.jpg)
We are now five days away from the 2024 election. National polls remind us of the intense divide, yet we are also reminded that some of these polls can't be taken as definitive. So, which is it? For weeks now, we’ve been hearing rhetoric framing this as one of the closest election races in history, between two candidates with vastly different backgrounds—one of whom will be president by the time you read this E Notes.
First, the candidates are of opposite genders: the former president is male, while his opponent, the 46th Vice President, is female. Their backgrounds couldn’t be more distinct. He grew up wealthy, inheriting a sizable estate and venturing into entertainment, where he seemed to excel. She, on the other hand, grew up in a middle-class family, was college-educated, and pursued a career in law. He is white, while she is of Black and East Indian descent. His career has been rooted in real estate, while hers has been in law, having served as a prosecutor in American government. He is often described as crude, brash, and insensitive in his remarks about the multiracial, multicultural, and multi-religious fabric of America, while she tends to be more respectful of these differences—except when discussing her opponent.
Perhaps the most striking difference is that each candidate's supporters genuinely believe they are fighting for the future of democracy, which many see as precariously at stake. This election’s razor-thin margins are perplexing to many, myself included.
When President Joe Biden announced he would not seek reelection and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic candidate, the clear contrast between former president Donald Trump and Harris became all the more apparent. One candidate is a convicted felon; the other, a former prosecutor and Attorney General of California. One is approaching 80 and has shown signs of what some observers call cognitive decline, while the other is middle-aged and demonstrates both mental sharpness and decorum fitting for the highest office in the land. One candidate’s closing messages are laced with racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, and antisemitic sentiments and are riddled with misinformation, while the other warns against fascism and other threats to democracy, urging Americans to strive for a better tomorrow.
At this moment, it’s unclear which message, or which candidate, will resonate most with voters. Regardless of one’s political leanings, the deadlock between these two drastically different candidates is bound to fuel anxiety in the final days of the election. I find myself feeling increasingly unsettled, given what’s at stake.
This led me to reflect on columns I wrote before the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. Like this one, those columns were written before the elections took place. In both instances, I tried to anticipate what would follow the votes. In 2016, when I was a columnist at America magazine, I wrote shortly before the election, questioning what could be done to repair the deep divisions that had emerged and whether we could overcome the waves of fear, hatred, and anger. I argued that, despite the vitriol of the 2016 election, people of faith had both the resources and the responsibility to take proactive steps to bring communities together. Citing St. Francis of Assisi, I suggested that being peacemakers was essential to our humanity and our societal cohesion.
Then came the Trump administration, pushing the boundaries of legality and basic decency. By the eve of the 2020 presidential election, I had become a bit grimmer but remained hopeful. Drawing on Pope Francis’s encyclical Fratelli Tutti, I argued that we needed to resist cynicism, preserve "dangerous memories" (as theologian Johann Baptist Metz called them), and restore a shared sense of humanity.
Now, as we approach another historic election, I am once again grappling with how to view our present and future. As in 2020, I want to resist the cynicism that comes so easily in a race that feels like it shouldn’t be this close. But cynical responses surround us, from TV pundits to friends and family. The preservation of memory—essential for an honest, productive life—has seemingly vanished. Many have forgotten life under Trump’s first administration, especially during crises like the global pandemic. Even more troubling is the erasure of the January 6 riots, which posed a real threat to democracy and national security.
As for restoring our shared humanity, this feels increasingly out of reach. Trump’s divisive rhetoric and the permission it gives his supporters to dehumanize others locally is both disturbing and unchristian. Recently, journalist Anne Applebaum compared Trump’s speeches about marginalized communities to those of Hitler and other dictators.
Where does this leave us, with less than a week until voting ends and the likely post-election battles over counting and recounting begin? It’s difficult not to feel pessimistic. If Harris wins, one can expect qualified, mature adults to lead the executive branch. But that won’t eliminate tensions, and Trump is unlikely to concede without resistance. If Trump wins, those appointed to high positions will likely be chosen for their loyalty, not competence or decorum. The so-called "grown-ups in the room" that restrained him in the past may not be there this time around.
While I hesitate to think in apocalyptic terms, the potential consequences of either outcome weigh heavily. I don’t foresee an immediate "World War III" or a second Civil War, but the stakes of this election feel higher than ever.
Visionary Kai EL´ Zabar has worked as CEO of arts organizations and as editor, writer and multimedia consultant accumulating a significant number of years in experience as an executive, journalist,publisher, public relations, media training, marketing, internal and external communications. Kai currently continues her life’s work as Editor-in-Chief Of Chicago News Weekly where she has resumed her column, “E NOTES.” She is ecstatic to be in the position to grace Chicago and the world with a publication that articulates the Black voice.