Political Earthquake in America: Democrats Win Both the House and the Senate. A Double Defeat for Trump. But Is Anything Really Changing?

 

There is no doubt that the Democrats’ victory in yesterday’s US midterm elections is a major political development. Its significance lies not merely in their regaining control of both chambers of Congress, but also in the scale and geographical breadth of their success. American voters did not simply opt for an ordinary change of political party. They sent a powerful political message to the Trump administration, challenging its policies and substantially limiting its ability to govern without meaningful congressional checks and balances.

It was, undoubtedly, a serious electoral rebuke to Donald Trump, but also a message to those wealthy and influential figures, such as Elon Musk, who seek to convert their financial power into political influence and electoral strength. However much enormous financial resources may affect an election campaign, they cannot necessarily determine the will of the electorate. This is particularly true in a society where large sections of the population are struggling daily with inflation, the rising cost of living and economic insecurity.

We therefore welcome this development, but only as a transition from the worse to the less bad. We must not confuse the defeat of one political force with the automatic vindication of its opponent. As a timeless Greek proverb aptly reminds us: “When there is no rain, even hail is welcome.” In other words, this is not necessarily a historic vindication of the Democrats, but rather a choice between different degrees of what is fundamentally bad. Moving away from the worst does not automatically mean moving towards the best.

And here lies what may be the most important political conclusion of this electoral contest.

The economy, inflation and the rising cost of living were decisive factors in shaping the voting behaviour of Americans. Dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of affairs and opposition to the war with Iran also played an important role. The vote, therefore, was largely an expression of social and economic protest.

However, this does not allow us to conclude that the majority of Americans collectively rejected the president’s entire political agenda, on every possible ground. We do not have sufficient evidence to regard this electoral shift as a comprehensive moral and political condemnation of American foreign policy, whether concerning Palestine, Ukraine or immigration. Dissatisfaction with everyday economic realities is one thing; a conscious rejection of an entire political worldview concerning the world, its peoples and their rights is quite another.

This distinction matters enormously. Because democracy cannot be reduced to the mere counting of votes. It also depends on the quality of the political consciousness that shapes them.

There is, however, another dimension of American political reality, less visible but nevertheless significant: its religious and cultural dimension.

The relationship between American politics and Evangelical Protestantism, particularly conservative religious movements that associate political power with a specific notion of divine mission, is a longstanding phenomenon. Religious identity does not, by itself, determine voting behaviour, nor do American Protestants and Catholics constitute politically uniform blocs. Nevertheless, the political exploitation of faith, religious polarisation and the identification of particular political choices with supposedly divine imperatives are issues that deserve far greater attention.

It is therefore not enough to interpret American political life exclusively in economic terms. Behind electoral behaviour lie deeply rooted perceptions of society, morality, identity, religion and power. Ignoring these dimensions can lead to an incomplete understanding of political reality.

In our time, the question of who exercises political power, and according to which principles, is undoubtedly a matter of life, human dignity and the future of our planet. Figures such as Trump, Putin, Netanyahu, Mitsotakis and Orbán, despite their different political, ideological and historical backgrounds, represent different manifestations of the modern concentration of political power and of the tensions surrounding the limits of democratic governance.

The political system itself, however, displays a remarkable historical capacity for adaptation. It retains its institutional terminology, parliamentary procedures and electoral rituals, even when citizens’ meaningful participation in decision-making is restricted or economic power acquires disproportionate political influence.

Thus, labels such as “democratic”, “parliamentary” and “majoritarian”, however impressive they may sound, are not sufficient in themselves to describe the actual quality of a political system. We must examine what it truly serves, whom it represents, whose interests it protects and how meaningfully it allows citizens to participate in shaping their own future.

And this is precisely where the great question for future generations begins.

Generation Z, already emerging as a distinct social and political force, together with the generations that will follow, may find it increasingly difficult to remain content indefinitely with the rotation of parties, personalities and political managers. Their expectations may eventually transcend established political structures, as the revolution in Artificial Intelligence expands the horizons of knowledge, communication and production, while simultaneously creating new needs, new inequalities and new demands concerning the quality of human life.

Access to greater knowledge, more objective information, the ability to hold power accountable and the right to a dignified life will not simply be aspirations. They will increasingly become demands made by society.

It is therefore no longer sufficient to ask who will win the next election in America or in any other country. The real question is whether societies will eventually succeed in overcoming the very conditions that make this endless recycling of political power necessary.

And it would truly be something to celebrate if, a few decades from now, America were no longer celebrating victories by Democrats over Republicans, or vice versa. Instead, one might hope that future generations will have managed to move beyond the need for such divisive political distinctions, beyond the perpetuation of the same political dead ends, and beyond the rule of individuals who embody the dysfunctions of a system that presents itself as the only possible alternative.

Because the greatest political victory of the future will not be one party’s triumph over another. It will be the moment when societies no longer have to choose endlessly between different versions of the same dead end.