AMERIKA

Crisis calls from LGBTQ+ youth spiked by 700% after Election Day

Photo by BĀBI on Unsplash
woman in white tank top
Orion Rummler, The 19Th

November 10, 2024

Editor’s note: If you or a loved one are in crisis, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255), or contact the Crisis Text Line by texting TALK to 741741.

When the presidential race was called for Donald Trump in the early hours of Wednesday, calls and texts to a leading LGBTQ+ youth suicide prevention organization exploded in a massive outpouring of anxiety over the election results.

The Trevor Project saw an overall 700 percent increase in calls, texts and chats compared to prior weeks. The organization offers a lifeline via phone, online chat or text to LGBTQ+ youth who struggle with thoughts of depression, self-harm or suicide while navigating coming out to their families or facing discrimination. Right now, the services are experiencing long hold times at an especially vulnerable time for LGBTQ+ people.

LGBTQ+ youth are afraid, confused and anxious about the outcome of the election in these conversations, a spokesperson for the Trevor Project said. Their crisis services usually focus on supporting the mental health of queer and trans youth from ages 13 to 24 while they navigate relationships, gender identity and coming out. Now, the vast majority of young LGBTQ+ Americans are seeking emergency help due to what they described in text and chat messages to the helpline as “election anxiety.”

These pleas for help are not happening in a vacuum. They are the result of a political environment that has brought transphobia into the political mainstream, especially from Trump’s campaign. The former president’s campaign spent over $20 million on ads portraying trans people as harmful to society or attacking Vice President Kamala Harris’ support of trans people. Trump has pledged to enact extreme anti-LGBTQ+ policies in his second term, such as attempting to charge teachers with sex discrimination for affirming students’ gender identities. Some of his proposals mimic state anti-LGBTQ+ laws that have gone into effect in the past few years.

Those state laws and the vitriolic rhetoric surrounding them have been steadily eroding the mental health of LGBTQ+ youth. Prior research from the Trevor Project, in partnership with the polling firm Morning Consult, found that state proposals restricting the rights of LGBT+ youth in schools, sports and doctor’s offices negatively affect their mental health. New research by the Trevor Project, published in the journal Nature Human Behavior, found that state laws targeting transgender people caused trans and nonbinary youth to be more likely to attempt suicide within the past year.

The spike in crisis services outreach is alarming, said Jaymes Black, CEO of The Trevor Project. But, Black added, the organization is not surprised that the wave of anti-LGBTQ+ policies of the past few years continues to harm young people’s mental health. “The current political environment in the U.S. is heavy, but it is so important for LGBTQ+ young people to know that they do not have to shoulder this weight alone,” Black said.

“LGBTQ+ young people: your life matters, and you were born to live it,” Black added.

The Trevor Project encourages LGBTQ+ youth to take a break from news and social media, silencing notifications when trying to relax and finding community wherever possible, whether in person or online. Additional resources include calling the Trans Lifeline, which has specific resources and upcoming meetings for those “dealing with post-election grief;” texting hotlines such as THRIVE Lifeline and Steve Fund; calling the LGBT National Youth Talkline; or reaching out to a counselor through the Crisis Text Line.

Another way to seek help when in crisis or contemplating suicide is by reaching out to a trusted friend, community or family member.

Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ+ legal group, has compiled a list of state-level resources for LGBTQ+ youth, including mentorship programs and community centers. To connect with new friends and discuss shared hobbies, Q Chat Space offers an online community for LGBTQ+ teenagers. Parents of LGBTQ+ youth looking for supportive spaces can find state and local PFLAG chapters across the country, or join virtual meetings.

Louisiana Illuminator is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Greg LaRose for questions: info@lailluminator.com. Follow Louisiana Illuminator on Facebook and X.

Trump’s First Term Was Bad for Trans People. His Next Term Promises to Be Worse.


Here are six ways a second Trump administration may try to target trans people. We must organize our resistance now.

By Lewis Raven Wallace , 

Truthout

Published November 8, 2024

Dozens of protesters gather in Times Square near a military recruitment center to show their anger at President Donald Trump's decision to reinstate a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military on July 26, 2017, in New York City.

Spencer Platt / Getty Images

Donald J. Trump’s successful 2024 campaign for president prominently featured ads that declared: “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” The campaign spent an unprecedented amount of money on commercials specifically targeting trans and nonbinary people, particularly trans women, and Trump himself has denigrated trans advocacy and visibility, claiming it will come to an end when he returns to the presidency.

During his first campaign in 2016, Trump appeared relatively unconcerned about issues related to trans people and trans rights. While racism and sexism had been core to his career and image, anti-LGBTQ sentiments had not — he tended toward the northeastern socially liberal sensibilities held even by many conservatives in places like New York City.

Yet, in his first term as president, Trump pursued policies that limited trans people’s access to health care, restricted trans people’s protections from discrimination in jobs and housing, and banned trans people from the military.

The development of Trump’s anti-trans sensibilities from 2016 to the present reflects the growing alliance between Trump and socially conservative activist groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Family Research Council and Moms for Liberty. As Trump has reshaped his political image, he has joined these groups in grabbing onto trans folks as a convenient scapegoat and a focus of some of their most aggressively backwards policies.

Here are six ways in which Trump has promised to target trans and queer people during his second administration:

1. Trump Will Repress Trans Youth in Schools and Punish Teachers Who Support Them

In the name of “Parents’ Rights,” Trump’s website outlines his plans to investigate and defund schools and programs “pushing Critical Race Theory or gender ideology on our children.” Gender ideology has been largely interpreted by right-wing activists to mean any discussion of pronouns, nonbinary and queer identity, and trans-affirming stories, including children’s books featuring trans characters.

