How political rhetoric hurts America's marginalised communities

 

A man holds a sign showing his appreciation for US President Joe Biden along Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2024. [AFP]

Going backwards. That is how one international news organisation summarised the anti-immigrant rhetoric that surprised many during the recent presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris watched by more than 67 million viewers across the United States.

One presidential candidate made sensational claims against immigrants from a certain country while the other just laughed off the allegations and never made any attempt to defend immigrants against the claims, which fact-checkers have since declared false.

That unfortunate turn of events summarises how politics affects the marginalised in America. The debate brought to light significant concerns, particularly around how political discourse can exacerbate the vulnerability of marginalised communities.

While such debates often serve as a platform for discussing national issues, they also highlight the deep divide between rhetoric and the lived realities of millions of Americans, especially those who have historically been under-served.

For many people, the debate was a performance – a moment to assert authority, project strength, and sway undecided voters. However, for marginalised communities – people of colour, immigrants, and low-income populations, among others – the stakes are incredibly high. Words spoken at that stage don’t simply disappear; they inform policy decisions that can either protect or further marginalize these groups.

When political leaders downplay or outright dismiss issues like racial justice, economic inequality, or healthcare access, they fail to acknowledge the systemic barriers that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. In the debate, there were moments of oversimplification and dismissive language toward critical social issues that matter most to these communities. Such rhetoric risks normalising the idea that the struggles of marginalised groups are secondary or unimportant – and ends up perpetuating cycles of oppression.

For example, in terms of healthcare access, policy debates around healthcare reform often fail to consider the unique barriers faced by low-income communities, immigrants, and people of colour. For many, healthcare is not just a debate topic; it is a matter of life or death.

On criminal justice reform, political leaders may talk about “law and order” without addressing the racial disparities embedded in the criminal justice system. Marginalised groups continue to face over-policing, mass incarceration, and systemic racism – issues that were not adequately addressed in the debate.

On the economic front, policies have entrenched poverty among marginalised communities by failing to address the root causes of economic disparity. Income inequality, housing insecurity, and lack of access to quality education all serve as barriers to social mobility, especially for the youth.

When political rhetoric skews toward division, and policies fail to address these urgent needs, marginalised communities remain vulnerable – both socially and economically. It is in these moments that leadership, or the lack thereof, becomes most critical.

The post-debate discussions highlight a troubling gap in leadership that represents the needs of marginalised communities. This disconnect, if left unchecked, has the potential to widen disparities and further silence the voices that need to be heard the most.

It is time our political discourse centered around inclusivity, equity, and justice. That will empower the next generation of leaders – young people – who will demand better and create a more equitable future for all.