It’s the Message, Not the Messenger

I just watched the United States elect Donald Trump back to its highest office, and I know that many share my disbelief: how could a people so historically grounded in the ideals of democracy and decency fall for a leader so brazenly at odds with those very values - TWICE!? How does a candidate who is openly immoral, and has been found guilty of crimes that should disqualify him from public office, command such unwavering loyalty?

The answer, I now realize, might lie less in the character of the candidate, and more in the message that he is delivering.

Donald Trump’s appeal, for all its contentiousness, boils down to his ability to speak directly to the disillusioned masses. He taps into frustrations over the economy, a sense of insecurity about immigration, and a yearning for traditional values. Whether he actually believes, much less will deliver on his promises - never mind his open record of dishonesty - is almost irrelevant to his supporters. It is his unapologetic framing of America’s challenges - delivered in a way that resonates with many who feel left behind or unheard - that has propelled him back to the White House.

Trump’s critics focused on the man himself: his personal indiscretions, his moral deficiencies. But for the majority, as verified by the election results, it was his message that spoke louder.

Contrast Trump with Vice President Kamala Harris, a candidate of proven decency, experience, and respect for democratic institutions. Harris positioned herself as a staunch defender of civil rights, democracy, and a government that serves marginalized communities. Yet her moral character and qualifications may have actually been undermined by her role in the current administration, as she found herself burdened with defending the Biden record on issues like inflation and border policies that have disappointed many Americans. Her efforts to frame the debate around the protection of democracy and civil rights, though noble, left some voters feeling disconnected from the more immediate, tangible issues that affect their daily lives. It was her inability to distance herself from Biden's policies and record (perceived by many to have been failures) - and not her values - that ultimately became the fatal liability.

This phenomenon isn’t exclusive to the United States. In recent years, we in the Philippines witnessed a similar trend. In 2016, we elected a mayor from Davao known for his brutal (and illegal) approach to crime, and then chose the son of a dictator as his successor in 2022.

Each time, viable, morally superior candidates who represented democratic ideals and decency were passed over in favor of figures who channeled something deeper: a raw reflection of the public’s anger, fear, and disenchantment with the status quo. In both cases, voters were not necessarily endorsing the Duterte's or BBM's values; they were voting for a vision of change, no matter how morally complex or even disturbing getting to that change might unfold.

This is the hard truth and lesson that democracies around the world must learn: a candidate’s character, qualifications, and even basic decency may matter less in today’s political landscape than his or her ability to tap into the public’s visceral needs and fears. And while it’s easy to see this as a failure of moral discernment, it is perhaps more instructive to view it as a lesson in political communication.

A candidate who understands and articulates the actual feelings and sentiments on the ground, and who isn’t afraid to channel the frustrations and anxieties of the people, holds a decisive advantage. Morality, essential for governance to be sure, is just an afterthought that can be brushed aside by people struggling to afford groceries, fearing for their jobs, feeling unsafe when walking down the street, or anxious that their way of life is slipping away.

This is not a call to abandon character as a criterion for leadership. It is however a reminder that character alone is not enough, nor decisive.

In both the U.S. and the Philippines, we have now seen what happens when morally superior candidates fail to connect with the electorate’s most immediate concerns. The electorate may well choose a deeply flawed leader if they decide that he or she “gets them” and is prepared to fight for the issues that they care about.

If we continue to focus simply on persons (whether by building up our candidate, or tearing down the other) rather than the message, we will be revealed as incapable of learning, and only destined to fail.

Politics today is as much about perception and resonance, as it is about policy. Democracy is not merely about offering the best candidate. It is about giving people the sense that their voices are being heard, and that their fears are going to be addressed.