Trump also plans to push for a federal “Parental Bill of Rights” similar to those proposed in dozens of states, which require teachers and administrators to notify parents if students want to change their pronouns, and encourage parents to police how gender is taught in schools and whether trans youth are allowed to use the restrooms and locker rooms that align with their identities. These anti-trans education laws, already active in over half of U.S. states, are facing legal challenges which are bound to continue if the U.S. government passes a similar federal law.

2. Trump’s Policies Will Target Trans Women and Girls in Sports

Trump’s platform, which he refers to as “Agenda 47,” names “keep[ing] men out of women’s sports” as one of his 20 priorities for his next administration.

Trans people may be restricted not just from accessing trans-specific care in many cases, but also potentially from accessing any care.

Of course, there is no extant issue with “men” attempting to play on women’s sports teams. In action, this means Trump will continue to malign transgender women as men pretending to be women, calling on junk science to claim that trans women and girls have an unfair advantage in sports. Trump has indicated that he would attempt to use executive action to punish schools that allow trans girls to play on girls’ teams. Congress could also pursue passage of a federal law to this effect — a 2023 bill, HR 734, was stopped by the Democratic-controlled Senate but passed the House.

3. Trump Will Push for a Restrictive Federal Definition of Gender

Taking his anti-trans virulence a step further, Trump plans to redefine gender at the federal level as a binary recognizing only male-assigned men and female-assigned women. This flies in the face of current medical consensus, which defines gender as a category distinct from sex assigned at birth. These definitions are key to interpreting anti-discrimination protection — if sex is narrowly defined as a binary of male and female, federal Title IX protections can no longer be interpreted to protect trans people from discrimination. Trump has also vowed to reinstate rules from his previous administration that allowed federal housing programs to openly discriminate against unhoused trans people who seek services in sex-segregated housing facilities, using similarly narrow and regressive definitions of biological sex to force women into men’s shelters or turn them away entirely.

4. The Trump Administration Will Roll Back Health Care Access for Trans People

The legal definition of sex and gender also has a bearing on trans people’s access to necessary health care, an area in which Trump has been clear about his priorities.

During his first presidency, Trump’s administration set a precedent by rolling back federal protections against health care discrimination for trans people under the Affordable Care Act. If these policies are reinstated, trans people may be restricted not just from accessing trans-specific care in many cases, but also potentially from accessing any care — as open discrimination on the basis of gender identity may become legal (again) under Trump. While individual health insurers and health care providers are free to not discriminate, they will not be prevented from doing so by the federal government; on the contrary, they’ll virtually be cheered on to do just that.

Trump also claims he will criminalize gender-affirming care for minors, punishing physicians who provide such care by restricting Medicaid and Medicare funding and even opening DOJ investigations into these doctors. He has also vowed to stop providing gender-affirming care in federal prisons and to enforce Republicans’ restrictive definitions of gender in prisons and detention centers.

A study in 2017 found that already over a quarter of trans people had postponed necessary medical care out of fear, and that those who delayed care were more likely to be depressed and to attempt suicide. If these rules unfold as Trump has claimed they will, doctors and health care providers will be fearful of providing trans-affirming care, and trans and nonbinary people will be even more afraid to access care at all, causing devastating ripple effects for trans people’s mental health and physical well-being. Trans people in federal prisons, like trans people in many state facilities, will be forced into housing situations that make them even more vulnerable to transphobic violence, and unable to medically transition while incarcerated.

5. The Trump Administration Will Deport and Abuse Trans and Queer Migrants and Refugees

Trump’s campaign rhetoric had included the accusation that a Kamala Harris administration would support “transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison” — a statement which referred to Harris’s agreement that the federal government should in fact provide gender-affirming health care to migrants it is holding in cages without charges.

In addition to keeping trans migrants from getting the care they need while incarcerated, the Trump administration’s open plans to carry out mass deportations affect the health and safety of trans and queer communities in myriad other ways. Many refugees and migrants are trans and queer people pushed out of their own home communities, who are then vulnerable to violence and discrimination throughout their path of migration. Indiscriminate deportation will mean trans and queer immigrants are swept up into dangerous and unwelcoming detention facilities, subject to rape and abuse, and turned into easy targets for violence and discrimination.

6. Trump Will Ban Trans People From the Military (Again)

When President Joe Biden took power in 2021, he acted quickly to roll back Trump’s previous policy banning trans people from open military service. A majority of U.S. residents polled in 2021 (66 percent) supported trans military service. While Trump has not made as much noise recently on this particular issue, in all likelihood, a second Trump administration will lead to a second set of attacks on transgender troops, in spite of the unpopularity of this policy and the multiple legal challenges to the ban during Trump’s first term. Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation plan that lays out the right-wing movement’s visions for a Trump presidency in detail, says “gender dysphoria is incompatible with the demands of military service,” and calls for a ban on use of public money for “transgender surgeries” and abortions.

This election will no doubt usher in an era of fear and regression for trans and queer communities, particularly young people and transfeminine people who are the primary targets of the rhetorical attacks. Over just a decade, trans people have gone from being a little-known minority (at less than 1 percent of the adult population) to a hotly debated scapegoat, in the crosshairs of the new culture wars. But cultural debates aside, the changes to safety, health access and economic security will necessitate sustained grassroots resistance including mutual aid, policy advocacy, and likely defiance of unjust rules and laws. Small, community-driven trans advocacy organizations are already doing this work across the country, and in regions where the repression Trump is pursuing is already well underway — they deserve and need our support as their work becomes ever more challenging and urgent.

This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

Lewis Raven Wallace
Lewis Raven Wallace (he/they/ze) is an independent journalist based in Durham, North Carolina, and the author and creator of The View from Somewhere book and podcast. He’s currently a Ford Global Fellow, and the Abolition Journalism Fellow with Interrupting Criminalization. He previously worked in public radio, and is a long-time activist engaged in prison abolition, racial justice, and queer and trans liberation. He is white and transgender, and was born and raised in the Midwest with deep roots in the South.

