US socialists: ‘Trump’s election shows the far right has been better at capitalising on these times of crisis than the left’
Following Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 United States Presidential election, Jacob Andrewartha from LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal spoke with Cyn Huang and Daniil Sapunkov from the Bread & Roses Caucus within the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) about the result and what it means for politics at home and abroad.
Trump not only won with more votes than in 2016 or 2020, but also won the popular vote for the first time. In contrast, the Democrats got 10 million less votes than in 2020. What do you think happened?
Cyn: Some liberal commentators say the Kamala Harris campaign was too progressive to effectively court the centre. Another argument put forward is that it is not just white working class people who are inherently racist, but also immigrants and people of colour. Others blame sexism and aversion to having a female president. But the reason for Harris’ defeat and Trump’s victory run much deeper than that.
First of all, not every vote for Trump expressed a deep ideological sympathy for his program. While the far right has a committed social base — especially thanks to a very well financed and sophisticated media apparatus — they do not have a social majority. The reason Trump and the far right were able to win primarily has to do with the failure of the status quo, which has led to the rejection of incumbent parties, both Republican and Democratic, these past few elections.
For the past five decades, both the Democrats and Republicans have been stalwart defenders of neoliberalism. More recently, beginning with the 2008 financial crisis, neoliberalism has faced a crisis of legitimacy, which has been registered by movements all over the world. This has also translated to the electoral context, where we are seeing millions of people trying to desperately communicate “anything but this”. But it turns out things can get worse, especially when there is no left-wing alternative on offer.
People’s lives have been getting systematically worse under the Democratic administration. Liberal economists and Democratic party leaders have tried to delude themselves, spinning narratives that are primarily based around traditional economic indicators, such as growing gross domestic product or growing employment. But when you ask people very simple questions like “how are you able to afford your rent, groceries or gas”, the answer is that they cannot. It is harder than it has ever been before. Inflation has skyrocketed. Real wages are lower under Biden than Trump. People cannot acquire the basic necessities of life. Given this, it is no surprise that people wanted the Democrats out of office.
It is also no surprise that people are open to the divisive ideas Trump has put out into the ether. Ideas like the reason your wages are low is because immigrants are coming into your community and depressing your wages. These kinds of ideas carry more weight in the absence of a left alternative that can inject different explanations and programs into the public consciousness.
Trump and the far right were really adept at exploiting people’s dissatisfaction and presenting themselves as the party of change, as opposed to the Democrats’ pledge to preserve the status quo that was famously summarised in Joe Biden’s promise to shareholders last election that “nothing will fundamentally change”. That ethos really carried over into the Harris campaign.
I think there are a lot of other critiques we can make of the Democratic Party’s strategy and messaging: they gave their left-wing base nothing to get excited about, Harris made gestures at outflanking Trump to the right on immigration, things like that. These are all true, but they do not get to the heart of the issue, which is that even if the Democratic Party made certain cosmetic or strategic programmatic changes, who the hell would believe them?
Biden ran for office saying that he would cancel student debt. He largely did so due to left-wing pressure from Bernie Sanders’ candidacy and the movement behind him — that is a huge difference between this election and the last one: the left-wing or progressive part of the Democratic Party did not mount any kind of pressure campaign. But Biden promised these things. Then what happened? Student debt cancellation quickly became some partial forgiveness, there was some judicial pushback, and we never heard of it again. My entire life, what has been communicated to me is that the Democratic Party will use all the things that I care about as a bargaining chip, but will sacrifice them on the altar as soon as they make it into office.
The fundamental reason for Trump’s victory is not because of any political choice here and there. It is because of a long history of administering neoliberalism that has ticked people off. Unfortunately, there is no left wing alternative to turn to; what we have on offer right now is the far right.
Daniil: The bigger story in this election should not be that Trump won the popular vote, but that Harris fell 10 million votes short of Biden’s 2020 vote. A lot of people cite that 2020 was a COVID year and people could vote through early mail-in ballots. But Trump got more votes — about a million and a half more.
There are two routes to analyse this election. The first is the failure of the Democrats from the get-go. Biden was an unwinnable candidate: he oversaw the invasion of Ukraine and genocide in Gaza. Economic issues, inflation and rising cost-of-living in major cities had an impact, and Biden had no answers to that. From the start, appointing him as the nominee was a strategic mistake. The absence of primaries did not allow a credible left challenger to emerge, at least from within the ranks of Democratic Party.
Third party alternatives have been quite disastrous — from Cornell West’s campaign that was in free fall from the start to the campaign by the Party for Socialism and Liberation, which did not get much traction. Jill Stein’s campaign [as Green Party presidential candidate] only emerged towards the end of the race. Some people voted for these third party candidates in protest, but pundits blaming third parties for the Democrats’ loss are wrong. Even if you add all the votes of third party candidates, Harris would still come up short in critical states.
