript down below the show notes.
Show notes
This podcast is produced by the European Liberal Forum in collaboration with Movimento Liberal Social and Fundacja Liberté!, with the financial support of the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum are responsible for the content or for any use that be made of.
You can hear the previous episode on this conversation here, where we go into factors that can decide the US election of the 5th of November, and go into what can be described as a “post-trust, post-shame” politics.
Hello, I hope you’re doing very well. This is the second part of my conversation with Daniela Melo, lecturer of Social Sciences at Boston University, where we talk about topics that are related with Tuesday’s U.S. election. In this episode, we go into some social and political dynamics that show that some voters in certain minority groups still show the intent of voting for candidates who do not have their concerns at heart. Additionally, please stay tuned to hear a short editorial on the importance of this United States presidential election, but also, and particularly important, on the future relationship between the United States and the European Union. But now, with no further ado, I bring you Daniela Melo.
All right, Daniela, we’re back after our first part of the conversation. I asked you to come and talk to me mostly about two key constituents, voters in this election, but it can easily be transferred to Europe. For example, Poland was a fantastic example regarding abortion. But my question to you is about the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States when they reversed the federal protection for an abortion, that was the famous Roe v. Wade, and now they have a new standard called Dobbs v. Jackson in 2022. We already saw the effects of this decision on the midterm elections. How much do you think that this can be a message that more liberal-leaning left, leaning centre-left, or here in Europe centre-right parties can focus on, which is women’s rights, women’s reproductive rights? How do you think that will shape after this election?
Well, clearly what both campaigns are betting on is that the issue of abortion is going to matter quite a lot, not just at a national level, but in the midterms in the key states, the swing states. And why are they betting on this? I mean, part of it has to do with what happened two years ago in the midterm elections, in which the Democrats were expected to have terrible losses, to lose the House by a lot. And come election day, the red wave never happened. So what was the key lesson that both Democrats and Republicans took from 2022? That Roe v. Wade was a great motivator for voters on the left. We saw a surge in voters at a national level, and in the key states, we saw a surge of voters who were women under 50. We saw a surge in youth voting and first-time voters. So people who specifically went to register and vote in this election were driven by the topic of Roe v. Wade and abortion rights in the country. So obviously, it was so surprising, right? And it was something that the polls did not capture well in the midterm elections. And it’s something that the Democrats are fully aware can be a mobilizing issue for them in this election as well.
Not just the Democrats, but the Republicans, because we have also seen Donald Trump, especially over the past month, try to make his own pitch to women voters. He has tried to do it in a number of ways. He has focused on IVF, in vitro fertilization, but it’s a very clear pitch. He’s also been saying some of those iconic lines, “I am great for women, women love me.” He’s trying to separate himself from the Roe v Wade decision, and he always tries to frame it as if it’s something that all the American public wanted, for the states to basically be the ones who decide, not the federal government. So, there’s a very clear strategy and a very clear attempt of trying to retain women voters with the Trump campaign.
This signals that whether we will see the same type of motivation and enthusiasm around this issue that we saw two years ago, that’s still to be tested. But it certainly tells us that both campaigns believe it will. They believe this will be a game-changer in places like Pennsylvania, a key state for both campaigns. Will it be a big issue? It probably will. It may not. I mean, I am always ready to be surprised these days. There’s been so much shock and awe in American politics over the past two campaigns, but it certainly seems to point in that direction.
There’s also a very big generational gap about the issue of abortion, and both campaigns are also playing with that. I told you that the numbers from 2022 showed that it was primarily women under 50. So older women were still breaking for Trump more, despite the issue of Roe v. Wade. There’s definitely a generational gap. There’s a religious gap on the issue, which is tremendous in the United States. And there is a gender gap between women and men, less pronounced amongst the youth when it comes to the issue of abortion, and more pronounced amongst older Americans. The gender gap that is.
I’m again, making a connection to Europe. I’m very interested to see this pendulum shift that we see, which is there’s this constant barrage of attacks on reproductive freedom in the United States. And then you start seeing them in Europe. Poland is an example; in the Netherlands, there are people talking about this; in Portugal – you are Portuguese, you know about this – there is discussion now of maybe changing the law. So, my concern, my hope would be to have this exchange of experience between Europe and the United States, which is this worked in Poland, for example, and see those solutions in the United States and maybe translate them to Europe. Because as you were saying, some very deep red states in the United States that have abortion measures, for example, to change the Constitution, were overwhelmingly accepted by women. So even conservative women care about this. And my hope would be that in Europe we can also have this kind of momentum.