Unions Say Building Worker Power Is Only Way to Defeat Trump's Fascist Right

"No one—not Donald Trump or JD Vance, nor any one CEO—can stop solidarity," said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler. "Organized labor is the path forward."

Workers at the University of California, Los Angeles were pictured on the picket line on May 28, 2024.
(Photo: Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Jake Johnson
Nov 07, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

The largest labor unions in the United States are ready for a fight.

That much was made clear within hours of Donald Trump's victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in Tuesday's election, an outcome that will soon bring to power a former president who aggressively pursued anti-worker policies during his first four years in the White House despite posturing as an ally of rank-and-file union members.

For Shawn Fain, the fiery president of the United Auto Workers, the struggle for the nation's working class in the wake of Trump's victory is identical to the one it faced prior to the election: "unchecked corporate greed destroying our lives, our families, and our communities."

"It's the threat of companies like Stellantis, Mack Truck, and John Deere shipping jobs overseas to boost shareholder profits. It's the threat of corporate America telling the working class to sit down and shut up," said Fain, who led the UAW through a six-week strike last year that yielded historic contracts with the nation's three largest car manufacturers.

"We've said all along that no matter who is in the White House, our fight remains the same," Fain added. "The fight for a living wage, affordable healthcare, and time for our families continues. It's time for Washington, D.C. to put up or shut up, no matter the party, no matter the candidate. Will our government stand with the working class, or keep doing the bidding of the billionaires? That's the question we face today. And that's the question we'll face tomorrow. The answer lies with us. No matter who's in office."

"We've seen assaults on our fundamental rights before. In the days, months, and years ahead, labor's task will be to defend working people when it happens again."

While energized by recent victories, the U.S. labor movement is broadly in disrepair, battered by a decades-long corporate assault. Last year, according to the latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the country's union membership rate was just 10%, down from 20.1% in 1983.

And union members were hardly unified behind one candidate in Tuesday's election: Exit polling shows that members of union households backed Harris by a relatively narrow margin of 53% to Trump's 45%.


But organized labor, weakened and divided as it is, still represents "the most promising and powerful tool to turn this all around," journalist Hamilton Nolan wrote for In These Times on Wednesday.

In a separate piece ahead of Tuesday's election, Nolan argued that "unions are inherently progressive."

"Not because they endorse a particular political party, but because the nature of the work they do is about empowering the working class and increasing equality and enabling regular people to stand up effectively to the power of capital, of the rich, of corporations, of unrestrained capitalism," he wrote. "When you win a union and sign a union contract it is not just an act of improving your own life and the lives of your coworkers; it is a battle won in the class war. And the political war that you are stressed about right now is, at its heart, a class war."

Claude Cummings, president of the Communications Workers of America, affirmed that message in a statement following Tuesday's election, saying that "corporate CEOs are intent on dividing us against each other so they can drive down wages and cut corners on safety to boost profits for big investors."

"Now it is time to reunite around our shared values," said Cummings. "No matter who is in office, our goals are always the same—to use our collective power to protect our rights, to improve our working conditions, and to give everyone an opportunity to have a union voice on the job."



In the second Trump administration, unions are likely to face a billionaire-shaped government hostile to organized labor's rights and aspirations for a more just and equitable society.

While no final decisions have been made, The Washington Postreported earlier this month that Trump sees former fast-food executive Andrew Puzder—an enemy of unions and opponent of raising the minimum wage—as a top contender for the labor secretary post. Trump selected Puzder for the role in his first White House term, but Puzder withdrew his nomination in the face of bipartisan backlash.

The Post also reported that Trump intends to fire National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo—a champion of workers—on day one and "reverse wins for unions under Biden," including "a 2023 landmark ruling that forces employers found using illegal tactics to fight labor organizing to recognize unions." The NLRB ruling has provided a boost to unionization efforts.

Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, said in a statement Wednesday that the Project 2025 agenda crafted by Trump allies and members of his first administration "promises to dismantle labor unions because we are a pillar of democracy and a check on power."

Acknowledging that Trump's win represents "a blow for every worker who depends on our elected leaders to fight for our jobs, our unions, and our contracts," Shuler said that "we stand for solidarity—the kind that is built when working people stand together to take on the biggest, richest bosses and the most powerful extremist politicians."

"Most importantly, we know how to fight back when anyone comes after our freedoms," said Shuler. "No one—not Donald Trump or JD Vance, nor any one CEO—can stop solidarity. Organized labor is the path forward."

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) president April Verrett echoed that sentiment.

"We are putting corporations, billionaires, and extremist politicians on notice—we see you, we know just what you're trying to do, and we won’t back down. We know what it's like to face down bullies," Verrett added. "We will not allow anyone to take away our fundamental rights and freedoms. Hear us: when you attack just one of us, you're attacking every worker who makes our communities, our economy, and our nation strong."

Sanders Slams 'Big Money Interests' and Consultants That Control Democratic Party After Loss to Trump

"While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change," said the Vermont Independent. "And they're right."


U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks at a labor rally for the Harris-Walz campaign in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on October 27, 2024.
(Photo: Nathan Morris/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Nov 06, 2024
COMMON DREAMS

Shortly before Vice President Kamala Harris delivered her concession speech on Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders forcefully called out Democratic Party leadership for losing the White House and at least one chamber of Congress to Republicans.

"It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working-class people would find that the working class has abandoned them," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement. "First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black workers as well."

"While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change," said the senator, who decisively won reelection on Tuesday as Republicans reclaimed the upper chamber. "And they're right."

After seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020, Sanders spent this cycle campaigning for Harris, warning of Republican President-elect Donald Trump's return, blasting billionaire involvement in U.S. politics, and urging Democrats to better serve working people.

"Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign? ...Probably not."


In Sanders' new statement, he highlighted U.S. income and wealth inequality, worker concerns about artificial intelligence, and the federal government's failure to provide paid leave and universal healthcare while pouring billions of dollars into Israel's war on the Gaza Strip.

"Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign? Will they understand the pain and political alienation that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing? Do they have any ideas as to how we can take on the increasingly powerful oligarchy which has so much economic and political power?" he asked. "Probably not."

"In the coming weeks and months those of us concerned about grassroots democracy and economic justice need to have some very serious political discussions," Sanders concluded. "Stay tuned."

Progressives—who have responded to Trump's Electoral College and popular vote win by criticizing billionaires who backed him and promising "unprecedented resistance" during his second term—echoed Sanders' remarks.



Sharing Sanders' statement on X—the social media platform owned by billionaire Trump backer Elon Musk—United Auto Workers (UAW) communications director Jonah Furman said: "The task has been clear for a decade. The question is only whether and when we will rise to the task."


Separately, the union's president, Shawn Fain, said in a Wednesday statement that "UAW members around the country clocked in today under the same threat they faced yesterday: unchecked corporate greed destroying our lives, our families, and our communities."

"We've said all along that no matter who is in the White House, our fight remains the same," Fain continued, pointing to the battle against "broken trade laws" like the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and fights for good union jobs, a secure retirement for everyone, a living wage, affordable healthcare, and time for families.

"It's time for Washington, D.C. to put up or shut up, no matter the party, no matter the candidate," added Fain, whose union endorsed Harris. "Will our government stand with the working class, or keep doing the bidding of the billionaires? That's the question we face today. And that's the question we'll face tomorrow. The answer lies with us. No matter who's in office."

"Will our government stand with the working class, or keep doing the bidding of the billionaires?"

In a post-election column, Chuck Idelson, former communications senior strategist for National Nurses United, made the case that "amid the postmortems and reckoning that will now follow the wreckage of Donald Trump's return to 'absolute' power, as authorized by the Supreme Court, there are... two notes in particular that deserve a deeper dive."

"In Missouri, a state Trump won by 58%, voters also acted to increase the state's minimum wage to $15 an hour and to require employers to provide paid sick leave to workers," he pointed out. "In Nebraska, another red state won by Trump, voters also passed a paid sick leave measure, Initiative 436, by 75%."

In addition to the ballot measures, Idelson highlighted that "in the multitude of exit poll results, one particularly stands out—94% of registered Republicans voted for Trump, the exact same percentage he received in 2020. The heavy campaign focus on pulling away Republican voters from Trump turned out to be a pipe dream. The old cliché 'it's the economy stupid,' triumphed again."

Harris' campaign, he argued, "reflected the direction the Democratic Party establishment has taken, away from working-class issues since the advent of neoliberal policies in the 1970s and carried out by most Democratic Party presidents since."

Historian Harvey J. Kaye, professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, took aim at the Democratic Party on social media Wednesday, noting failures to stand up to billionaires, raise the minimum wage, and pass the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act.

Morris Pearl, chair of the Patriotic Millionaires and a former managing director at BlackRock, said in a Wednesday statement that "a self-avowed authoritarian successfully wielded the economic frustrations of millions to win the most consequential election of our nation's history. The Democratic establishment has only itself to blame."

"Voters demanded a fundamental overhaul of a rigged economic system. When neoliberal Democrats dithered, Donald Trump offered to clear the board, and voters chose the dark unknown rather than the status quo," Pearl added. "The only question remaining is, why are Democrats surprised? This is the entirely predictable result of a multidecade strategy to appease the rich that met no serious resistance."

The Sunrise Movement—a youth-led climate group that worked to reach millions of young voters in swing states to defeat Trump—similarly stressed on social media Wednesday that "last night's results were a call for change. Millions of people are fed up after living through decades of a rigged economy and corrupt political system. They are looking for someone to blame. It's critical the Dem Party takes that seriously."

"For decades, Democrats have prioritized corporations over people. This is the result. Every working American feels the crisis. We can't pay rent. Our government can't pass basic legislation. The WEATHER has turned against us. And Dems look us in the eye and say it's fine," the group continued. "Trump loves corporations even more than Democrats do, but he ran an anti-establishment campaign that gave an answer to people's desire for change."

"We can stop him, and we must," Sunrise said of Trump. "But it's going to take many thousands of people taking to the streets and preparing to strike. And it's going to take mass movements putting out a better vision for our country than Trumpism and proving that we can make it happen."

What Lesson Should the Dems Take From the 2024 Election? Return to the Working Class


Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and UAW President Shawn Fain (left) speak at a rally in support of United Auto Workers members as they strike the Big Three automakers on September 15, 2023 in Detroit, Michigan.
(Photo: Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)

The party should use this inflection point to shift ground—from being the party of well-off college graduates, big corporations, and vacuous “centrism”—to an anti-establishment party ready to shake up the system on behalf of the vast majority of Americans.

Robert Reich
Nov 09, 2024

robertreich.substack.com

A political disaster such as what occurred Tuesday gains significance not simply by virtue of who won or lost, but through how the election is interpreted.

This is known as The Lesson of the election.

The Lesson explains what happened and why. It deciphers the public’s mood, values, and thoughts. It attributes credit and blame.

Democrats shouldn’t move to the right if that means giving up on democracy, social justice, civil rights, and equal voting rights.

And therein lies its power. When The Lesson of the election becomes accepted wisdom—when most of the politicians, pundits, and politicians come to believe it—it shapes the future. It determines how parties, candidates, political operatives, and journalists approach future elections.