When Biden dropped out, the immediate mistake was endorsing Harris right off the bat. She became a nominee at convention and decided to just entirely hitch her campaign wagon to the Biden administration and run to the right. Trying to court Republicans who may have become disillusioned with their party, rather than speaking to the issues of regular working-class people, was a mistake. Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney. But many on the left pointed out that 10-15 years ago, figures such as Dick Cheney were perceived as devils and harbingers of destruction. Preserving the status quo does not work for people.
What happened in this election specifically was a peculiar switch where Democrats were the one who ended up with more donations and a bigger war chest than the Republicans. This represented a major switch in the parties’ orientation. Harris did well with middle-to-upper income voters, picking up votes there while losing them elsewhere across the board. This was especially the case with young people who either stayed at home or cast a protest vote because they care about what is going on in Gaza — a particularly prominent issue among young people and college students. Many stayed at home because they were not inspired or because they are drowning in debt — whether it is student debt, medical debt or they cannot pay their rent.
A concoction of these events is what brought down Harris’ campaign.
What does Trump’s victory reflect about the state of US politics?
Daniil: When we saw the results, with so many areas swinging to the right, some people were freaking out, thinking: “The country is over”. One way to respond is to think that people are moving to the right and are more generally favourable to gruesome policies and that therefore there is nothing we can do. We simply wash our hands of it, concede the loss and say: “It’s over.” Or, what I think is a better way to interpret it is that millions of people did not vote. The data does not show why people stayed home or voted for Trump. But if people did move to the right, they can be moved another way.
The Democrats failed to address rent, gas prices and the cost-of-living generally, which led people to vote for the Republicans. So, it is pretty simple: we needed a candidate that could speak to these frustrations and inspire people to not only vote but, ultimately, become organisers and join the kind of political movement we are trying to build.
Instead, liberal pundits have turned to finger pointing, looking to blame women, men, Latino voters, Black voters, perhaps trying to shame people into self-reflection. But that is no way to talk to working-class people with legitimate concerns. Many Trump voters said they would vote for a candidate that would implement free public transport, free healthcare and other programs that address universal basic needs. That is the way to win people back and prevent the shift to the right.
Cyn: We are facing a huge crisis, and in times of crisis there are openings for alternatives. The right has been better at capitalising on this than the left. Not only with their media but the fact that they are more embedded in working-class civic life.
Some people have been sounding the death-knell for the Democratic Party. I am skeptical of that, although I do agree it is in crisis because even though they suck, the Republicans suck too. Trump has been able to put forward an anti-system veneer, but he is actually the most rotten expression of capitalism and his policies cannot deliver for workers. When his program inevitably fails, we will be in another death spiral seeing the pendulum swing between Democrats and Republicans. That means the left needs to find a way to break out of the spiral and put a real and independent left-wing alternative on the map. Not just one that is left in name, but one that arises out of real social struggle.
Another major theme is the failure of neoliberal identity politics. Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and Harris have not transformed US politics in any meaningful way. They have provided cover for the status quo by giving it a new, more diverse set of faces. The right has waged a very effective culture war against the left, making things such as abortion, LGBTIQ rights, and political education seem like the narrow concerns of a few left-wing lunatics. But they express universal ideals of equality, justice and freedom. The Democrats have a complicated relationship with identity politics: they rely heavily on cross-class issues such as abortion, but at the same time cannot propose any meaningful policies on these fronts because of the compromised class nature of the party. This is a huge debate for the international left, we need to find a new set of concepts to win.
Other implications are that the left as a whole is in a worse position, but we do have a few more years of experience under our belt compared to the first years of our reformation in 2016. We are navigating less favourable conditions, including a smaller congressional bench and the fact that the insurgent campaigns that underpinned the initial years of DSA’s revitalisation have played a contradictory role in the past few years, particularly under the Biden administration. Figures such as Bernie and AOC [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] channeled more of their energy into trying to persuade Biden to move leftwards than agitating and building a greater base outside of formal politics. This is no surprise because they are not tethered to a collective project.
The left does not have all the answers, but we do have our analysis about what got us into this mess and a lot of our proposals are popular. You cannot reconcile the popularity of universal healthcare and abortion rights with claims of an extreme rightward shift among the immigrant population or extreme racism among the white working class.
What impact did the genocide in Gaza and the Palestine solidarity movement have on the results?
Cyn: Gaza and Palestine loomed large in these elections, particularly in key areas such as Michigan, where there are huge Arab American and Muslim populations. To understand the difference this issue made, it is important to know the context of the relationship between these communities and the Democratic Party. They have consistently backed the Democratic Party for the past few decades. Arab Americans and Muslims voted overwhelmingly for Biden, especially because of Trump’s policies such as banning refugees from Muslim-majority countries, even though the Obama administration deported more people than Trump did.