Yeah, I mean, your comment is well taken. And I think it’s important to remind whoever’s listening to us that this is not a clear-cut right versus left issue. In fact, the vast majority of Americans agree with some form of access to abortion. What we see is that there is a very clear consensus on the left. You find very few left-wing voters who are against abortion or some form of access to abortion. But it’s a very divisive issue on the right. And that also explains why Donald Trump is having such a hard time framing the issue for his own electorate because there’s a very large part of his electorate, in particular, the more religious one, the more evangelical-influenced one, that would like to see a complete ban on access to any form of abortion in the country. But then we have another big segment of the electorate on the right that may agree with Trump on immigration, on the economy, on a number of other issues, but not on abortion. They actually want to continue to see access to abortion. And then within the right, you also see, again, the generational gap between older versus younger. So it’s a religious gap, it’s a generational gap. It’s also a bit of an urban-rural gap. But all of those things are playing into a situation that is very difficult to manage for a candidate like Donald Trump because he’s not exactly a very nuanced person in the way that he addresses these issues. But he’s keenly aware that there is no position that wins him, that doesn’t lose him vote when it comes to abortion.
I think that the party of law and justice in Poland experienced that too. But I’ll go back to one thing that you said and it bears reinforcing, which is the evangelical vote in the United States has nothing to do with the Catholic vote in Europe. And that makes a big difference.
Exactly. All right, moving to another key constituency in the United States, I bring this up because also in Europe, we do have, and actually you mentioned in the previous podcast. You talked about all the migration fluxes to Europe. In the United States, one of the key voting blocs is of the Latinos. And Latinos are very conservative. Well, not very. Latinos are conservative mostly. Again, regarding, for example, religious values, social values, and then economic values, there’s a little more of a mix. But my question to you is, and this connects to something that we also have been discussing here in Europe, which is voting against your own interests. When a candidate says, I will deport 10 million of you, meaning you, you know, migrants, mostly Latino migrants, and violently, if I have to, but still he’s holding to somewhat around one third of the Hispanic vote. Help us understand this dynamic.
This is a great question because the issue of the Latino vote in the United States is complex. It starts with a misnomer of what it means to be Latino – that it implies that there’s a set of interests, experiences, backgrounds, maybe even religions that unite this massive block of people that Americans call Latinos or Hispanics, people from Spanish-speaking countries in South America. But it’s a term, it’s a catch-all term that does a disservice to our understanding of this really heterogeneous group of people. And that’s where we are seeing some of these gains. So when we talk about Latinos in the United States, we are really talking about various communities spread in different ways across the country, meaning they have concentrations in certain states by country of origin, and many of them have been here for three, four, five generations. Others have newly arrived. All of this makes a difference in how they perceive themselves in American politics and how they perceive these two candidates and these issues.
To give a specific example, Florida is an obvious place to start because Florida has a very well-established Cuban population, especially around the area of Miami and some of those districts that basically has swayed Republican consistently and has helped bring Florida solidly into, away from being a swing state, into being a Republican state over various cycles. Now, one might say, okay, why are Cubans voting for somebody who wants to kick out immigrants, right? Because Cubans see themselves as American in a place like Florida; they no longer identify as being immigrants themselves. Second, they have a history, an anti-left history. Most of that community, I mean, there was already a Cuban community in California before the Cuban Revolution. But most of that community really came as a result of being pushed out or running away from Castro once he came to power. So, they became very conservative, anti-left, anti-communist. Their entire ethos as a community is one of opposing the left and left-wing ideas. So, they tend to be politically conservative and have remained so, which has influenced Florida politics as a result.
Now, other communities have completely different experiences, like in California, where there are other Latino communities that lean more to the left. But for most of these communities, immigration is not the top issue they’re voting on. Many of these voters, if they can vote, means they are citizens. If they are citizens, that implies they are integrated, and they see themselves as having different interests from new arrivals. Now, I know your question implies whether there should be a certain level of empathy from these voters. It’s a fair question, but I don’t have an objective answer because, at the end of the day, these voters are voting on their own set of priorities. For example, there could be economic competition: an older immigrant community might feel that new arrivals are taking jobs or lowering wages by accepting lower pay, creating direct competition. In other cases, it’s a matter of integration. While they may be brown people from Venezuela or Chile, they’ve been here for generations, and that identity may not shape their vote as much as it once did.