There are many reasons for what occurred on Tuesday and for what the outcome should teach America—about where the nation is, and about what Democrats should do in the future.

Yet inevitably, one Lesson predominates.

Today, I want to share with you six conventional “lessons” you will hear for Tuesday’s outcome. None is, and none should be considered, The Lesson of the 2024 election.

Then I’ll give you what I consider the real Lesson of the election.
None of These are The Lesson of the 2024 Election:It was a total repudiation of the Democratic Party, a major realignment. Rubbish. Harris would have won had there been a small, less than 1% vote shift in the three main battleground states. The biggest shift from 2020 and 2016 was among Latino men. We don’t know yet whether Latino men will return to the Democrats; if they don’t, they will contribute to a small realignment. But the fact is America elected Trump in 2016, almost reelected him in 2020, and elected him again in 2024. We haven't changed much, at least in terms of whom we vote for.
If the Dems want to win in the future, they have to move to the right. They should stop talking about “democracy,” forget “multiculturalism,” and end their focus on women’s rights, transgender rights, immigrant’s rights, voting rights, civil rights, and America’s shameful history of racism and genocide. Instead, push to strengthen families, cut taxes, allow school choice and prayer in public schools, reduce immigration, minimize our obligations abroad, and put America and Americans first. Wrong. Democrats shouldn’t move to the right if that means giving up on democracy, social justice, civil rights, and equal voting rights. While Democrats might reconsider their use of “identity” politics (in which people are viewed primarily through the lenses of race, ethnicity, or gender), Democrats must not lose the moral ideals at the heart of the party and at the core of America.
Republicans won because of misinformation and right-wing propaganda. They won over young men because of a vicious alliance between Trump and a vast network of online influencers and podcasts appealing to them. The answer is for Democrats to cultivate an equivalent media ecosystem that rivals what the right has built. Partly true.Misinformation and right-wing propaganda did play a role, particularly in reaching young men. But this hardly means progressives and Democrats should fill the information ecosystem with misinformation or left-wing propaganda. Better messaging, yes. Lies and bigotry, no. We should use our power as consumers to boycott X and all advertisers on X and on Fox News, mount defamation and other lawsuits against platforms that foment hate, and push for regulations (at least at the state level for now) requiring that all platforms achieve minimum standards of moderation and decency.
Republicans cheated. Trump, Putin, and election deniers at county and precinct levels engaged in a vast conspiracy to suppress votes. I doubt it. Putin tried, but so far there’s no sign that the Kremlin affected any voting process. There is little or no evidence of widespread cheating by Republicans. Dems should not feed further conspiracy theories about fraudulent voting or tallying. For the most part, the system worked smoothly, and we owe a huge debt of gratitude to election workers and state officials in charge of the process.
Harris ran a lousy campaign. She wasn’t a good communicator. She fudged and shifted her positions on issues. She was weighed down by Biden and didn’t sufficiently separate herself from him. Untrue. Harris ran an excellent campaign but she only had a little over three months to do it in. She had to introduce herself to the nation (typically a vice president is almost invisible within an administration) at the same time Trump’s antics sucked most of the oxygen out of the political air. She could have been clearer about her proposals and policies but her debate with Trump was the best debate performance I’ve ever witnessed, and her speeches were pitch perfect. Biden may have weighed her down a bit, but his decision to step down was gracious and selfless.
Racism and misogyny. Voters were simply not prepared to elect a Black female president. Partly true. Surely racism and misogyny played a role, but bigotry can’t offer a full explanation.
Here’s the Real Lesson of the 2024 Election:

On Tuesday, according to exit polls, Americans voted mainly on the economy—and their votes reflected their class and level of education.

While the economy has improved over the last two years according to standard economic measures, most Americans without college degrees—that’s the majority—have not felt it.

In fact, most Americans without college degrees have not felt much economic improvement for four decades, and their jobs have grown less secure. The real median wage of the bottom 90% is stuck nearly where it was in the early 1990s, even though the economy is more than twice as large.

Only by reducing the power of big money in our politics can America grow the middle class, reward hard work, and reaffirm the basic bargain at the heart of our system.

Most of the economy’s gains have gone to the top.

This has caused many Americans to feel frustrated and angry. Trump gave voice to that anger. Harris did not.

The basic bargain used to be that if you worked hard and played by the rules you’d do better and your children would do even better than you. But since 1980, that bargain has become a sham. The middle class has shrunk.

Why? While Republicans steadily cut taxes on the wealthy, Democrats abandoned the working class.

Democrats embraced NAFTA and lowered tariffs on Chinese goods. They deregulated finance and allowed Wall Street to become a high-stakes gambling casino. They let big corporations become huge, with enough market power to keep prices (and profit margins) high.

They let corporations bust unions (with negligible penalties) and slash payrolls. They bailed out Wall Street when its gambling addiction threatened to blow up the entire economy but never bailed out homeowners who lost everything.

They welcomed big money into their campaigns—and delivered quid pro quos that rigged the market in favor of big corporations and the wealthy.

The Republican Party is worse. It says it’s on the side of the working class but its policies will hurt ordinary workers even more. Trump’s tariffs will drive up prices. His expected retreat from vigorous antitrust enforcement will allow giant corporations to drive up prices further.

If Republicans gain control over the House as well as the Senate, as looks likely, they will extend Trump’s 2017 tax law and add additional tax cuts. As in 2017, these lower taxes will mainly benefit the wealthy and enlarge the national debt, which will give Republicans an excuse to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—their objectives for decades.

Democrats must no longer do the bidding of big corporations and the wealthy. They must instead focus on winning back the working class. They should demand paid family leave, Medicare for all, free public higher education, stronger unions, higher taxes on great wealth, and housing credits that will generate the biggest boom in residential home construction since World War II.

They should also demand that corporations share their profits with their workers. They should call for limits on CEO pay, eliminate all stock buybacks (as was the SEC rule before 1982), and reject corporate welfare (subsidies and tax credit to particular companies and industries unrelated to the common good).

Democrats need to tell Americans why their pay has been lousy for decades and their jobs less secure: not because of immigrants, liberals, people of color, the “deep state,” or any other Trump Republican bogeyman, but because of the power of large corporations and the rich to rig the market and siphon off most of economy’s gains.

In doing this, Democrats need not turn their backs on democracy. Democracy goes hand-in-hand with a fair economy. Only by reducing the power of big money in our politics can America grow the middle class, reward hard work, and reaffirm the basic bargain at the heart of our system.

If the Trump Republicans gain control of the House, as seems likely, they will have complete control of the federal government. That means they will own whatever happens to the economy and will be responsible for whatever happens to America. Notwithstanding all their anti-establishment populist rhetoric, they will become the establishment.

The Democratic Party should use this inflection point to shift ground—from being the party of well-off college graduates, big corporations, “never-Tumpers” like Dick Cheney, and vacuous “centrism”—to an anti-establishment party ready to shake up the system on behalf of the vast majority of Americans.

This is, and should be The Lesson of the 2024 election

Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place.

We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference.

Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will.







© 2021 robertreich.substack.com


Robert Reich
Robert Reich, is the Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and a senior fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time magazine named him one of the 10 most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. His book include: "Aftershock" (2011), "The Work of Nations" (1992), "Beyond Outrage" (2012) and, "Saving Capitalism" (2016). He is also a founding editor of The American Prospect magazine, former chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, "Inequality For All." Reich's newest book is "The Common Good" (2019). He's co-creator of the Netflix original documentary "Saving Capitalism," which is streaming now.
Full Bio >

How Harris Lost the Working Class

Workers rejected Kamala Harris because she chose to campaign in a fantasy world where villains other than Trump are rarely named and nobody has to choose whether regular people or billionaire oligarchs get to wield power.

By David Sirota

November 10, 2024

Source: Jacobin



For liberals, Donald Trump’s victory this week prompts adjectives like “scary,” “terrifying,” “depressing,” and “demoralizing.” But one word it should not evoke is this: “surprising.” In a downwardly mobile country, Democrats’ rejection of working-class politics — and the party’s open hostility to populist politicians in its midst — was always going to end up creating prime political conditions for a conservative strongman promising to make America great again.

Trump and his cronies spun tales of overbearing bureaucrats, DEI warriors, and migrant gangs to weave a narrative that the government of elites is so out of touch — or focused on identity politics — that it doesn’t care about the affordability crisis ruining everyone’s day-to-day lives. Democrats countered by trotting out Hollywood stars, the Cheneys, and billionaire Mark Cuban to tell a story of an assault on establishment norms that is imperiling brunch and jeopardizing a West Wing reboot.

Shocker: the working class responded by giving Trump a decisive popular vote victory.

I’ve spent much of my adult life working to prevent this — both in the slog work of campaigns and in my reported articles, books, and audio series. One of those articles was published twenty years ago at what felt like a very similar point in American history, when a Republican running for reelection won big swaths of the working class. Change the names and it reads like a description of the current moment.

Vindication is not consolation. I’m angry about what happened and how predictable it all was. I feel like Randall Mindy in the film Don’t Look Up — specifically in thescene where he’s just scream-weeping up at the sky, saying he tried to warn everyone. And I’m enraged by those still purporting to be surprised, whether it’s cable TV–addled liberals personifying the proverb about blindness, or pundits and politicos who embody the famous Upton Sinclair aphorism.

But perhaps there’s a silver lining here. Maybe the shellacking will prompt an awakening. Maybe everyone will finally tune out the pundits still claiming Democrats ran a “flawless” campaign. And maybe people will finally acknowledge, accept, and internalize realities that were obvious so long ago. And maybe from there, things can improve.

What follows here are some big questions so many people have been asking me and my preliminary answers. Think of it as a FAQ about what just happened — a proverbial handbook for the politically deceased.
What Is the Democratic Party’s Theory of Winning Elections?

Just before the 2016 election, Democratic senator Chuck Schumer said: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two [or] three moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” The key undecided swing voters, he asserted, were “not the blue-collar Democrats; they are college-educated Republicans.”

Despite that viewpoint being repudiated by the 2016 election results, Schumer was appointed to lead his party as the Senate majority leader, and Democrats ran their 2024 campaign with his same operating theory in the final weeks of the race.

“In making her closing argument this month, Ms. Harris has campaigned four times with Liz Cheney, the Republican former congresswoman, stumping with her more than with any other ally,” as the New York Times described it. “She has appeared more in October with the billionaire Mark Cuban than with Shawn Fain, the president of the United Auto Workers and one of the nation’s most visible labor leaders.”Democrats need to accept the reality that Never Trump Republicans don’t actually exist as a significant swing voting bloc and that a much larger (and growing) working-class electorate is the real swing vote.

The strategy yielded no significant swing of GOP voters, but a massive swing of working-class voters to the Republicans.
Why Do Democrats Seem Unwilling to Focus on Persuading Working-Class Voters?

In the Democratic Party’s Venn diagram, there’s one circle full of policies that its corporate and billionaire donors want or can accept, and there’s another circle full of initiatives that voters want.

During campaigns, the party typically eschews stuff that working-class voters really want but that might anger donors profiting off the status quo — things like housing, health care, higher wages, and other initiatives preventing corporations from grinding the nonrich into Soylent Green. Instead, the party often chooses to campaign on items that overlap in both circles — reproductive rights, odes to democracy, Michelle Obama speeches, and “good vibes.”