Between 2020 and now, Democrats have hemorrhaged support from these communities by aiding and abetting the genocide in Gaza, feigning humanitarian efforts to Gaza, silencing protesters on the campaign trail and sending people to discipline and condescend swing-state voters who expressed that Gaza was an important issue for them. As a result, turnout of Arab American and Muslim voters dropped by about 20% and support for the Democrats dropped by 38-40%. Trump beat Harris in Dearborn, Michigan, though her pro-Palestine counterparts, including Rashida Tlaib, passed with flying colours. What was surprising was that community leaders were not just advocating for third party votes or abstentions, but some were so pissed off with the current administration that they advocated voting for Trump.
All of these things were significant changes, but I do not think they were as decisive as the left has made it out to be. Harris lost in Michigan by 80,000 votes but she only had 22,000 less votes than Biden got in 2020. There is some extra distance to account for.
The takeaway for me is that we have to redouble our efforts in the Palestine movement, educate people about how it is connected to their livelihoods and make it so “an injury to one is an injury to all” is not just a slogan but a real political principle to live by.
Daniil: It clearly did not do Harris or the Democrats any favours that they sent military guards and police to college campuses to shut down student protesters who were protesting genocide. Harris lost almost every major college town in critical areas such as Michigan and others. It was not the federal administration that sent police to crack the skulls of professors and students standing up against genocide; it was local administrations. But Biden and Harris supported the rhetoric, calling protests antisemitic and unlawful, and affirming again and again Israel’s right to exist and defend itself. They also failed to acknowledge the scope of the destruction and lied from the stage at the Democratic National Convention about how “tirelessly” Harris was working for a ceasefire and an end to the destruction. Even then, they refused to call it a genocide or acknowledge the sheer scope of the damage.
Another aspect was the Uncommitted Movement, which started in Michigan around the Presidential primaries and then spread across the country. People began organising an initiative to vote “uncommitted” or leave the ballot blank, not only to undermine the legitimacy of the nominee but, more importantly, identify a visible chunk of voters willing to say they were voting this way because the Democrats were refusing to listen and implement a ceasefire or acknowledge the genocide. Initially, it obtained very powerful and inspiring results, in some areas reaching thresholds that were bigger than the threshold with which Biden won the state in 2020 — enough voters to make a difference in the election.
The Uncommitted Movement was a critical part of this election cycle, but its biggest mistake was not being willing to yield the power it built to leverage concessions from Harris. Ultimately, its goal was to reform the Democratic Party. The movement’s rhetoric was “we want a better Democratic Party” rather than an independent alternative. Once it became clear the Democrats were not shifting, the Uncommitted Movement capitulated, endorsed Harris and focused on defeating Trump.
Some in DSA thought we should encourage strategic voting for Harris in swing states, while putting forward messages saying: “Defeat Trump, Defeat the far right, Defeat fascism”. Others, including Bread and Roses, put forward a positive vision that rejected both options: “Harris perpetuates genocide, Trump is a proto-fascist, Workers deserve more.” The difference between the Uncommitted Movement and the idea that workers deserve more is the question of how we relate to the Democratic Party. I think we made the right decision to not capitulate and endorse Harris.
How will Trump’s election impact US foreign policy, including its role in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, the war in Ukraine and the “new Cold War” with China?
Cyn: Trump’s election is not just the US’ problem — it is the whole world’s problem. His election will have devastating consequences for Gaza and Ukraine, and for the international working class. To understand what his election might mean for world politics you have to understand the mindset of a person whose main concern is projecting US political confidence — “Make America Great Again” — and turning the country into “winners” instead of “losers”.
For Trump, becoming “winners” again means industrial warfare against China in order to bring industry back to the US. Yet right now we cannot compete: US industry has been outsourced to China for the past 30 years and things are hopelessly entangled. So, we will see contradictions arise within the capitalist class. For example, Apple and Elon Musk have their production in China. Musk supported Trump’s campaign with hundreds of millions of dollars, and as soon as he was elected made $70 billion in profit. As Trump starts to pursue his policies, we will see tensions arise. The question of how he is going to implement his policies and how effective he will be is hard to say. But he has talked very seriously about them and his cabinet picks prove as much. Trump’s cabinet picks have been unimaginable, a rogues gallery of war hawks, alleged criminals and right-wing conspirators. It does not bode well.
Trump’s idea is that the US has to restore industrial and military capability. Biden made some small gestures on this front with his Inflation Reduction Act and initiatives around subsidies for electric vehicles, semiconductors and infrastructure. But these were all subsidies to capital. It did not leave workers on a better footing, even though he was promising better trade union jobs with better labour rights. Trump’s economic nationalist package is much more comprehensive and unapologetic. He is going to lift all restraints on oil production, deregulate everything and cut corporate tax rate. This will force other countries to set up tariffs against the US. It is going to have devastating effects for the economy, for the climate, for labour rights and for geopolitical stability.
