Humans Should Teach AI How To Avoid Nuclear War—While They Still Can

By Eliana Johns, Cameron Vega

August 1, 2024

Source: Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

Mike MacKenzie - Artificial Intelligence & AI & Machine Learning. Flickr.



When considering the potentially catastrophic impacts of military applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI), a few deadly scenarios come to mind: autonomous killer robots, AI-assisted chemical or biological weapons development, and the 1983 movie WarGames.

The film features a self-aware AI-enabled supercomputer that simulates a Soviet nuclear launch and convinces US nuclear forces to prepare for a retaliatory strike. The crisis is only partly averted because the main (human) characters persuade US forces to wait for the Soviet strike to hit before retaliating. It turns out that the strike was intentionally falsified by the fully autonomous AI program. The computer then attempts to launch a nuclear strike on the Soviets without human approval until it is hastily taught about the concept of mutually assured destruction, after which the program ultimately determines that nuclear war is a no-win scenario: “Winner: none.”

US officials have stated that an AI system would never be given US nuclear launch codes or the ability to take control over US nuclear forces. However, AI-enabled technology will likely become increasingly integrated into nuclear targeting and command and control systems to support decision-making in the United States and other nuclear-armed countries. Because US policymakers and nuclear planners may use AI models in conducting analyses and anticipating scenarios that may ultimately influence the president’s decision to use nuclear weapons, the assumptions under which these AI-enabled systems operate require closer scrutiny.

Pathways for AI integration. The US Defense Department and Energy Department already employ machine learning and AI models to make calculation processes more efficient, including for analyzing and sorting satellite imagery from reconnaissance satellites and improving nuclear warhead design and maintenance processes. The military is increasingly forward-leaning on AI-enabled systems. For instance, it initiated a program in 2023 called Stormbreaker that strives to create an AI-enabled system called “Joint Operational Planning Toolkit” that will incorporate “advanced data optimization capabilities, machine learning, and artificial intelligence to support planning, war gaming, mission analysis, and execution of all-domain, operational level course of action development.” While AI-enabled technology presents many benefits for security, it also brings significant risks and vulnerabilities.

One concern is that the systemic use of AI-enabled technology and an acceptance of AI-supported analysis could become a crutch for nuclear planners, eroding human skills and critical thinking over time. This is particularly relevant when considering applications for artificial intelligence in systems and processes such as wargames that influence analysis and decision-making. For example, NATO is already testing and preparing to launch an AI system designed to assist with operational military command and control and decision-making by combining an AI wargaming tool and machine learning algorithms. Even though it is still unclear how this system will impact decision-making led by the United States, the United Kingdom, and NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group concerning US nuclear weapons stationed in Europe, this type of AI-powered analytical tool would need to consider escalation factors inherent to nuclear weapons and could be used to inform targeting and force structure analysis or to justify politically motivated strategies.

The role given to AI technology in nuclear strategy, threat prediction, and force planning can reveal more about how nuclear-armed countries view nuclear weapons and nuclear use. Any AI model is programmed under certain assumptions and trained on selected data sets. This is also true of AI-enabled wargames and decision-support systems tasked with recommending courses of action for nuclear employment in any given scenario. Based on these assumptions and data sets alone, the AI system would have to assist human decision-makers and nuclear targeters in estimating whether the benefits of nuclear employment outweigh the cost and whether a nuclear war is winnable.

Do the benefits of nuclear use outweigh the costs? Baked into the law of armed conflict is a fundamental tension between any particular military action’s gains and costs. Though fiercely debated by historians, the common understanding of the US decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945 demonstrates this tension: an expedited victory in East Asia in exchange for hundreds of thousands of Japanese casualties.

Understanding how an AI algorithm might weigh the benefits and costs of escalation depends on how it integrates the country’s nuclear policy and strategy. Several factors contribute to one’s nuclear doctrine and targeting strategy—ranging from fear of consequences of breaking the tradition of non-use of nuclear weapons to concern of radioactive contamination of a coveted territory and to sheer deterrence because of possible nuclear retaliation by an adversary. While strategy itself is derived from political priorities, military capabilities, and perceived adversarial threats, nuclear targeting incorporates these factors as well as many others, including the physical vulnerability of targets, overfly routes, and accuracy of delivery vehicles—all aspects to further consider when making decisions about force posture and nuclear use.

In the case of the United States, much remains classified about its nuclear decision-making and cost analysis. It is understood that, under guidance from the president, US nuclear war plans target the offensive nuclear capabilities of certain adversaries (both nuclear and non-nuclear armed) as well as the infrastructure, military resources, and political leadership critical to post-attack recovery. But while longstanding US policy has maintained to “not purposely threaten civilian populations or objects” and “not intentionally target civilian populations or targets in violation of [the law of armed conflict],” the United States has previously acknowledged that “substantial damage to residential structures and populations may nevertheless result from targeting that meets the above objectives.” This is in addition to the fact that the United States is the only country to have used its nuclear weapons against civilians in war.

