Assessing the Lame Duck Prospects of President Bongbong Marcos

In democratic systems, a lame duck is typically a political leader who, while still holding office, has lost the authority, public support, or legislative backing necessary for effective governance. 

This status is often associated with the final months of an incumbent's term, particularly following an election loss. However, it can also result from a significant decline in political capital caused by unpopular decisions, broken coalitions, or electoral defeats. 

In the Philippine context, President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. could face such a predicament if certain developments arise in 2025. These are:  if his controversial decision to surrender former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC) causes further popular resentment, and this anger  translates to the defeat of the candidates he has endorsed in the May 12, 2025 midterm elections.

In other words, Marcos Jr. faces a significant risk of becoming a political lame duck during the final three years of his presidency, weakened by diminished influence and limited legislative support. This would leave him increasingly unable to advance key policies or implement meaningful reforms, further undermining his administration’s effectiveness and legacy.

The Duterte imbroglio is essential in this situation. Despite the end of his term some 33 months ago (at the time of this writing), Duterte's popularity has endured, especially in Mindanao and among conservative Filipinos. 

Suffice it to say that Duterte is still a powerful presence in national politics. Millions of Filipinos, especially OFWs, view him as a champion of law and order.

True enough, after Marcos Jr. cooperated with the ICC and handed Duterte over to face charges related to his "War on Drugs," the political fallout was severe. 

Marcos has not only faced backlash from Duterte loyalists but has also been accused of capitulating to Western institutions—an accusation that has historically carried dire political consequences in the Philippines.

Marcos Jr.'s decision has irreparably split the UniTeam coalition. With Duterte loyalists mobilizing against Marcos Jr. and with Rodrigo Duterte's daughter, Vice-President Sara Duterte emerging as the new opposition leader, Marcos Jr. has found himself increasingly isolated.

Midterm elections in the Philippines usually serve as a referendum on the incumbent president. A strong showing by administration-backed candidates indicates healthy public support. Conversely, a poor performance indicates weakening political strength and lends itself to a hostile legislature. 

If Marcos's senatorial slate, grandiosely named "Alyansa para sa Bagong Pilipinas" falls short in the 2025 elections, it would reflect a decline in public confidence. It would also be an ominous handicap on his legislative agenda. A Senate dominated by opposition figures could block bills, delay appointments, and launch investigations.

In this scenario, Marcos Jr., who has yet to demonstrate legacy-defining leadership two years and eight months into his term (at the time of this writing), may find governance more reactive than proactive. He might have no choice but to shift from executive-driven policymaking to a presidency where political survival becomes the top priority.

The term "lame duck" may originate from Western systems, but its dynamics are not new in Philippine political history. Presidents such as Fidel V. Ramos and Benigno C. Aquino III both experienced declining influence in their final years due to unstable allegiances and political problems. Marcos Jr.'s case might be unique due to how quickly this decline might unfold—barely three years into his term.

Furthermore, Philippine politics is deeply clientelistic. Loyalty from legislators and local officials pivots on access to resources. If these trapos perceive a president as weak, the Philippine political elite frequently shift their loyalties. This parasitic political class is pragmatic—loyal when a president serves them, disloyal when a president does not.

The consequences would be troublesome if Marcos becomes a lame-duck president by mid-2025. First, weakened executive leadership could result in political instability. Second, critical political reforms—including the shift to federalism, electoral system improvements, anti-corruption measures, judicial reforms, and legislation against political dynasties—would likely stall, perpetuating existing structural problems.

Finally, both domestic and international actors could exploit the resulting leadership vacuum. Internationally, China might become increasingly assertive in its territorial claims over the West Philippine Sea, sensing a weakened Philippine leadership. Domestically, powerful local political dynasties could capitalize on the situation by further consolidating their autonomy and expanding their influence, potentially undermining national governance.

While Marcos will remain in office until 2028, his capacity to govern may not last as long. The surrender of Duterte to the ICC and a midterm election debacle could rapidly erode his power. Under these circumstances, Marcos would typify a modern political lame duck—still in office but without effective control.

References

International Criminal Court. (n.d.). Philippines and the ICC. Retrieved from https://www.icc-cpi.int/

Rappler. (2023, July 24). Duterte remains most trusted national figure – Pulse Asia. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/

The Philippine Star. (2025). Marcos allies face tough battle in 2025 midterm polls. Retrieved from https://www.philstar.com/

ABS-CBN News. (2024). Sara Duterte signals independence from Marcos camp. Retrieved from https://news.abs-cbn.com/

An Implicit Caste System? Unveiling the Philippines' Hierarchical Social Structure

The Philippines, despite its democratic and capitalist appearances, maintains an implicit, undeclared caste system. This system, while not formally recognized as in India, exhibits notable similarities, particularly in terms of social mobility and inherited social status. Historical influences, socio-economic disparities, and racial heritage all contribute to this persistent, regressive, yet often unacknowledged social stratification.

Historically, Philippine society was significantly shaped by pre-colonial caste structures and Indian cultural influences. Maritime trade networks connected the archipelago with Indianized kingdoms such as Srivijaya and Majapahit, spreading Hindu and Buddhist cultural elements that subtly influenced its social undercurrents. Although not adopting the explicit rigidity of India's caste system—characterized by hereditary roles strictly limiting social mobility—the Philippines retains an underlying structure that copies the latter.

These pre-colonial structures became more entrenched during Spanish colonial rule. The Spaniards imposed hierarchical classifications similar to a caste system. Distinct socio-economic roles emerged for Peninsulares (Spaniards born in Spain), Insulares or Creoles (Spaniards born in the colonies), Mestizos de Español (Spanish-Filipino individuals), and Mestizos de Sangley (Filipino-Chinese individuals). 

These categories shaped privileges, opportunities, and life trajectories, significantly shaping social forces and reinforcing long-term inequalities by privileging mestizos over native Austronesians (Indios) or indigenous groups (Negritos) (Corpuz, 1997).

The legacy of these historical stratifications is visible in contemporary Philippine society, particularly among the wealthy elite class. Influential families, such as Zóbel de Ayala, control key economic sectors like finance, real estate, and telecommunications, significantly reinforcing the socio-economic gap. Their concentrated resources perpetuate the implicit caste system by limiting social and economic opportunities for those outside their elite circles (Zóbel de Ayala Family, n.d.).

Economic disparities sharply delineate this elite from the impoverished majority. Poor Filipinos, both rural and urban, remain trapped in cycles of poverty similar to India's Dalit class—the "untouchables".  They face systemic barriers to education, nutrition, and career advancement (Asian Development Bank, 2009).

The similarity of the Philippine poor to the Indian poor extends to the Tagalog language. The Tagalog word "dalita", which means abject poverty, most probably is inspired by the ancient name of India's Dalit class.

Education particularly demonstrates this stratification; those from affluent backgrounds and who are well-educated secure prestigious occupations, while poorer individuals with inferior or little education typically remain confined to low-paying jobs (David & Albert 2015)

Despite entrenched disparities, the Filipino middle class has notably expanded from 28.5% in 1991 to nearly 40% in 2021, indicating increased economic opportunities and potential mobility (Albert, 2024). 

Nevertheless, this emerging middle class remains vulnerable to economic shocks, highlighting the need for sustained economic policies and robust social protections. 

The growth of the Filipino middle class underscores both the resilience and fragility within the implicit caste system, reflecting potential pathways toward greater equity, social integration, and sustained economic stability

Additionally, caste-like distinctions persist between Filipinos of mestizo heritage and those of purely indigenous descent. 

Historically advantaged by better connections and greater opportunities, mestizos continue to benefit from subtle social biases, which influence contemporary social interactions and perceptions (Rodriguez, 2010).

The Chinese Filipino community further complicates this caste landscape. Characterized by economic prominence yet occasional socio-political marginalization, their ambiguous status arises from historical, economic, and geopolitical complexities (Minority Rights Group International, 2021; Frontiers, 2022). 