As for Ukraine, Trump’s perspective seems to acknowledge that the US lacks the resources to take on the whole world, and that it has to concentrate on China. So, he has been talking about making a deal with the Russians to stop the war at the expense of Ukrainian’s safety and self-determination. He might be thinking he can sacrifice the Ukrainians to disentangle Russia from China and focus on China, leaving the Europeans to deal with Russia. Contrast this with Biden’s strategy of using Ukraine to re-cement control over Europe and pressure allies to line up against China.
As for Gaza, Trump has repeatedly urged Israel to “finish the job” and destroy Hamas. He has appointed Mike Huckabee as ambassador to Israel, a person who denies that Palestinians as a people exist and supports the annexation of the West Bank. You can imagine things will get more horrible than under the Biden administration, which wanted to act coy around some of these issues.
Daniil: An interesting switch has happened: somehow the Republicans have emerged as an “anti-war” party in public imagination. Republican strategists understood the grievances many communities have with the current destruction of Gaza. Of course, Republicans have no interest in Palestinian sovereignty, establishing a democratic state in Palestine or even a ceasefire, but they are interested in winning votes. So, some Republican messaging in Michigan included lowering the cost-of-living, bringing peace and stopping the war — some of the most prominent things people care about. But while Trump is president, it is not unreasonable to assume he will not be the one pulling the strings on a lot of these questions.
On Ukraine, some Russian-speaking Ukrainians and other migrants who arrived as part of the post-Soviet immigration wave are excited about Trump, buying into the idea that he will stop the war. The difference between them and the Arab American community is that they have been less favourable to the Democrats in the past. It is a more conservative community that aligns with the Republicans on social values. The West has not maintained the same level of support for Ukraine; it seems like European countries do not have as many resources to provide Ukraine. The destruction is ongoing and Russian forces are still advancing. Ukraine is bleeding profusely, but another military draft mobilisation could be disastrous and trigger a social crisis that would be fatal to [Ukrainian President Volodomyr] Zelensky. I do not think there is much Trump can offer to secure a peace deal, it is more about how much he is willing to concede.
Ending the war in Ukraine and squashing the crisis in the Middle East would allow the US to centralise resources and focus on China. But I do not think it is possible to disentangle Russia and China economically. They have close proximity, strong economic and military ties, and China has been turning a blind eye to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
How is the socialist left preparing to resist Trump? What implications does the result have for building collective working class power?
Daniil: The immediate result in post-election days was that we saw a membership bump in DSA. More people have anti-Democratic Party sentiment and want to join organisations that are presenting an alternative that is fighting for a better world. So, we are investing a lot of time in developing this new membership.
One of the lessons we have learnt is not to just allow people to come into the organisation and for us to continue business as usual, plugging them into different campaigns. A lot of them are very new to the idea of being in a political organisation, meaning we need to be intentional in how we welcome new people. One of the programs that has become very popular is the 101 events, where people come in and learn what DSA does, nationally and locally. It is a way for people to come in and hear about why socialism is the alternative and how we can beat fascism. The most recent one in New York City filled a church with more than 300 newer members, which is really exciting.
Going forward there is so much to look forward to. We want to experiment with independent electoral campaigns. We want to try running independent candidates in Republican districts. We want to make the most of the anti-corporate sentiment that is going around. We are building the plane as we fly it.
Another significant moment will be the United Auto Workers proposal for a general strike in 2028. 2028 seems far away, but time goes fast. So, we are already thinking about how we can build towards it. Workers still have power; we just need to be on the shop floor with them and giving them tools to utilise it. So, we want to continue building the workers movement, developing organisers and building independent movements.
Cyn: The organising has not stopped. The Trump election had a dampening and depressing effect, but working people are still going to fight because we have to. We have a small but explosive window because people are looking for something to do and explanations.
We need to be planning anti-Trump mobilisations, especially around the inauguration. We also need to be putting out an analysis of how we got here and the conditions that make right-wing politics attractive. We need to hold events, use social media, convince people to join organisations and, most importantly, build on-the-ground campaigns and social movements around immediate issues that have political resonance. A lot of us are thinking about what organising conditions under a Trump presidency will look like. Workers are discussing what it will be like organising under a much weaker National Labor Relations Board.
We have been advocating for an independent workers party that rises out of a level of social struggle that currently does not exist, while recognising some of the opportunities that come from hijacking the Democratic Party infrastructure and ballot line. We are considering inviting other movement groups to our upcoming DSA convention. It is tough because we have such limited experience of democracy. Most people have no experience of doing collective action whatsoever. So, what happens when you try to unite all of these initiatives under a cohesive political challenge? These are the debates we are having and experiments we are trying going forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment