Shared Interests

In the end, the resilience of Trump's support underscored the deeply personal and transactional nature of American democracy. For many voters, loyalty to a candidate or party isn't necessarily tied to a spotless ethical record; it's about trust that their needs and beliefs will be prioritized. This phenomenon speaks to a broader theme in Us politics - one where voters weigh practical impacts over personal scandals, forging a connection that transcends the usual norms of political accountability

Since the US presidential election that shook up the nation with Donald Trump's sweeping victory across all demographics and races, experts have addressed a range of issues that influenced the election results, including immigration, inflation, foreign policy, misinformation, and cultural issues.

An overlooked but a most fascinating and puzzling aspect of American politics was the willingness of voters to look beyond Trump's legal and ethical controversies. Why were these voters less swayed by allegations or on-going investigations, choosing instead to prioritize issues they felt were more directly relevant to their lives, communities, and values? American democracy, like other democratic systems around the world, is indeed a transactional political system. This social contract emphasizes the giveand-take nature of political processes, where various constituencies negotiate, compromise, and exchange support to achieve their goals.

Trump has historically appealed to a diverse coalition that includes working-class voters, rural communities, and business interests, often directly addressing their specific needs and concerns.

In a transactional sense, he built loyalty by promising policies that aligned with these groups' interests, such as deregulation for businesses, tax cuts, or immigration policies that resonated with particular demographics.

This transactional relationship has been a powerful tool for building a committed voter base by focusing on "what's in it for them." Many Trump supporters backed his policies, like tax cuts, deregulation, and vehemently strong stance on immigration, intuitively seeing these as beneficial for them, the economy, and national security.

They prioritized tangible outcomes, such as job creation and reduced taxes, over his legal and personal controversies.