Kathy Jenkins and Stuart Fairweather have been reflecting on issues and possibilities raised by the US Presidential election …
August's DNC (Democratic National Convention) in Chicago saw the unsurprising nomination of Kamala Harris as presidential candidate. Much of mainstream opinion appears to have welcomed the late replacement of Joe Biden with Harris, but victory over Donald Trump and a resultant progressive agenda are not forgone conclusions.
For Americans on the Left and for those watching from afar, the defeat of Trump is surely the priority. Given that we have heard and seen so much evidence of his racism, misogyny, and been subjected to displays of mendacious, narcissistic arrogance which even the sharpest satirists would not have been able to invent in order to discredit him, can anybody be comfortable with the possibility of Trump reinstating himself in the Oval Office and being able to smugly say that ‘in spite of everything I’ve done, they’ve voted me in again’?
In fact, a small but vocal minority of socialists in the US are opposing the idea that progressive and left-wing people should vote for the Democrats. When Biden was still in place as presidential candidate, the key focus for this opposition was outrage about the US government’s effective support for Israel's war, Biden being condemned as ‘Genocide Joe’.
Harris moving into place has only softened this position a little. There is a depth of anger and despair among many people in the US about the government’s continued support for Israel's war against and occupation of Palestine. This justified anger has been expressed in large demonstrations in support of Palestinian rights – and it’s most positive and encouraging that these have mobilised and included Jewish people on an unprecedented scale.
In this context, there are ongoing calls for abstention rather than voting for a pro-war Democrat. And there are initiatives such as Cornel West's running for President (whilst in Edinburgh to give the Gifford lectures at the University, West spoke to the crowd at the end of one of the big pro-Palestinian demos a few months ago).
We recognise that, given the current practical impossibility of a serious third-party challenge, and the particularly toxic and divisive character of Trump’s politics, the reality is that votes for third party candidates or abstentions by left-wingers and progressive people would be actions which would objectively assist Trump: the same logic explains why the most well-known progressive voices within and around the Democrats, including Ilhan Omar, AOC and Bernie Sanders, have been getting fully behind Harris (though the ongoing concerns of Rashida Tlaib, the Palestinian-American congress woman for Michigan, certainly need addressing). The progressive approach is surely that, even if votes should be cast for Harris / Walz, this must be on the proviso that the struggle continues so as to change US policy on Israel / Palestine – as well as to change many other elements of ‘mainstream’ US policy.
If Harris does succeed in becoming the first woman to be elected president there will be comparisons with the failure of Hillary Clinton to obtain office. But arguably things have moved on from 2016. This does not mean that Harris being a woman, and being a Black and Indian American are being ignored - constituencies have unquestionably been energised by this. But additionally, something else is happening.
The Harris campaign looks to be locating her identity and that of the Vice-presidential nomination, Tim Walz, within a ‘universal' offer that speaks to a broad swathe of voters. How is this approach being assessed by those that are located on the edge or to the left of the Democratic Party?
There has not been a shyness to recall and recount the limitations and inconsistencies of Harris as a California prosecutor, as illustrated by one of the articles we cite here from Jacobin magazine, which is now well-established as a thoughtful and very well produced publication on the American left. This piece (click here) soberly considers Harris’s record, and reminds voters of the tendency of many of all-too-many political figures to promise progressive policies and measures, but to fail on delivering these when in office. Not withstanding this, Branko Marcetic's assessment is not unbalanced and Harris's positives are not ignored. In summary it seems appropriate that he asks, 'What Kamala are we getting?’.
The same author gives consideration to Tim Walz and his ostensible positives. Astutely, however, Marcetic tells us this is not the key point. What is important is that someone with progressive credentials has been chosen by Harris and the leaders of her party to balance the ticket. This is true, but invites broader inspection. Walz has introduced progressive social policy and appears to be winning support amongst the unions, as Alex N Press points out. But beyond this. he also presents as someone who will get an audience amongst white working-class men. Up until now, such voters have been a key source of Trump’s support, with his mix of right-wing populism, economic nationalism and conveying of the sense that he – like them – has been disdained and neglected by the US political ‘elite’, particularly ‘liberals’. Trump here is making use of a long-term strategy followed by Republicans since the days of Richard Nixon in order to detach working class people – even trade unionists – from the Democrats. (Jared Abott’s piece in Jacobin this week explores Trump’s unfortunate appeal to workers).
Do voters only vote for those that look like them? Perhaps not always, and it's a question beyond the scope of this article, but for Harris / Walz to win in November will require a coalition of numerous different demographic groups. Whilst this may be considered simplistic by some it would appear to be a lesson that the Democrats, who are trying to put together enough electoral college votes to win, are beginning to understand, and this points towards the possibility of the Harris / Walz campaign being, at least, the beginning of the process by which Democrats win back many of the voters they have lost in recent decades. By contrast the Trump /Vance campaign appears limited at this point to variations on appealing to its existing base.
So, as stated above, the stakes remain high. Those of us in Scotland, and elsewhere in Europe, will watch as the clock ticks towards polling day. The prospects for US foreign policy alone mean that we should pay close attention to what happens. Hopefully there is no complacency. And whilst we do not get a vote, we share the concerns of those who worry about the prospects of a Trump victory for democracy.
As indicated, for the American Left a careful consideration of what is actually on offer and the realistic assessment of the ability to see promises fulfilled should be held up against the unquestionable damage that would be done if Donald Trump returns to the White House. It is hoped that early optimism generated by Harris’s candidacy will bear fruit. The success of her campaign, though, should not be seen as an end in itself. Positive steps for US citizens – and by the US state – will depend on building the momentum of progressive campaigning. November 2024 is not an end point.
Published 28 August 2024.
Jacobin began as an online magazine in late 2010, quickly expanding into a print journal. Its founder Bhaskar Sunkara has succeeded in his aim of ‘creating a publication which combined resolutely socialist politics with the accessibility of titles such as The Nation and The New Republic’.
In 2018, Sunkara purchased the UK title Tribune, relaunching this once Bevanite title as a bimonthly magazine with high-quality design echoing Jacobin’s, and carrying long-form political analysis, industrial issues coverage, book reviews and cultural features.