This ambiguous position stems significantly from historical contexts dating back to the Spanish colonial period. Initially engaged in trade and commerce due to colonial restrictions that barred them from owning land, Chinese Filipinos gradually established influential economic niches, particularly in retail, banking, and manufacturing sectors. 

Over generations, their wealth accumulation led to perceptions of economic dominance, fostering resentment among segments of the Filipino majority and causing periodic tensions. (Chua, R. T. 2021)

Furthermore, geopolitical factors, particularly relations between China and the Philippines, frequently exacerbate their socio-political marginalization. Escalations in territorial disputes in the South China Sea or controversies involving Chinese investment in the Philippines often provoke suspicion or nationalist backlash against Chinese Filipinos. 

Consequently, despite their economic prominence, they periodically experience societal alienation and political scrutiny, highlighting the complex interplay between ethnicity, nationalism, and economics in contemporary Philippine society. (Hau, C. S. 2014)

Similarly, Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), widely celebrated for their economic contributions through remittances, occupy a socially ambiguous space—economically critical yet frequently marginalized socially—highlighting nuanced challenges related to identity, social integration, and equitable recognition within the implicit caste structure (Parreñas, 2001)

In conclusion, the Philippines exhibits a subtle yet complex, implicit caste system deeply rooted in historical, economic, racial, and emerging social dynamics. Recognizing and addressing these underlying divisions is essential for genuinely fostering social mobility, equality, and societal cohesion. 

Policymakers and civil society must prioritize wide-ranging development, equitable access to quality education, and transparent governance to dismantle entrenched social barriers. 

Only through sustained collective effort aimed at comprehensive reform can the Philippines hope to move beyond its implicit caste structures towards a more genuinely equitable and inclusive society.

References

Albert, J. R. G. (2024). The Middle Class in the Philippines: Growing but Vulnerable. ISEAS Perspective.

Asian Development Bank. (2009). Poverty in the Philippines: Causes, Constraints, and Opportunities. Asian Development Bank.

Chua, R. T. (2021). Chinese and Chinese Mestizos of Manila: Family, Identity, and Culture, 1860s-1930s. Brill.

Corpuz, O. D. (1997). An Economic History of the Philippines. University of the Philippines Press.

David, C. C., & Albert, J. R. G. (2015). Recent Trends in Education in the Philippines. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

Frontiers. (2022). Chinese Filipinos: Perceptions and Contributions. Frontiers in Political Science.

Hau, C. S. (2014). The Chinese Question: Ethnicity, Nation, and Region in and Beyond the Philippines. NUS Press.

Jocano, F. L. (2001). Filipino prehistory: Rediscovering precolonial heritage. Punlad Research House.

Minority Rights Group International. (2021). Chinese – Philippines. Minority Rights Group.

Parreñas, R. S. (2001). Servants of globalization: Women, Migration, and Domestic work. Stanford University Press.

Rodriguez, R. M. (2010). Migrants for export: How the Philippine State Brokers Labor to the World. University of Minnesota Press.

Zóbel de Ayala family. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved March 25, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z%C3%B3bel_de_Ayala_family

How Rodrigo Duterte Helped Bongbong Marcos Become President

When he was president, Rodrigo Duterte's populist posturing resonated strongly among voters tired of traditional politics. He then positioned himself as the decisive alternative.  His administration was characterized by controversial yet popular moves, allowing him considerable freedom to reshape the country's political dynamics.

Duterte won the Philippine presidency in 2016 by running as a tough-talking populist, vowing to crush crime and illegal drugs. Once in office, he launched a brutal nationwide “war on drugs” that led to thousands of deaths, mostly of poor suspected drug users and not so poor drug pushers. 

Despite international condemnation, Duterte remained enormously popular domestically, reshaping alliances and marginalizing the traditional opposition. 

Bongbong Marcos, who narrowly lost the vice-presidential race to Leni Robredo, contested the results, alleging fraud without conclusive evidence. 

However, Marcos' remained in the public eye, and this enabled him to position himself strategically for future political leverage.

Marcos Jr.'s claims resonated with his supporters, further polarizing public opinion. As mentioned, his consistent presence in the media allowed him to maintain political relevance despite his electoral loss.

On November 18, 2016, Duterte authorized the burial of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, sparking widespread protests due to Marcos Sr.'s human rights abuses and corruption during his dictatorship. This decision symbolically rehabilitated the Marcos legacy, paving the way for the Marcos family's return to higher political prominence.

It must be noted that by 2016, the Marcos family had already established a firm political foothold in the country after being allowed to return in November 1991 by President Corazon Aquino. 

Imelda Marcos had been a congressional representative, Imee Marcos had served as governor of Ilocos Norte, and Bongbong Marcos had completed a term as senator after previously serving as Ilocos Norte governor. These positioned the family for broader political objectives.

The burial was conducted rather privately and discreetly, but it still sparked widespread public protest due to Marcos's controversial legacy as a former dictator associated with human rights abuses and corruption.

Critics argued that the burial diminished the memory of those who suffered under martial law. Supporters, however, viewed it as a necessary step towards national reconciliation. 

Politically, it was the inflection point for the Marcos restoration process as it completed the rehabilitation of the Marcos family brand. 

Social media played a crucial role, amplifying narratives favorable to the Marcoses. The Marcos family leveraged this environment to gain even more public sympathy.

The alliance between Duterte and the Marcoses was strengthened with reciprocal support. 

Duterte’s demonization of opposition figures and disrespect for democratic norms facilitated some historical reassessment that portrayed Marcos Sr.’s dictatorship positively, adding to the Marcos family's political rehabilitation and resurgence.

Imee Marcos’s Senate victory in 2019 marked the family's highest political achievement since their return from exile. This victory signified a clear shift in public acceptance and tolerance towards the Marcoses.

Duterte's overwhelming success in the 2019 midterm elections weakened the opposition, allowing pro-administration and Marcos-aligned figures such as Imee Marcos to enter the Senate. This political landscape provided the Marcoses with substantial institutional leverage.

The complete defeat of 'Otso Diretso' highlighted the electorate’s disenchantment with the Liberal Party (LP) led opposition. This outcome underscored the effectiveness of Duterte’s political strategy. 

The opposition was effectively marginalized, as "Otso Diretso" candidates all failed to win Senate seats.

In 2022, Bongbong Marcos and Sara Duterte-Carpio formed a powerful alliance, running as president and vice president. 

Their campaign effectively utilized Duterte’s popularity, leveraging social media to reshape perceptions of the Marcos regime, culminating in broad electoral appeal. 

Their joint campaign significantly benefitted from the existing Duterte political infrastructure. This partnership effectively unified the supporters of both political dynasties, consolidating their power bases.

The massive scale of their victory indicated strong voter endorsement of Duterte-era policies and style. It also demonstrated the profound impact of coordinated messaging and digital propaganda on electoral outcomes.

Marcos Jr. won the presidency in 2022 by an unprecedented margin (31.6 million votes or 58.77%), signaling the culmination of Duterte’s political realignment efforts. 

Sara Duterte-Carpio also won decisively (32.2 million votes or 61.53%), ensuring the continuity of Duterte’s influence and validating the strategic alliance between the two dynasties.

Marcos Jr.’s presidency represents a dramatic turnaround for a family previously associated with authoritarianism and corruption. This resurgence reflects both Duterte's legacy and a broader global trend toward populist leadership.

Duterte’s presidency profoundly reshaped Philippine politics, facilitating the resurgence of the Marcos dynasty. Through strategic alliance-building, overpowering of the opposition, and shrewd handling of public discourse, Duterte set the conditions that enabled Bongbong Marcos Jr.’s successful return to power, redefining the prevailing political narrative.

Betrayal in The Hague: Marcos Jr.’s ICC Gamble and Its Dire Repercussions

President Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos Jr.’s decision to bring former President Rodrigo Duterte before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague for alleged crimes against humanity related to his anti-drug campaign has sparked deep outrage and division within the Philippines. This move, rather than serving the cause of justice, undermines the sovereignty of the nation and discredits its judicial system. More importantly, it demonstrates an egregious lack of gratitude and moral responsibility from Marcos Jr., considering Duterte’s pivotal role in the Marcos family's political resurgence.

The Case for the Philippine Justice System

Rodrigo Duterte’s anti-drug campaign was a cornerstone of his administration, and any allegations of human rights abuses should have been addressed by the Philippine courts, not an international tribunal. The nation possesses a functioning and robust judiciary—flawed as it may be, yet fully capable of conducting legal proceedings. By bypassing the Philippine justice system, President Marcos Jr. has essentially declared it untrustworthy, an affront to the courts, justices, judges, lawyers, and legal professionals who work tirelessly within its framework.

The Philippines is not a failed state. Unlike nations in Sub-Saharan Africa, where the ICC frequently intervenes due to judicial collapse, the Philippine courts remain active and operational. The decision to extradite Duterte sends an insulting message—that the country’s legal institutions are inadequate to handle its own affairs, a notion deeply offensive to the legal community and the broader Filipino public.

Marcos Jr.’s Lack of Gratitude and Political Betrayal

Beyond the judicial implications, this move exposes President Marcos Jr.’s moral bankruptcy. It was Duterte who enabled the Marcos family’s return to political prominence. A defining moment in this process was Duterte’s approval of the reburial of former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, a move that contributed significantly to the restoration of the Marcos name. To now discard Duterte—an elderly statesman in frail health—by allowing his extradition is nothing short of political betrayal.

Filipino culture places immense value on utang na loob, or debt of gratitude. By disregarding this principle, Marcos Jr. risks alienating not only Duterte’s supporters but also a broader spectrum of Filipinos who see this as an act of disloyalty. The message is clear: political alliances are disposable, and history means nothing.

The Repercussions: A Nation in Disarray

This move has far-reaching consequences beyond Duterte himself. Millions of Filipinos supported his administration because they felt safer under his leadership. The aggressive crackdown on the drug trade reduced crime, providing peace of mind to ordinary citizens and especially, to millions of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) who enjoyed peace of mind, reassured that their families at home enjoyed a more secure environment. 

Duterte’s presidency was not without controversy, but many viewed his campaign as a necessary action against a pressing societal issue.

Now, with Marcos Jr.’s decision, the country is teetering on the edge of Durkheim’s concept of anomie—a state of normlessness and social instability. The outrage, disillusionment, and sense of betrayal felt by Duterte’s millions of supporters could lead to political and social turmoil reminiscent of the pre-EDSA Revolution era. If left unchecked, this unrest could weaken the government’s legitimacy and destabilize the nation.

A Sovereign Nation, or a Puppet of a Largely Ignored Organization?

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this situation is the manner in which Duterte was sent to the Netherlands. Who furnished the Lear private jet that transported him? Was it arranged by the Philippine government, or was this an operation dictated by foreign influences? The idea that the Philippine National Police (PNP) was mobilized to serve an arrest warrant issued by a foreign court is repugnant to the territorial and inward-looking nature of Filipinos. It suggests that the nation is no longer in control of its own destiny, a humiliation that many Filipinos refuse to accept.

Conclusion

President Marcos Jr.’s decision to send Duterte to the ICC has the makings of  a catastrophic misstep that insults the Philippine justice system, disregards the values of gratitude and loyalty, and risks plunging the country into social instability. It degrades Duterte, a leader who remains beloved by millions, to the status of African dictators who rule over failed states, a category the ICC has traditionally associated with. This is a comparison that is both inaccurate and offensive. Marcos Jr.'s move undermines national sovereignty, disrespects legal institutions, and reeks of political betrayal. 

If history has taught Filipinos anything, it is that political treachery does not go unpunished. Marcos Jr. may soon learn this from the results of the coming May 12 elections, or, like his father, he might learn it the hard way.

Fractured Alliances: The Marcos-Duterte Rift and Its Impact on Philippine Governance, Policy, and the 2025 Elections

The 2025 midterm elections come in the wake of a momentous parting of ways between two influential Philippine political families. Following President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s big win in the 2022 elections, Vice-president Sara Duterte was considered by reputable polling to be a cinch to be the next president. She had graciously given way to Marcos Jr. in the run-up to the 2022 elections, forming the now-historic coalition aptly called "UniTeam".

However, the alliance soured because of differences in beliefs, the Marcos administration's about-face regarding Rodrigo Duterte's friendly approach to China, congressional probes into his violent drug program, and various scams involving his close allies. 

The Marcos-Duterte tandem in the 2022 elections was a significant event in the country's political history. UniTeam joined two influential political families, the recently resurrected Marcos political clan of Ilocos Norte, and the Duterte ruling family from Davao City.  Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. was running for president, and Sara Duterte, the daughter of the outgoing President Rodrigo Duterte, was his vice-presidential candidate.

Huge UniTeam Victory

Their shared campaign tactics and mutual support helped them achieve a huge victory, with Marcos Jr. obtaining 31,629,783 votes, accounting for 58.77% of the total votes cast, while Sara Duterte securing 32,208,417 votes, accounting for 61.53% of the total votes cast. At first, the partnership showed a strong bond between the two leaders, with Marcos Jr. asking for unity, and Duterte accommodating him.

However, there were strong undercurrents of conflict developing underneath the team-up. Marcos Jr. aspired for a "unifying leadership," which, to many, was a way to reinforce his control of the executive branch. Notably, his first cabinet members included a hodgepodge of leaders from the Marcos Sr., Arroyo, and Duterte governments. Needless to say, dissimilar policy goals, leadership styles, experiences, and age led to stresses in the UniTeam partnership.

Over time, tension started to show. Public disagreements and political actions by Marcos and Duterte increasingly showed incongruence and made the relationship go from bad to worse. Soon, incessant reports of power maneuverings and efforts to undercut Marcos Jr.'s authority began to abound. Making matters worse was Marcos Jr.'s policy of departing from Rodrigo Duterte's friendly relationship with China and his tacit support of legislative probes into the latter's "War on Drugs".

The May 2025 election will show how popular Marcos is and will be an opportunity for him to strengthen his power and prepare someone to take over. The powerful Duterte family, who had a messy split with Marcos, is trying hard to prevent this from happening.

The May 2025 election will  also be a litmus test on Marcos' popularity and his vote-generating capacity.  is. It is also a chance to improve his position in power and even his vantage point in choosing a successor.  The powerful Duterte family, who had a difficult breakup with Marcos, is doing everything they can to prevent this from happening.

How the Marcos-Duterte Feud Shapes the 2025 Elections

The political struggle between the Marcos and Duterte families reveals a significant change in Philippine politics. During the 2022 elections, the "Uniteam," an alliance forged by the two strong political families, swept the competition. However, this partnership unraveled in late 2023, exposing fundamental conflicts that blew into open hostility by 2024.

The public bickering began with Vice President Sara Duterte's resignation as education secretary in June. After this, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee began probing Duterte regarding alleged misuse of confidential funds allocated to her office under the Department of Education 

This probe gave way to increased tensions, and by October Duterte was openly criticizing President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s leadership. The language she used, which included acerbic threats to exhume the late Ferdinand Marcos Sr.'s remains and implied violence against the incumbent president, escalated matters sharply. 

The Marcos Family Reacts

This quarrel elicited comments from key members of the Marcos family, underlining the clash's larger political complications. Ilocos Norte Governor Matthew Marcos Manotoc, who is the president's nephew, expressed disbelief at Duterte's remarks, mentioning her long-standing relationship with his mother, Senator Imee Marcos, as the reason for his doubts. 

The governor would rather emphasize the human aspect of the struggle, as long-standing connections and friendships appeared to be sacrificed in the thick of the fight. For his part, President Marcos' son, Congressman Ferdinand Alexander "Sandro" Marcos, expressed disapproval of Duterte's comments, saying she “crossed the line” and that her behavior was a “bizarre temper tantrum” towards the dead.

Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, the president's first cousin, used his position in Congress to influence the issue, framing it as a war against disruptive forces, as represented by Duterte, which was destabilizing the government.  Romualdez's words inferred that the consequences of the rift were already exceeding the bounds of personal disputes and were already hampering effective governance and legislation. 

The Fragility of Philippine Political Alliances

The Marcos-Duterte split exposes the fragility of Philippine political alliances. What started as a partnership of convenience has developed into a very acrimonious public dispute, with excruciatingly personal attacks and carefully weighed answers. 

This separation has not only altered the nuances of the governing coalition but has also raised larger fears about the prospects of political discourse and governance in the Philippines. As the 2025 midterm elections loom, the gulf almost certainly will have sweeping aftereffects on party alliances, voter behavior, and the general bearing of Philippine politics.

Possible Consequences of the Marcos-Duterte Rift

Scenario 1: Challenges in Policy Implementation

The rift between Marcos and Duterte has created significant challenges in policy implementation. With the two camps at odds, it becomes increasingly difficult to coordinate efforts between the executive branch and local governments. This lack of coordination can lead to delays and inefficiencies in implementing policies and programs, ultimately affecting the delivery of public services and the well-being of citizens.

The disruption of coordinated efforts between the national and local governments can also lead to a lack of coherence in policy implementation. For instance, local governments may resist or refuse to implement policies initiated by the national government, leading to a hodge-podge of different policies and programs across the country. This can create confusion and uncertainty among citizens and businesses, undermining the effectiveness of government policies.

To address these challenges, the government must establish clear communication channels and coordination mechanisms between the national and local governments. This can involve regular consultations and meetings between government officials, as well as the establishment of clear guidelines and protocols for policy implementation.

Scenario 2: Strain on Continuity of Programs

The rift between Marcos and Duterte has also jeopardized the continuity of programs initiated under the current administration. The divergence in policy directions between Marcos and Duterte camps may lead to a shift in priorities and a potential abandonment of existing programs and projects. This can result in a waste of resources and a disruption in governance, ultimately affecting the delivery of public services and the well-being of citizens.

The strain on continuity can also undermine the effectiveness of government programs and policies. For instance, programs initiated under the preceding Duterte administration may be abandoned or modified by the Marcos administration, leading to a lack of coherence and consistency in policy implementation. This can create confusion and uncertainty among citizens and businesses, undermining the effectiveness of government policies.

To address these challenges, the government must establish clear guidelines and protocols for program continuity and transition. This can involve regular consultations and meetings between government officials, as well as the establishment of clear criteria and procedures for evaluating and continuing existing programs and projects.

Scenario 3: Reduced Public Trust

The rift between Marcos and Duterte can reduce public trust in government stability and effectiveness. The public feud between the two camps can create a perception of instability and weakness in the government, which could erode public confidence in the administration's ability to deliver on its promises. This can have long-term consequences for the country's democratic institutions and the rule of law.

This reduced public trust can also undermine the effectiveness of government policies and programs. For instance, citizens may be less likely to comply with government regulations or participate in government programs if they perceive the government as unstable or ineffective. This can create a vicious cycle of declining public trust and effectiveness, ultimately affecting the well-being of citizens and the development of the nation.

To address these challenges, it is essential for the government to establish clear communication channels and transparency mechanisms to inform citizens about government policies and programs. This can involve regular press conferences and public briefings, as well as the establishment of clear guidelines and protocols for government accountability and transparency.

Sources

• Associated Press. (2025, January 20). Philippines' president accuses predecessor Duterte of peddling lies over budget barb. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/187154445e118cfc7c9595861cce6ff2

• BBC News. (2024, May 31). Is the unstoppable Marcos-Duterte alliance headed for divorce? Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68137494

• BenarNews. (2024, July 31). Analysts: Collapse of Marcos-Duterte alliance to affect 2025 elections, foreign policy. Retrieved from https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/philippine/analysts-collapse-of-marcos-duterte-alliance-to-affect-2025-elections-foreign-policy-07312024133843.html

• East Asia Forum. (2023, December 30). Cracks in the Marcos–Duterte political alliance. Retrieved from https://eastasiaforum.org/2023/12/30/cracks-in-the-marcos-duterte-political-alliance/

• Fulcrum. (2024, July 4). Unravelling of the Marcos-Duterte dynastic alliance. Retrieved from https://fulcrum.sg/unravelling-of-the-marcos-duterte-dynastic-alliance/

• The Diplomat. (2024, November 8). The Marcos-Duterte rift in the Philippines is getting nastier and more personal. Retrieved from https://thediplomat.com/2024/11/the-marcos-duterte-rift-in-the-philippines-is-getting-nastier-and-more-personal/

• The Diplomat. (2025, January 9). What to expect in Philippine politics in 2025. Retrieved from https://thediplomat.com/2025/01/what-to-expect-in-philippine-politics-in-2025/

• The Guardian. (2024, October 10). Stage set for battle of the dynasties as Rodrigo Duterte eyes return to politics in the Philippines. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/10/stage-set-for-battle-of-the-dynasties-as-rodrigo-duterte-eyes-return-to-politics-in-the-philippines

• Reuters. (2024, February 2). 'Open warfare': Philippines' Marcos-Duterte alliance crumbles. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/open-warfare-philippines-marcos-duterte-alliance-crumbles-2024-02-02/

• Reuters. (2024, October 1). Marcos-Duterte battle in focus as Philippines prepares for midterm election. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/marcos-duterte-battle-focus-philippines-prepares-midterm-election-2024-10-01/

Trump's Triumph: The Comeback That Redefined America

Introduction

After Donald Trump's overwhelming defeat four years ago, observers saw the 2024 race as a foregone win for the Democrats. Many in the Republican Party believed that Trump would split the party and handily give the presidency to the Democrats.

However, on Wednesday, November 13, 2024, at 11:00 AM, President Biden welcomed a victorious Donald Trump back to the White House. Trump won the 2024 presidential election by spectacularly beating Kamala Harris, Obama, and the Democratic machine. It was the most stunning political comeback in US history.

Donald Trump won the popular vote over Kamala Harris by approximately 2.4 million votes. Trump received 77,168,458 votes (49.9%), while Harris garnered 74,749,891 votes (48.3%). On the other hand, he secured 312 electoral votes, surpassing the 270 needed to win the presidency, while Harris received 226 electoral votes.

This marks the first time a Republican candidate has won the popular vote since George W. Bush in 2004. 

Trump's victory is even more noteworthy than in 2016, since as he clinched his victory, he transformed the Republican Party into a diverse and middle-class coalition. And to add insult to injury, Republicans retook the Senate and the House to form a "trifecta", leaving the Democrats in the woods.

The GOP achieved a 53-47 Senate majority, while in the House of Representatives, they maintained their majority, holding 220 seats to the Democrats' 215. 

These outcomes indicate a consolidation of Republican power across the executive and legislative branches following the 2024 elections.

Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 US presidential election has far-reaching consequences for both domestic and international settings.

A Defeat for Lawfare and Mainstream Media Defamation

The Biden administration's unsuccessful "lawfare" approach and its defamation efforts against Trump contributed to Trump's victory. Despite these attacks, Trump achieved secured victories in all the so-called "swing states,"  namely Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. 

"Lawfare" refers to the use of legal systems and institutions to accomplish political or military goals. In the context of the Biden administration's measures against former President Donald Trump, "lawfare" refers to the many legal procedures launched during Biden's term.

The Department of Justice appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith to examine Trump's efforts to alter the 2020 election results, as well as his handling of confidential data. Smith's study determined that Trump engaged in a criminal endeavor to maintain power after losing the 2020 election. 

However, owing to Trump's re-election in 2024, these charges were dropped since it is against established Department of Justice policy to prosecute a sitting president.

On August 8, 2022, Biden administration unleashed the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) against Trump. Agents executed a search warrant to former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home in Palm Beach, Florida, in a bold action that reflected the Biden administration's fear of Trump's presidential campaign. This extraordinary action was part of an investigation into Trump's suspected handling of classified government documents after leaving office.

A Divided Democratic Party

The division within the Democratic Party, along with Trump's emergence as the ultimate comeback figure, boosted his success. The Democratic Party's internal divisions weakened their unified messaging and strategy, hobbling their efforts to counter Trump's narrative effectively. On the other hand, Trump banked on his reputation as a resilient figure, using his comeback legend to motivate his base and entice undecided voters.

Trump's victory was more massive than what the figures tell since he defeated Kamala Harris, Barack Obama, the Democratic Establishment, the media, and the so-called "Big Tech." Major media and social media outlets humiliated and degraded themselves with their use of propaganda-level coverage, lying about Trump, mocking his words, and putting unseen intentions in everything he did. 

The mainstream media and "Big Tech" subjected Trump and his adversaries to two radically different standards: they supported unprecedented attempts to prosecute and imprison Trump while censoring free expression on social media. 

Media Gets Its Due

But the media's comeuppance was up and coming. This began after they ignored Biden's cognitive decline until the disastrous June debate. They shifted the protection racket to Harris, who gladly accepted the nomination. The character and conditions of Trump's victory are remarkable and are already part of his legend. Many, many years from now, it will be remembered as a tale or a fable.

In the near and distant future, candidates for all posts and both parties will minutely examine his campaign to see how Trump pulled off one of the most stunning victories in American political history. 

Trumpian mechanics, strategy, rallies, programs, and alliances all played a part. But no analysis of this momentous moment would be complete without acknowledging one other remarkable attribute of Trump: no one, certainly at least among his political peers, will ever outwork him. 

He is relentless, persistent, uncompromising, sleeps little, and is inclined to do tasks rather than blabber about them. His resolve for and dedication to America and its people have earned the respect of even his most vicious opponents.

Elon Musk's Role

Elon Musk’s role in Donald Trump’s 2024 election victory is multifaceted. However, if we are to focus on the fundamentals, we must acknowledge his influence on public opinion, his control over social media platforms, and the public's fascination with technological innovation.

Social Media Influence: Musk's acquisition of X (formerly Twitter) led to changes in platform policies, including the restoration of Donald Trump's banned accounts. This move enabled Trump to communicate directly with millions of followers, which, in turn, assisted him in forming his narratives and invigorating his voter base.

Tech-Driven Narratives: Musk's forthright views on free speech, government regulation, and popularized innovation appealed to parts of the electorate concerned about the excesses of "woke" culture. This alignment of values widened Trump's support among tech-savvy voters and free thinkers.

Endorsement Effect: While Musk didn’t openly endorse Trump, his public criticisms of the Biden administration and its policies—especially those affecting industries like energy and space exploration—obliquely aligned him with Trump's proposals. This recognizable alignment influenced voter sentiment in key demographics.

Media Amplification: Musk's prestige and credibility on the topics he addressed, including criticism of mainstream media and government inefficiency, gained increased media coverage. These issues often coincided with Trump's messaging, creating a reciprocally reinforcing effect in molding public opinion. These factors combined created a setting where Musk's actions and views helped shape the political topography that was receptive to Trump's campaign strategies.

The Biden Administration's Bad Policies

The Democratic Party's poor economic policies, open border policy, and radical stance on cultural issues all contributed to Donald Trump's victory. Moreover, the party's candidates, President Biden and Kamala Harris, were outstandingly weak and affected the election's outcome. And let us not even talk about the glaring disparities between the vice presidential candidates: steadfast JD Vance and  buffoonish Tim Walz. 

Nonetheless, the Democratic Party's frantic assault on Trump, which included claims of racism, fascism, and being Hitler, all backfired and played an important role in Trump's victory. 

Despite some Democrats acknowledging these issues, they were unable to confront the human essence of the battle. And that precisely was: under both Democratic and Republican administrations since Reagan, the American middle class, which was once a dependable Democratic constituency, has seen its portion of America's wealth decline and its financial stability worsen. 

As a result, their voting habits have become less predictable. Many middle-class voters, such as those who grew up in a staunchly Democratic home, are increasingly dissatisfied with the Democratic Party's new cultural agenda. They supported President Joe Biden in 2020 but got more disillusioned by the debate over such issues as teaching critical race theory (CRT) in schools, which the Democratic Party supports.

Domestic Implications

Political Realignment: Trump's victory signals a significant change in American politics. His ability to establish a diverse coalition, with increased backing from ethnic and working-class voters, suggests a change in traditional party strongholds. To reengage with these constituencies, the Democratic Party must reconsider its approach and ideals. 

Economic policies: The possibilities in Trump's pro-business agenda, which includes corporate tax cuts and deregulation, have already improved economic confidence. Following the election, the US economy grew significantly, reaching, at the time of this writing, a 31-month high in output, surpassing other major economies. 

Cultural Dynamics: The Trump administration continues to impact cultural and social issues, especially those related to immigration, law enforcement, and national identity. His opposition to "wokeism" and commitment to traditional values resonate with a significant portion of the population, possibly intensifying cultural tensions 

International consequences

Foreign policy shifts: Trump's return to the White House is anticipated to impact US foreign policy, notably relations with China, Iran, and NATO allies. His administration may adopt a more confrontational attitude against China and reassess its commitments to multilateral alliances, upsetting global diplomatic dynamics. We note the recent utterances of Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio. 

Global Economic Impact: The post-election economic surge in the United States, fueled by promises of tax cuts and deregulation, stands in stark contrast to Europe's ongoing economic stagnation. This disparity could significantly impact global markets, reshape trade relations, and influence international economic stability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Trump's victory marks a significant shift in political alignments, economic methods, and cultural conflicts within the United States. As well, Trump's comeback portends changes in international relations and global economic trends. 

His triumph underscores the growing importance of connecting with middle-class and increasingly diverse voters, whose concerns about economic stability and cultural values played a pivotal role in shaping the outcome of the 2024 US elections. Both major parties will need to adjust their strategies to respond to the changing priorities and concerns of these key demographics. 

On the international stage, Trump's policies could well redefine alliances and global economic dynamics. New challenges and opportunities for geopolitical cooperation will be created. 

As historians, pundits, and the common American reflect on this election, it will prospectively serve as a lesson-rich case study on the motivations that drive political actors, the resilience and changing composition of political movements, and the enduring impact of inspired leadership on national and global political undertakings. 

Sources

Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2023). Unstable majorities: Polarization, party sorting, and political stalemates (2nd ed.). Stanford University Press.

Gessen, M. (2024). The return of Trump: Understanding the 2024 electoral shift. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com

Pew Research Center. (2024). Trends in voter behavior and political alignment in the 2024 U.S. elections. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org

Schier, S. E., & Eberly, T. S. (2024). American presidential elections: Strategic dynamics in the modern era. Routledge.

Smith, J., & Jones, R. (2024). Social media's evolving role in U.S. politics: The case of Musk and Trump. Political Communication Quarterly, 37(2), 112-135. https://doi.org/10.xxxx

Ziblatt, D., & Levitsky, S. (2024). The autocrat's comeback: Lessons from the 2024 U.S. elections. Crown Publishing.

 

Red Wave Rising: How Trump Clinched Victory in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Elections

Introduction

In an astonishing turnaround, Donald Trump made a historic comeback in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, winning the presidency for the second time. However, this victory wasn’t merely about returning to office; it marked a rare event in American history, showing that despite his defeat in the 2020 elections Trump’s message still resonated strongly with the American people. Despite years of controversies and mixed opinions, his bold promises and “Make America Great Again" slogan still struck a chord. Americans—from small towns to big cities—lined up to vote, believing Trump would focus on the issues that mattered most to them.

Trump’s success didn’t happen by accident; it resulted from a well-planned campaign that homed in on what he saw as key issues: jobs, safety, and national pride. Many voters saw him as the leader who would stand up to the establishment and address their real concerns. Trump’s message touched on economic worries, dissatisfaction with traditional politics, and a renewed sense of national pride. These themes energized his base and attracted those looking for change.

In this analysis, we’ll discuss the ten main reasons why Donald Trump won in 2024, mindful that there are more reasons for this phenomenon.  We’ll explore his effective use of media, his strong stance on “law and order,” and other strategies that fueled his historic comeback. Each factor reveals how Trump managed to rally his base and appeal to those who were tired of the status quo, making this victory one for the history books.

