ESPRESSO MORNINGS

By Joe Zaldarriaga

America has spoken.

Mr. Joe Zaldarriaga, fondly called “Manong Joe”, is a distinguished figure in the country’s corporate communications landscape. Holding the position of Vice President and Head of Corporate Communications at Manila Electric Company (Meralco), he has orchestrated unparalleled success for the utility company, winning accolades for their brand of service communications.
Under his guidance, Meralco achieved unprecedented milestones, clinching a historic 3-peat Company of the Year title at the IABC Philippine Quill Awards, scoring the only PR Team of the Year trophy bestowed at the Anvil Awards, and securing numerous honors at international and local communication awards.
Manong Joe’s leadership also extends as a respected member of the Board of Trustees for the Public Relations Society of the Philippines (PRSP), concurrent with his role as Chairman of the International Association of Business Communicators Philippines (IABC Philippines) where he also served as its President.
Manong Joe is a distinguished awardee of the medallion of honor and scroll of commendation from the University of Manila, owing to his years in public service as a communications professional. He shares his insights through columns in renowned publications, including The Philippine Star’s The Z Factor, and Philippine News Agency’s ESPRESSO MORNINGS.

What was expected to be a tight electoral college contest race was not even close. Even Alan Lichtman, who uses a 13-point system and successfully predicted all previous presidential contests except for the 2000 Bush-Gore tussle, missed the mark.

This decisive victory for populist and polarizing leader Donald Trump paves the way for his stunning return to the White House.

Trump’s win is a confirmation of the growing regionalization of American politics that incumbent Vice President and Democratic candidate Kamala Harris failed to address.

In a nutshell, Harris’ loss to Trump is not a case of poor policy expertise or experience but rather a case of disconnect from the ordinary American.

For all of her qualifications and accomplishments, Harris struggled to connect with voters on everyday concerns—gut-level issues that keep ordinary Americans awake at night such as employment, immigration, crime, housing, and inflation.

Throughout her campaign, Harris’ rhetoric largely focused on national and global issues such as climate change and social justice, that, while positioned the United States as the global leader, failed to speak to working class Americans whose primary concerns are livelihood and inflation.

I was in New York just a few months ago and during my visit, I was surprised at the skyrocketing prices and the prevalence of homelessness. The situation seems to have drastically changed since my last visit in 1997 and in my short time there, I got a sense of how ordinary Americans are feeling the pinch from current economic conditions.

Of course the issues raised by Harris are important but the problem is, these are not the primary concerns of Americans—majority of whom are beset with on-ground and everyday struggles to pay attention to emerging and prevailing global threats and trends.
This is where Trump succeeded—capitalizing on the immediate concerns of Americans and promising tangible relief if elected into power anew.

For all of his angry and polarizing rhetoric, Trump’s messaging resonated with many voters on a regional and personal level—presenting himself as a champion of American workers who “understands” their primary concerns such as personal safety, immigration woes, and economic security among others.

While his remarks are often controversial, and his proposals highly divisive, Trump succeeded at connecting with American voters, especially the working class, on a deeply personal level specifically in a way that makes them feel that their everyday struggles are and will always be the most crucial policy concern.

With Harris, however, the Democratic establishment appeared to be detached from the ordinary American. Her rhetoric on diversity, social progress, and even gender identities all seemed to be abstract concepts that while largely viewed to be well-meaning, were mostly interpreted as ideals instead of actionable policies.

Throughout her campaign, Harris’ messaging was too uniform from a national perspective—largely satisfying liberal-leaning Americans in urban areas but alienating social conservatives in rural communities.

This kind of rhetoric, while satisfying for those with advanced education, failed to take into consideration the unique regional concerns in the US.

Collectively, this made Harris appear to be out of touch with the struggles of the ordinary American in comparison with Trump who touted his hardline stance on immigration and crime, which were largely viewed by the majority of Americans as tangible solutions.

There’s no question that Harris has the political expertise and experience to go head-to-head against Trump in an election but instead of offering pragmatic solutions and matter-of-fact proposals, her message was largely drowned in idealistic rhetoric that lacked connection with the ordinary American.

In the end, Harris’ campaign seemed to be a campaign for the global citizen and not the ordinary American.

And like it or not, Trump succeeded at connecting with the American voter—making them feel seen, heard, and understood—enough to catapult him back to power.