Good character crucial for many US-Luxembourg dual citizen voters

US voters cast their ballots on 5 November in the 2024 presidential election, with early voting having been underway for several weeks in many states.

The race between Republican candidate Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, who replaced President Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket in August, is very tight, according to the latest polls.

The character of both candidates has been under almost unprecedented scrutiny, with both sides accusing the other of being dishonest or lacking the integrity required of someone holding the office of President of the United States.  

In a Gallup poll published on 10 October, voters indicated they thought that Harris clearly led on traits such as likeability, strong moral character and honesty and trustworthiness. Trump, on the other hand, was ahead on things like being a strong leader and getting things done.

Voters are divided over which candidate performs better among different character traits © Photo credit: Gallup

But when it came to managing the government effectively, displaying good judgment in a crisis and having a vision for the country’s future, neither candidate held a distinctive advantage.

Those Gallup findings are broadly reflected in a snap survey of 34 dual US-Luxembourg citizens who will vote in the election in the United States conducted by Luxembourg Times.

Avowed Kamala Harris voter Rachel Schneiders from California said she thinks it takes integrity, honesty, and accountability to be a good leader. “I believe that a presidential nominee should be law-abiding, anti-racist, and passionate about protecting our constitution and democracy.”

A voter from Vermont, who preferred to remain anonymous, said that a president should be representative of the people of the nation, the cultures, and the way of life. “I believe that any elected official should hold themselves to a higher standard. Any issues they believe in should be still represented by their campaign in a well-constructed and respectful manner.”

Jen van Buren from Minnesota agreed. “As a world superpower we need to have moral authority to lead on global issues. If a convicted felon, rapist, liar, cheating, charlatan is elected we lose our standing,” she said.

But another voter from the west coast state, who preferred to be identified only by his first name of Michael, said character should be judged by actions. He cited examples of what may be called bad character in presidents ranging from Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama via John F. Kennedy and George W. Bush.

Authenticity is key in today’s media world and a measure of character, particularly given the plethora of lies from the legacy media. Look at how 60 Minutes altered Kalama Harris’ answers [during an interview on the CBS programme on 7 October]. Character? Election Interference? Propaganda? The American Pravda?” Michael asked. 

“Trump is the product of the rude brash in your face New York City building trades dominated by bureaucrats, hustlers and the Mafia,” Michael continued. “He says it the way he sees it, not pleasantly or eloquently but he speaks authentically.”

Brendan Koop from Minnesota, who said he will be voting for a third-party candidate, argued that character is what ensures that the president pursues policies that aren’t in their own interest but in the interest of the American people. “Character is what ensures that a president protects and defends the Constitution,” he said.

Schneiders, the Harris supporter from California, agreed that character matters to a huge extent. “The President influences the healthcare, economy, and safety of hundreds of millions of people. It’s imperative that they aren’t easily influenced by the power, favours, or money that can come with the office,” she told the Luxembourg Times.

But one voter from Maryland said he doesn’t think that character is as important as the policy positions of the candidate. “The Democrats have recycled the same campaign slogan of Trump being an ‘existential threat to democracy’ for the third consecutive campaign,” he said. “Polling suggests people are willingly to overlook Trump’s major character flaws in favour of his conservative brand of economic populism.”

Social media influence

The growing popularity of social media has changed the way that political parties in many democracies are campaigning to attract different voter demographics.

X CEO Elon Musk has used his social media platform to campaign vigorously for former US President Donald Trump © Photo credit: Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images/AFP

Although the owner of X, formerly Twitter, Elon Musk has used his platform to campaign vigorously for Trump in this year’s race for the White House. It is another platform that is attracting the attention of first-time voters, for example.

“While the 2016 race for the White House was labelled the ‘Facebook election’ as campaigns and voters flocked to the social media platform, this year TikTok is the app of choice for Harris and Trump’s online battle for younger voters,” wrote tech reporter Hannah Murphy in the Financial Times on 24 October.

Meanwhile, Meta, owned by Marc Zuckerberg, has moved Facebook away from political content while Amazon’s Jeff Bezos decided the Washington Post, which he owns, would not endorse either candidate – a move that has cost the newspaper tens of thousands of print and digital subscribers.

So even among big tech owners there is some difference in how their platforms or legacy media playthings approach the election.

“Social media is omnipresent in today’s world, so it makes sense that it is a monumental driver in how people receive and view information,” said the dual US-Luxembourg citizen from Vermont. He agreed that different platforms are biased in how they convey information. “It can be the nature of the content provided by such services that attract a certain demographic of voters, which then become echo chambers of like-minded people.”

Van Buren from Minnesota said that social media plays a large role in influencing voters. “Mostly by keeping people siloed and not exposing them to anything that doesn’t reinforce their beliefs.” But she also said she understands why people are frustrated with legacy media “for their lack of pushback on Trump and Vance’s lies and obvious age based mental and physical decline.” She added that it has become more and more difficult to find facts about policies, “because there’s so much noise about stupid lies and misinformation.”

The Vermont voter argued that while legacy media is a mostly legitimate source of information, habits change. “People don’t watch the news in the morning, read the paper everyday, or listen to the radio in the car,” he said.

David Barta from Georgia said he didn’t think social media changes minds and agreed that it keeps people firmly in echo chambers, even if it might push people further into extremes. “I think social media and legacy media are powerful but in different ways. Legacy media has more respectability behind it.”

Michael from California disagreed and said that legacy media has “dug its own grave and is by now mostly discredited in terms of truth and trust.” He suggested that legacy media and the CIA colluded to cover up the Hunter Biden laptop story. “Social media points out legacy media’s abject failures and omissions,” he said.

Rhode Island voter Les Christoffel said that he and his family – as self-confessed “news junkies” – treat social media with scepticism but agreed that legacy media can often not be any less skewed. “Finding a balance and watching and reading a variety of publications and programmes can help one reach a conclusion,” he said.