Another critical factor is the growth of evangelicalism among Latinos. The evangelical movement in the U.S. became politicized in the 1970s following Roe v. Wade, with a deliberate effort to influence American politics with evangelical Christian values. This movement has also grown rapidly in Central and South America. If you visit countries like Guatemala or Honduras, you’ll find the same mega churches as in the U.S., many led by American pastors. Some Latinos convert before migrating, while others convert after arriving. A substantial portion of the Latino vote now aligns with evangelical principles and the worldview associated with that movement.
One reason I wanted to discuss this dynamic is that in Europe, there are similar examples. For instance, in France, some Muslims support Marine Le Pen’s party. Politico recently covered this phenomenon, showing that some people from the Maghreb and other areas in North Africa say that “politicians are all the same.” They feel neglected and left behind, which links to what we discussed in Part 1 of the podcast about people who feel unseen and politically marginalized. How do we break the cycle of explaining to Latinos in the U.S. that this version of the Republican Party isn’t working in their best interests, or similarly, that Marine Le Pen, André Ventura in Portugal, or Viktor Orbán in Hungary might not serve the needs of their communities?
Well, I wish I had all the solutions because I’d be selling them. But I think what motivates people to vote for someone like André Ventura isn’t as straightforward as believing in misogyny, racism, or opposition to wokeness. It’s more complex. For example, in Portugal, I was visiting the week of the election, and in my hometown, a very industrialized city in the north called Felgueiras, I noticed about 20% of the population voted for the far-right party Chega. Curious, I asked around at a local café, speaking with neighbours and friends to understand their motivation. These are good people, hardworking, good parents, good neighbours. I wanted to know why they voted for a far-right party. What I found was that Portugal had experienced a period of substantial improvement. Many people in their generation who had known real poverty saw their lives improve, so even if they remain in the working class, they can say things got better. However, all these people now have children, and their expectations for the next generation aren’t being met.
These people worked hard to send their kids to college, often the first in their families to earn a degree. But opportunities for the younger generation have not kept pace, and the economy has not expanded to accommodate highly educated young people. As a result, the children of these families can’t find jobs, buy homes, or start families of their own. For the parents, this is deeply frustrating – they sacrificed and improved their lives, only to see their children struggle in a stagnant economy. This has created a sense of disenfranchisement and distrust in the mainstream parties, leading people to support new, untested political figures who promise change, however vague those promises might be. There is a psychological process where people think, “Nothing else worked, so maybe this will.” They don’t have to agree with a candidate 100%, but the message resonates because they feel left behind by the mainstream options.
This is why figures like Trump, Ventura, or Farage can gain traction by saying, “I see you. I see your frustration, and I’ll try to address it.” This connection, this acknowledgment, can be incredibly powerful.
Daniela Melo, thank you for sharing your insights and for bringing in some lessons from Portugal as well. It’s always amazing to have you on the podcast. I’ll include links to your social media profiles in the show notes, and I hope we can continue these conversations. Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you for having me; it’s always a pleasure.
Now, as promised, a short editorial about the importance of the upcoming U.S. election on November 5th. It has been widely discussed that a second Trump administration could have significant implications for Europe and the European Union. Rather than reiterate these points, I want to share a thought: as a passionate defender of the European Union, I am equally an Atlanticist. I believe Europe can fulfill its role as a superpower within the global order while maintaining a strong alliance with the United States. But the idealistic vision of the United States, embodied in concepts like the “shining city on a hill” promoted by Ronald Reagan, the generosity of the Marshall Plan to rebuild post-war Europe, or William Fulbright’s vision of a world united by shared educational and cultural opportunities, is in jeopardy.
Europeans who care about the future of liberal democracies, and who look to the United States as a historical example of democratic values, must be prepared to support our liberal, democratic allies across the Atlantic if the worst should come to pass. I believe the U.S. can weather another Trump administration, but it may need our support to do so. Europe should work toward achieving strategic autonomy, yet, remain ready to assist our American friends who are committed to building a more perfect union. As the saying goes, let’s hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
Thank you, dear listeners, for tuning in to this editorial. We’ll be back soon with more conversations about liberal values and ideas, and how to make Europe, the European Union, and the world a better place. This is all for now. I’ll be back soon with more podcasts. You can always visit the website LiberalForum.eu to know more about the activities of the European Liberal Forum. So until the next episode, let’s keep making the world a better place.