The middle of this Venn Diagram theoretically appeals to socially liberal, economically conservative Rockefeller Republicans. Democratic leaders want to believe these are the key swing voters because that doesn’t screw up their donor-appeasement formula.

For Democrats to accept the reality that Rockefeller Republican/Never Trump Republicans don’t actually exist as a significant swing voting bloc — and for them to further accept that a much larger (and growing) working-class electorate is the real swing vote — would require centering a populist economic program that offends Democrats’ big donors.

But that’s a no-go as the party is currently oriented, which explains the final self-destructive weeks of the Democrats’ 2024 campaign.
Why Have Working-Class Voters Been Fleeing the Democratic Party for Years?

When Bill Clinton rammed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) through a Democratic Congress in the early 1990s, the most Democratic trade-exposed districts in America quickly became the country’s most Republican districts. As this deep-dive study shows, culturally conservative working-class voters who had been sticking with the Democratic Party because of its economic policies saw the trade deal as proof there was no reason to stick around anymore.

Then came former President Barack Obama’s populist 2008 campaign, raising the prospect of a real crackdown on the Wall Street villains who pillaged the working class during the financial crisis. The appeal delivered a huge electoral mandate, which Obama then used to continue bailouts for his bank donors and hand out get-out-of-jail-free cards to Wall Street executives while doing little to help millions of working-class voters being thrown out of their homes.

The betrayal prompted a working-class surge for Trump’s first presidential bid and a resurgence of right-wing populism (following a similar pattern in most countries after a financial crisis). Obama later wrote from his Martha’s Vineyard castle that doing anything differently “would have required a violence to the social order, a wrenching of political and economic norms.” Only now, sixteen years later, do Obama’s acolytes seem to sorta, kinda have an inkling that their decisions converting a populist election mandate into a bankers’ bailout might have shaken working-class voters’ faith in Democrats — and democracy.

Of course, Democrats had a third chance to staunch the bleeding with President Joe Biden’s 2021 American Rescue Plan, which was a huge and wildly popular investment in the working class. But then the legislation expired, and millions of working-class families saw popular benefits ripped away as inflation and poverty skyrocketed. And then came the Election Day backlash. Again.
How Does All This Relate to the Democratic Party’s Internal Fights Over the Last Few Years?

Democrats underperformed among working-class voters, young voters, male voters, and Latino voters — the particular voting blocs that Bernie Sanders performed so well with in his presidential campaigns.

As Breaking Points’ Krystal Ball notes, one logical conclusion is that the 2024 exit polls reflect the Democratic establishment’s vindictive ostracization of Sanders and his movement over the last eight years.When Bill Clinton rammed NAFTA through a Democratic Congress in the early 1990s, the most Democratic trade-exposed districts in America quickly became the country’s most Republican districts.

Indeed, marginalizing Sanders’s acolytes from Democratic-aligned media, keeping Sanders-affiliated figures out of the Biden administration, pejoratively gendering supporters of his class-first agenda as “Bernie Bros,” booing him for touting universal social programs rather than pandering to identity politics — it all preceded Trump this week constructing the multiracial working-class coalition that was supposed to be the Democratic Party’s entire reason for existing.

Democratic leaders’ hostility to Sanders-style populism extended to the Kamala Harris campaign’s themes. While some of her television ads focused on economics, it wasn’t a central thrust of her campaign — and that’s reportedly thanks to pressure from her donors and her team of oligarchs.

“Harris began the campaign portraying Trump as a stooge of corporate interests — and touted herself as a relentless scourge of Big Business,” the Atlantic’s Franklin Foer reported this week. “Then, quite suddenly, this strain of populism disappeared. One Biden aide told me that Harris steered away from such hard-edged messaging at the urging of her brother-in-law, Tony West, Uber’s chief legal officer. To win the support of CEOs, Harris jettisoned a strong argument that deflected attention from one of her weakest issues.”
But Aren’t Democrats Being Smart by Trying to be a Big-Tent Party?

The central question in every political campaign — the question by which voters end up judging candidates — is the one from Pete Seeger’s song: Which side are you on?

No matter how dishonest and fraudulent his answer to that question was, Donald Trump at least pretended to offer a clear one — his answer was “America First.”

Democrats, by contrast, refused to seriously entertain the query. Under the banner of being a “big tent,” the party instead chose to depict a fantasy world where villains other than Trump are rarely named, and nobody has to choose who has power, money, authority, and credibility — and who doesn’t.

In their telling, there are no zero-sum choices and always third ways. It is a world where a president can “bring together labor and workers and small-business owners and entrepreneurs and American companies,” as Harris promised — without ever having to pick a side.

It is a world where warmonger Dick Cheney, pop singer Taylor Swift, and Sanders are all equally meritorious validators, as Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz insinuated — and no moral judgments should be made.

It is a world where Democrats schedule a Bernie Sanders convention speech bashing billionaires, immediately followed by a speech from a billionaire bragging about being a billionaire, and then a speech by a former credit card CEO declaring that Democrats’ presidential nominee “understands that government must work in partnership with the business community.”

It is, in short, a world where Democrats never have to choose between enriching their donors and helping the voters who those donors are fleecing.

Americans know this world doesn’t exist, which is why candidates and parties that pretend it does so often lose, even to right-wing con men.
What Were Republicans’ Most Effective Tactics to Court Working-Class Voters?

Trump pulled a Ross Perot and campaigned for tariffs — a popular idea designed as both a policy proposal and a callback to Democrats’ original NAFTA betrayal. And — of course! — Democrats took the bait by slamming the initiative, rather than countering with something smarter.

Trump and his Republican machine also put tons of money behind morally repugnant anti-trans ads. No doubt this was a specific appeal to transphobic bigots, but the framing of the ads were also designed to portray Harris and Democrats as (to use their term) “weird” — that is, too focused on social causes and identity politics rather than kitchen-table issues like inflation.