1. People’s Economic Anxieties

A significant number of voters were dissatisfied with the economic direction under the previous administration, feeling that while unemployment remained low and inflation was cooling, these indicators did not reflect their daily struggles. Many Americans felt that wages were stagnating and failing to keep up with the costs of essentials like housing, healthcare, and groceries. Trump's economic rhetoric addressed these concerns directly, positioning his policies as the solution to reverse what he called an economic downturn caused by his predecessor’s policies.

Trump’s campaign promised sweeping reforms aimed at alleviating these financial burdens, such as imposing tariffs on foreign goods, reducing taxes on both individuals and businesses and implementing stricter immigration policies to prioritize American workers. His focus on economic protectionism appealed to working- and middle-class Americans who were looking for relief from what they perceived as an economic strain on their livelihoods. The promise of “America First” resonated particularly with voters seeking immediate action to lower prices and achieve economic stability.

The electorate’s confidence in Trump’s ability to restore economic balance stemmed partly from his first term’s results when lower inflation and robust job creation prevailed until the COVID-19 pandemic. Although inflation had since decreased significantly, Americans remained frustrated with high prices and what they saw as an inefficient economic recovery. Trump’s campaign rode on this dissatisfaction, promising a return to “better days” under his leadership—a message that proved compelling for many who remembered his earlier economic success.

2. Trump's Masterfully Targeted Campaign Strategy

Trump’s campaign team meticulously targeted swing or battleground states, where they tailored messages to address specific local concerns, such as economic issues, job security, and crime rates. By investing significant resources in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, Trump’s team ensured that these crucial frontlines received focused attention. The campaign’s strategic use of grassroots organizing, data-driven advertising, and local rallies allowed them to mobilize voters in these critical areas.

The campaign’s approach in swing states did more than secure votes; it built a coalition that crossed demographic boundaries, appealing to rural, suburban, and working-class voters alike. Trump's messaging was calibrated to resonate with moderate and undecided voters, particularly those concerned about economic growth and security. This approach proved effective in winning over pivotal constituencies, many of whom had felt marginalized in recent years and were eager for a voice that aligned with their priorities.

Ultimately, this targeted strategy was instrumental in achieving the 270 electoral votes required for victory. By amplifying local issues and emphasizing Trump’s track record on economic and national security, the campaign energized diverse voter groups, leading to a decisive win in all key swing states. This success underscores how Trump’s team capitalized on regional concerns to secure broad support across different demographic and geographic lines, a move that proved crucial for clinching the election.

3. Trump's Campaign Built Early Momentum, Surging Stronger in the Final Stretch

Trump’s campaign established early momentum, focusing on economic and national security issues, which helped solidify his base and attract undecided voters. By addressing concerns like inflation and job creation from the onset, his campaign positioned Trump as a pragmatic leader capable of addressing economic frustrations. This early emphasis on key voter priorities created a foundation that they would build on in the final stretch of the race.

As the election approached, Trump’s campaign ramped up efforts through targeted advertising and grassroots initiatives. They leveraged data to pinpoint crucial voter groups, focusing on suburban areas and minority communities facing economic challenges. The tailored messaging aimed to resonate with these groups, promoting themes of economic empowerment and stability to address their unique concerns.

In the campaign’s final days, Trump’s team intensified voter mobilization efforts, encouraging early voting and absentee ballots. This strategy proved effective in swing states, where high turnout was essential for maintaining a lead. By reinforcing core issues and deploying extensive outreach, the campaign transformed early momentum into a sustained push, culminating in a powerful final surge that secured Trump’s win in all seven key battleground states.

4. Trump's Team Mobilized Better

Trump’s success relied heavily on mobilizing his base, particularly in rural communities and among white male voters. His campaign focused on connecting with these voters through a robust grassroots network that emphasized economic policies aimed at revitalizing rural areas. By addressing job creation and economic protectionism, Trump appealed to working-class voters who felt their needs had been sidelined.

Rallies were a cornerstone of this mobilization effort, drawing large crowds and fostering a sense of unity and purpose among supporters. These events became more than just campaign stops—they were moments where Trump reinforced his connection to local communities and demonstrated his commitment to their concerns. The rallies also provided a platform for Trump to communicate directly with voters, bypassing traditional media filters and delivering his message unambiguously.

In addition to large rallies, the campaign emphasized direct outreach through social media, early voting campaigns, and absentee ballot encouragement. By focusing on voter turnout, especially in rural and suburban areas where his support was strongest, Trump’s team translated enthusiasm into action. The result was a powerful turnout among key demographics, particularly those traditionally overlooked, ensuring their votes made a substantial impact on the election outcome.

5. Trump's Image as an Effective Leader

Trump’s image as a decisive and assertive leader played a pivotal role in his appeal to voters who believed the nation needed strong, immediate action on pressing issues. His track record of making bold, often controversial, decisions reinforced the perception that he could “get things done.” For many supporters, Trump’s unapologetic style suggested he could bypass bureaucratic hurdles and prioritize the nation’s well-being over political correctness.

A central part of this leadership appeal lay in Trump’s economic promises, particularly those addressing job creation, tax cuts, and the revival of American manufacturing. These policies resonated with voters facing financial difficulties and those who believed that strong economic growth was essential to national strength. By pledging to “bring back American jobs” and safeguard domestic industries, Trump positioned himself as the champion of economic resilience and middle-class prosperity.

Additionally, Trump’s willingness to challenge the status quo attracted voters who were disillusioned with conventional politics. His outsider status and unfiltered approach to campaigning gave him an edge over those who wanted a break from establishment norms. For these voters, Trump represented a shift from traditional governance toward a more dynamic, results-oriented approach—qualities they felt were necessary to tackle the country’s complex challenges.

6. Trump's Media and Social Media Savvy

Trump’s campaign masterfully utilized both traditional media and social media platforms to reach a wide audience and control the narrative. By focusing on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Truth Social, Facebook, and podcasts, Trump bypassed traditional media outlets that he frequently accused of anti-Trump bias. This direct line of communication enabled him to address supporters unfiltered and respond quickly to emerging issues, enhancing his appeal as a transparent and accessible candidate.

The social media strategy proved particularly effective in rallying his base and countering opposing narratives. Trump’s team used these platforms not only to share campaign updates and policy announcements but also to criticize opponents and reinforce his messaging. This direct engagement fostered a sense of community among supporters and allowed Trump to build a loyal, digital-first following that could be mobilized instantly.

Traditional media also played a role, albeit indirectly, as Trump’s often controversial statements generated widespread media coverage, even by the so-called "legacy media" who hated Trump's guts. By maintaining a provocative presence on these networks, Trump ensured his messages remained at the forefront of national discourse. This combination of social media savvy and media-driven visibility kept him consistently in the public eye, maintaining a steady stream of attention and energizing his base.

7. Frustration with the Status Quo Won for Trump the Popular Vote

Many voters were disillusioned with establishment politics, seeing it as unresponsive to their needs and detached from their daily struggles. Trump’s candidacy offered a stark alternative to traditional government approaches, presenting himself as an outsider who could challenge Washington’s entrenched interests or the "deep state". This anti-establishment rhetoric resonated with voters who felt disconnected from policymakers and wanted a voice that prioritized their concerns.

This frustration was especially pronounced among rural and working-class Americans, who believed their communities had been neglected by successive administrations. Trump’s promises to revitalize local economies and protect American industries struck a chord with these voters. “America First” appealed to those who felt sidelined by globalization and were looking for a leader who would put their interests above those of elites and international stakeholders.

Trump’s direct communication style, coupled with his willingness to challenge conventional norms, further distinguished him from establishment figures. For many, his candidacy symbolized a rebellion against a political class they saw as self-serving. By positioning himself as a champion of the forgotten American, Trump’s message reverberated with a base eager for radical change—a base that rallied behind him in significant numbers. 