The ads’ cynical tagline reiterated the Trump campaign’s which-side-are-you-on message: “Kamala is for they/them. Trump is for you.”
Why Weren’t Democrats Able to Sell Working-Class Voters on Their Economic Record?

America’s macroeconomic performance remains strong. Many of Joe Biden’s policies contributed to that performance and also — for the first time in decades — actually challenged some of the worst corporate predators in the economy. So why didn’t that persuade more working-class voters to stick with Democrats?

Some pundits have depicted the working class as an unthinking mob misled by a negaholic media that refuses to transmit good economic news. There’s probably truth to the media critique, but Americans aren’t dumb — the macroeconomy may be robust, but for the nonrich, the day-to-day experience of that macroeconomy is brutal. After forty-plus years of a master plan that shredded the New Deal and the social contract, it’s become a morass of ever–increasing costs and red tape to obtain the most basic necessities of life.

In four out of the last six presidential elections — and three of the last three — Americans have expressed their understandable anger at this reality by exercising one of the few democratic powers the public still retains: voting the incumbent party out of the White House. And this time, the incumbent was the Democratic Party.Biden proved that a political party cannot sell an economic agenda without a salesman.

Adding to this structural problem were Biden’s own limitations. Earlier this year, White House aides depicted Biden’s cognitive troubles as not interfering with his ability to do the job — but that misportrayed what the job actually is. Being president is far less about sitting in the Oval Office making decisions and far more about selling an administration’s policies. Biden proved that a political party cannot sell an economic agenda without a salesman. Democrats also proved that despite Obama’s scolding to the contrary, there’s no honor in deliberately refusing to sell the party’s accomplishments.
Why Did Americans Decide to Vote Against “Saving Democracy”?

Trump won the majority of votes from those who told exit pollsters that democracy is threatened. So even as the Democratic Party tried to cast itself as the One True Defender Of Democracy, many Americans believed the opposite — hardly surprising considering the party’s presidential candidate became the nominee without a single vote cast, and without even an open convention.

Authoritarian antidemocratic tendencies certainly exist in parts of the electorate. And if Americans’ lived economic experience worsens and the government is seen as complicit, those tendencies will probably intensify, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt warned.

“Democracy has disappeared in several other great nations, not because the people of those nations disliked democracy, but because they had grown tired of unemployment and insecurity, of seeing their children hungry while they sat helpless in the face of government confusion and government weakness through lack of leadership,” he said in a 1938 radio address. “Finally, in desperation, they chose to sacrifice liberty in the hope of getting something to eat.”

What Could Democrats Have Done to Win the Election?

Harris deliberately ran as a generic Democrat, wagering that risk-aversion would be enough to defeat an unpopular Trump. But risk-aversion is itself risky for an incumbent party amid simmering discontent.

One alternative could have been Harris betting the campaign on one or two major, easy-to-understand proposals whose benefits would be undeniably clear to working-class voters. For instance: just before being put on the ticket, Governor Tim Walz said that Democrats’ top priority should be universal paid family leave — a wildly popular idea. But once Walz was the vice-presidential nominee, that was the last anyone heard of it.

Another strategy could have been Harris channeling the John McCain 2000 presidential campaign and going all-in on an anti-corruption crusade. Leaning into her law-and-order brand, there could have been promises to increase public corruption prosecutions and pass new ethics and campaign finance laws — all implicitly spotlighting Trump’s corruption. But a campaign whose biggest donor was a dark money group decided not to do that.

Still another strategy could have been Harris betting the whole race on a promise to fix and overcome the unpopular, flagrantly corrupt, Trump-packed Supreme Court. We’re talking court expansion, judicial term limits, ethics rules — anything and everything that would highlight the court becoming a weapon of the corporate and far-right master plan. But again . . . that didn’t happen.

These are all counterfactuals, so we can’t know if they would have made a difference. But considering how close the election was in the key swing states, it’s entirely possible that a different strategy would have resulted in a far different outcome.
How Did Both Parties Approach the Media During the Election?

Conservatives have built a robust independent media ecosystem that Republicans regularly engage with, and that Trump exploited to reach large audiences of disaffected swing voters.

Liberals, by contrast, trust and fetishize traditional corporate media, leaving non-MAGA independent media meagerly resourced (all while Democrats’ big donors have bankrolled political groups pretending to be independent news outlets). Democratic politicians don’t like to engage with or cultivate independent media that might ask them uncomfortable questions. Instead, they focus on getting booked on MSNBC to communicate with affluent liberal voters who already vote for Democrats. Consequently, Harris spent much of the campaign hiding from media generally and avoiding independent media specifically.

This asymmetry between Republicans and Democrats is likely to become an even bigger political liability for the latter as corporate media loses audience share amid its credibility crisis.

What Do We Do Now?

This is always the big question after elections. Take a deep breath. Meditate. Hug your friends and family. Stay calm and remember nothing has ever been under control.

Direct your anger at the right target — the national Democratic Party, which decided to be the Cheeto lock between us and authoritarianism. Its operatives kept Biden in the race until it was too late for a contested primary, and then they made millions off losing another campaign to Trump. Channel your anger into fixing and taking over that party so this never happens again.

Don’t disengage. Run for local office. Pressure your local officials to use whatever power and platform they have to obstruct Trump’s extreme agenda. Join a civic group or a union. Build community. Look at the victories of direct democracy in Nebraska, Maine, and Missouri — and then run a ballot measure in your own state.

Diversify your sources of information so that you are exposed to more than just oligarch-owned news that continues to look like a George Orwell parody, even after the election. Encourage your family and friends to stop sealing themselves inside a bubble of corporate media and its punditry, and support left-wing media so that we can hire more reporters to do the journalism that holds power accountable.

 

\