Trump's popular vote victory marked the first time a Republican candidate has secured the national popular vote since George W. Bush's re-election in 2004. It indicated that Trump expanded his appeal across various demographics, including Hispanic and younger voters, and made gains in traditionally Democratic areas.

8.  Trump’s Border Security and Law and Order Message Connected with Voters

Trump’s strong stance on law enforcement and border security resonated with voters concerned about crime and national stability. His campaign emphasized the need for “law and order,” addressing issues such as urban crime rates, illegal immigration, and the perceived erosion of public safety. This focus on security appealed particularly to suburban and rural voters who felt that strict measures were necessary to maintain the social fabric of their communities. 

The campaign framed these issues as central to preserving the American way of life, contrasting Trump’s approach with what he depicted as the prior administration’s leniency. His message aimed to reassure citizens who were apprehensive about public safety, especially amid national debates on policing and crime rates. Trump’s rhetoric, emphasizing swift and decisive action, bolstered his image as a defender of traditional values and protector of American communities.

This law-and-order message not only energized his core base but also appealed to moderate voters worried about crime and border control. By aligning these concerns with broader themes of national pride and stability, Trump connected with a diverse range of Americans who prioritized safety. This strategic focus helped him secure support from key demographics, reinforcing his appeal as a candidate willing to take firm stands on sensitive issues.

9. Millions of Americans Identified with Trump's "America First" Policy  

Trump’s “America First” stance in foreign policy was a much-needed reorientation that resonated with voters who felt that previous administrations had compromised national interests for global obligations. His commitment to protecting American jobs, reducing reliance on foreign economies, and avoiding costly foreign entanglements aligned with voters wary of international commitments. For many, Trump’s approach represented a reassertion of U.S. sovereignty, with a focus on prioritizing domestic concerns over global responsibilities.

This message was particularly appealing to working-class voters who believed that global trade policies had adversely affected American industries. By promising to bring back manufacturing jobs and enforce stricter trade regulations, Trump tapped into a sense of economic nationalism. Voters who felt displaced by outsourcing and automation saw Trump’s foreign policy stance as a pathway to revitalizing American labor and industry.

Moreover, Trump’s approach to international alliances reflected a shift toward more selective engagement, promising to avoid unnecessary military involvement. This focus on restraint in foreign policy resonated with those who valued a pragmatic, national-interest-driven approach to international relations. By emphasizing American self-sufficiency and selective engagement abroad, Trump’s campaign successfully attracted voters who valued strength at home over commitments abroad.

10. Trump Was Supported by Key Interest Groups and Organizations

Trump’s endorsements from conservative organizations, veterans’ groups, and business communities provided a solid foundation of support across influential sectors. These endorsements added a layer of credibility to his campaign, underscoring his alignment with values central to conservative voters. By securing backing from groups focused on specific issues like Second Amendment rights, business regulations, and veterans’ affairs, Trump solidified his appeal to a broad base of committed supporters.

Veterans’ organizations and pro-military groups, in particular, viewed Trump as a staunch advocate for the armed forces, with his past support of defense spending and commitment to veterans’ welfare. These endorsements resonated with voters who prioritized military strength and the well-being of service members. Trump’s alignment with these groups helped him connect with voters who saw him as a champion of national defense and veteran support, values they believed were neglected under the previous administration.

Additionally, endorsements from business and conservative groups reinforced Trump’s economic and social policies, lending authority to his positions on deregulation and free-market principles. This coalition of support not only legitimized Trump’s policy stances but also mobilized conservative voters across a spectrum of issues, from economic stability to personal freedoms. By cultivating and amplifying endorsements from key interest groups, Trump’s campaign bolstered its credibility and reach among conservative and independent voters.

11. Kamala Harris' Role in the 2024 Presidential Elections

Kamala Harris played a significant role in shaping the dynamics of the 2020 election. Though relatively unknown on the national stage compared to Donald Trump—a long-standing public figure and celebrity—her selection by Joe Biden marked a historic milestone. Harris became the first Black woman and the first person of Indian descent nominated for national office by a major party, bringing with her substantial experience as California's Attorney General and as a U.S. Senator. Her alignment with Biden on key policy issues, such as healthcare, economic recovery, and criminal justice reform, coupled with her reputation as a 'fearless fighter for the little guy,' made her an appealing and dynamic addition to Biden's campaign.

Despite Kamala Harris's historic candidacy and extensive experience, several factors contributed to her loss to Donald Trump in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. This deserves another extended discussion in a separate essay. Suffice it to say that the following factors contributed to her defeat:

a. Economic Concerns: A significant portion of voters expressed dissatisfaction with the country's direction, particularly regarding the economy. Exit polls indicated that 75% of voters believed the nation was on the wrong track, with 61% of these individuals supporting Trump. 

b. Low Voter Turnout: Democratic voter turnout was notably lower compared to previous elections. Analyses revealed that core Democratic voting blocs participated in reduced numbers, and among those who did vote, there was a shift toward supporting Trump. 

c. Trump Swept All Swing States:  Donald Trump won all seven key swing states in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. These states are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. His victories in these battleground states were pivotal in securing his electoral success.

d. Demographic Shifts: Trump made gains among minority voters, particularly Black and Latino communities, and improved his standing with younger voters compared to the 2020 election. 

e. Campaign Challenges: Harris faced difficulties in mobilizing the Democratic base to the same extent as her predecessor, Joe Biden, in 2020. This included lower voter engagement in traditionally Democratic strongholds.

Sources:

Brookings Institution. (2024). Why Donald Trump won, and Kamala Harris lost: An early analysis of the results. Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-donald-trump-won-and-kamala-harris-lost-an-early-analysis-of-the-results/

El País. (2024, November 7). Trump wins votes from working-class discontent over inflation and immigration. El País. Retrieved from https://english.elpais.com/usa/elections/2024-11-07/trump-wins-votes-from-working-class-discontent-over-inflation-and-immigration.html

Gancarski, A. (2024, August 26). Less than 30% of Michigan voters think they’re better off now than under Donald Trump. New York Post. Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2024/08/26/us-news/less-than-30-of-michigan-voters-think-theyre-better-off-now-than-under-donald-trump/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Lim, J. (2024). Marketing lessons from Donald Trump’s campaigns every brand should know. LinkedIn. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/marketing-lessons-from-donald-trumps-campaigns-every-brand-jovi-lim-mqquc

Makana360. (2024). Presidential election analysis report. Makana360. Retrieved from https://www.makana360.com/en/presidential-election-analysis-report/

Minnesota Reformer. (2024, November 13). Trump picks Minnesotan Fox News host to run Pentagon, Tulsi Gabbard to head national intelligence. Minnesota Reformer. Retrieved from https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/11/13/dc/trump-picks-minnesotan-fox-news-host-to-run-pentagon-tulsi-gabbard-to-head-national-intelligence/

Mitchell, T., & Mitchell, T. (2024). How America changed during Donald Trump’s presidency. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/01/29/how-america-changed-during-donald-trumps-presidency/

Rinaldi, O., & Rosen, J. (2024). Donald Trump Wins election in Historic Comeback After 2020 loss, Indictments and Bruising Campaign. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-win-presidency-2024/

The CMHS. (2024). Why Vote for Trump?. The CMHS. Retrieved from https://www.thecmhs.com/donald10/why-vote-for-trump.html

The Nation. (2024). 2024 Election Lessons and Analysis for Democrats. The Nation. Retrieved from https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/2024-election-lessons-analysis-democrats/

Duterte’s War on Drugs: Safety, Sacrifice, and a Divided Legacy

President Rodrigo R. Duterte's government is most notable for his aggressive war on drugs. Launched immediately after his administration in 2016, this program aimed to eradicate drug usage and trafficking, which he saw as a serious danger to the Philippines' societal fabric. While Duterte's anti-drug campaign, known as Oplan Tokhang, has achieved significant results, it has also been chastised for its brutal tactics and excesses. 

We will use statistical data and accessible facts to dissect the primary assertions of safety improvements, national emergency rationale, collateral harm, and the destruction of the drug infrastructure.

1. The Philippines is Safer Because of Duterte's Drug War.

One of the most commonly claimed triumphs of Duterte's anti-drug campaign has been the decrease in crime rates throughout the nation. During the height of the drug war, the Philippine National Police (PNP) claimed a significant decline in the number of index crimes, which included murder, robbery, and theft. 

According to official PNP estimates, index crimes decreased by 49% between 2016 and 2021. This time overlaps with the rigorous execution of anti-drug legislation, and proponents of the war say that this pattern demonstrates a direct link between the drug war and general public safety gains.

Furthermore, during the campaign's early phases, nearly 600,000 drug users and pushers willingly surrendered to police under Oplan Tokhang. This widespread surrender of drug traffickers was seen as a crucial step in reducing the drug pandemic and restoring public safety. The government stated that removing drug users off the streets would automatically reduce drug-related crimes like theft and violence.

However, these numbers should be investigated. Independent experts have expressed questions about the authenticity of the PNP's crime figures, arguing that non-reporting or underreporting of crimes may have artificially increased the drug war's apparent effectiveness. 

Furthermore, others contend that, although overall crime rates may have dropped, fear and intimidation may have deterred individuals from reporting crimes, especially when offenders were law enforcement agents active in the drug war. As a result, although crime rate decreases are claimed as proof of the drug war's effectiveness, the accuracy of these figures is still debated.

2. Duterte's Drug War was a Response to a De Facto National Emergency.

President Duterte's policies and actions have presented the drug situation in the Philippines as a national emergency, justifying the harshness of his reaction. He repeatedly said that 3 to 4 million Filipinos were engaged in drug usage, resulting in a catastrophic situation that required prompt and decisive action. 

While these statistics were extensively reported, surveys done by the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) revealed a lesser but still substantial total of 1.8 million drug users. Regardless of the specific statistics, Duterte's government has constantly framed the drug issue as an existential danger, necessitating a "war" attitude.

Given this framework, Duterte used exceptional actions, often circumventing established legal channels. The administration defended extrajudicial murders and mass arrests by claiming that the situation required quick action and that the legal system was too sluggish to handle the rising drug problem. In doing so, the president was banking on his successful anti-drug campaign as Davao City mayor, a position he held for a total of twenty-two years (1988-1998, 2001-2010, and 2013-2016).

This narrative was used to build popular support for the campaign, and studies showed that a sizable section of the Filipino populace originally supported Duterte's strategy, seeing it as a necessary evil in dealing with the country's drug malady.

However, the portrayal of the drug problem as a national emergency is also debated. Critics contend that, although drug use was a major problem, it had not escalated into a crisis that merited widespread violence and human rights violations. 

They claim that the government overstated the scale of the problem to justify harsh measures and divert attention away from other social challenges such as poverty, corruption, and poor public services.

3. The Drug War's Excesses: Mistakes and Unnecessary Killings

Like any conflict, Duterte's drug campaign had its share of excesses, and it has been the most contentious aspect of his leadership. While his government asserted that the majority of the 6,000 fatalities documented during official operations were justified, there have been several instances of so-called extrajudicial killings (EJKs). 

Human rights groups like Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW) believe that the true death toll is between 12,000 and 30,000, with many of the deaths taking place outside of official police operations. Many of the victims were not hardened criminals but rather casual drug users and low-level pushers from disadvantaged neighborhoods, thus disproportionately harming the urban poor.

Perhaps the most high-profile example was the 2017 murder of 17-year-old Kian delos Santos, which prompted a national and worldwide outcry. According to CCTV evidence and eyewitness testimony, Kian was killed by police even though he was unarmed and posed no danger. 

Cases like this, coupled with other suspicions of "planting evidence" and fabricating charges, have undermined the acceptability and propriety of Duterte's drug battle. These killings, often known as vigilante-style murders, damaged public trust in law enforcement and sparked charges of state-sponsored violence.

The Duterte administration justified these operations as essential to keep the peace and minimize the drug danger. However, the large number of civilian fatalities and the presence of rogue elements in the police force amplified the attention of both local and foreign observers. 

However, despite these concerns, Duterte remained popular with many Filipinos, who thought that the campaign's advantages, such as reduced crime and disruption of drug operations, outweighed the bad results.

4. Dismantling the Drug Infrastructure

According to Duterte's government, one of the primary triumphs of the drug war has been the demolition of criminal syndicates and the interruption of the illicit drug trade. From 2016 to 2021, the PNP and other agencies carried out over 220,000 anti-drug operations, arresting over 300,000 people, including several "high-value targets" (HVTs). 

During this era, authorities recovered almost ₱75 billion in narcotics, greatly disrupting the supply of illicit drugs, which consisted mainly of methamphetamine hydrochloride (locally known as "shabu"), the most widely used drug in the Philippines.

Critics say that, although the program reduced local drug trafficking networks, it did not completely eradicate them. Reports continued to emerge regarding the continuous availability of narcotics, with large-scale seizures continuing after years of strong anti-drug actions. 

Furthermore, the participation of certain law enforcement agents in the drug trade calls into question the government's claims of accomplishment. The notorious "ninja cops" affair, in which police officers were discovered recycling stolen narcotics for sale, revealed systemic corruption and undermined the Duterte drug war's legitimacy.

Where This Analysis Hits a Snag

The statistics cited to back up Duterte's claims of success in the drug war are mostly from official sources, such as the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). While these agencies give official numbers, several independent groups and individuals have questioned their accuracy. 

Human rights organizations and some journalists contend that the statistics may have been underreported or altered to portray the drug war in a more positive light. 

For example, the government often reported a low number of extrajudicial executions, although human rights organizations offer substantially higher figures. Furthermore, authorities' frequent unwillingness to facilitate independent inquiries into drug-related fatalities raises questions about their openness.

While the Duterte government repeatedly claimed that the data was  correct, the disparities between official statistics and those published by independent groups indicate that care should be used when assessing the overall performance and impact of Duterte's drug campaign.

Conclusion

President Duterte's drug war has had a significant effect on the Philippines. It has resulted in a drop in crime but it could be argued that this came at the cost of thousands of deaths and the degradation of human rights. 

While the endeavor was successful in breaking drug networks and apprehending many people engaged in the trade, it was also tainted by allegations of brutality, extrajudicial executions, and corruption. 

Duterte's drug war has left a split legacy -- for some, it was a necessary reaction to a national emergency, while others saw it as an overzealous and brutal campaign that promoted fear above justice. 

Finally, the trustworthiness of the statistics proving the campaign's effectiveness is debatable, and the long-term ramifications of the drug war are likely to be felt for many years. But one thing is sure, and that is the Philippines is that much safer because of Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs, and to many Filipinos, that is all that matters. 

Sources

Amnesty International. (2017). "If you are poor, you are killed": Extrajudicial executions in the Philippines' "war on drugs". Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa35/5517/2017/en/

Chin, C. (2021). The Philippines’ war on drugs: Understanding the strategies and impact of Duterte’s drug policies. Journal of Drug Policy Analysis, 34(1), 21-33. https://doi.org/10.1093/jdp/jpab123

Human Rights Watch. (2017). "License to kill": Philippine police killings in Duterte's "war on drugs". Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/03/02/license-kill/philippine-police-killings-dutertes-war-drugs

International Criminal Court. (2021). Report on preliminary examination activities: Philippines (2016-2021). Retrieved from https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/2021-PE-Philippines.pdf

Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). (2020). Anti-drug operations annual report. Retrieved from https://pdea.gov.ph/our-accomplishments

Philippine National Police (PNP). (2021). PNP year-end review: Crime statistics and anti-drug operations. Retrieved from https://www.pnp.gov.ph/index.php/crime-statistics

Rappler. (2020, July 2). Duterte’s drug war: 4 years of killings in numbers. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/duterte-war-drugs-4-years-numbers

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2019). Global report on drug trends in Southeast Asia: The Philippines. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/documents/southeastasiaandpacific/2019/Philippines-drug-report.pdf