There is limited public information with which to infer how an AI-enabled system would be trained to consider the costs of nuclear detonation. Certainly, any plans for nuclear employment are determined by a combination of mathematical targeting calculations and subjective analysis of social, economic, and military costs and benefits. An AI-enabled system could improve some of these analyses in weighing certain military costs and benefits, but it could also be used to justify existing structures and policies or further ingrain biases and risk acceptance into the system. These factors, along with the speed of operation and innate challenges in distinguishing between data sets and origins, could also increase the risks of escalation—either deliberate or inadvertent.

Is a nuclear war “winnable”? Whether a nuclear war is winnable depends on what “winning” means. Policymakers and planners may define winning as merely the benefits of nuclear use outweighing the cost when all is said and done. When balancing costs and benefits, the benefits need only be one “point” higher for an AI-enabled system to deem the scenario a “win.”

In this case, “winning” may be defined in terms of national interest without consideration of other threats. A pyrrhic victory could jeopardize national survival immediately following nuclear use and still be considered a win by the AI algorithm. Once a nuclear weapon has been used, it could either incentivize an AI system to not recommend nuclear use or, on the contrary, recommend the use of nuclear weapons on a broader scale to eliminate remaining threats or to preempt further nuclear strikes.

“Winning” a nuclear war could also be defined in much broader terms. The effects of nuclear weapons go beyond the immediate destruction within their blast radius; there would be significant societal implications from such a traumatic experience, including potential mass migration and economic catastrophe, in addition to dramatic climatic damage that could result in mass global starvation. Depending on how damage is calculated and how much weight is placed on long-term effects, an AI system may determine that a nuclear war itself is “unwinnable” or even “unbearable.”

Uncovering biases and assumptions. The question of costs and benefits is relatively uncontroversial in that all decision-making involves weighing the pros and cons of any military option. However, it is still unknown how an AI system will weigh these costs and benefits, especially given the difficulty of comprehensively modeling all the effects of nuclear weapon detonations. At the same time, the question of winning a nuclear war has long been a thorn in the side of nuclear strategists and scholars. All five nuclear-weapon states confirmed in 2022 that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” For them, planning to win a nuclear war would be considered inane and, therefore, would not require any AI assistance. However, deterrence messaging and discussion of AI applications for nuclear planning and decision-making illuminate the belief that the United States must be prepared to fight—and win—a nuclear war.

The use of AI-assisted nuclear decision-making has the potential to reveal and exacerbate the biases and beliefs of policymakers and strategists, including the oft-disputed idea that nuclear war can be won. AI-powered analysis incorporated into nuclear planning or decision-making processes would operate on assumptions about the capabilities of nuclear weapons as well as their estimated costs and benefits, in the same way that targeters and planners have done for generations. Some of these assumptions could include missile performance, accurate delivery, radiation effects, adversary response, and whether nuclear arms control or disarmament is viable.

Not only are there risks of inherent bias in AI systems, but this technology can be purposely designed with bias. Nuclear planners have historically underestimated the damage caused by nuclear weapons in their calculations, so an AI system fed that data to make recommendations could also systemically underestimate the costs of nuclear employment and the number of weapons needed for targeting purposes. There is also a non-zero chance that nuclear planners poison the data so that an AI program recommends certain weapons systems or strategies.

During peace time, recommendations based on analysis by AI-enabled systems could also be used as part of justifying budgets, capabilities, and force structures. For example, an AI model that is trained on certain assumptions and possibly underestimates nuclear damage and casualties may recommend increasing the number of deployed warheads, which will be legally permissible after New START—the US-Russian treaty that limits their deployed long-range nuclear forces—expires in February 2026. The inherent trust placed in computers by their users is also likely to provide undue credibility to AI-supported recommendations, which policymakers and planners could use to veil their own preferences behind the supposed objectivity of a computer’s outputs.

Despite this heavy skepticism, advanced AI/machine learning models could still potentially provide a means of sober calculation in crisis scenarios, where human decision-making is often clouded, rushed, or falls victim to fallacies. However, this requires that the system has been fed accurate data, shaped with frameworks that support good faith analysis, and is used with an awareness of its limitations. Rigorous training on nuclear strategy for the “humans in the loop” as well as on methods for interpreting AI-generated outputs—that is, considering all its limitations and embedded biases—could also help mitigate some of these risks. Finally, it is essential that governments practice and promote transparency concerning the integration of AI technology into their military systems and strategic processes, as well as the structures in place to prevent deception, cyberattacks, disinformation, and bias.

Human nature is nearly impossible to predict, and escalation is difficult to control. Moreover, there is arguably little evidence to support claims that any nuclear employment could control or de-escalate a conflict. Highlighting and addressing potential bias in AI-enabled systems is critical for uncovering assumptions that may deceive users into believing that a nuclear war can be won and for maintaining the well-established ethical principle that a nuclear war should never be fought.

Editor’s note: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the US State Department.


Eliana Johns

Eliana Johns, née Reynolds, is a senior research associate for the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, where she researches the status and trends of global nuclear forces and the role of nuclear weapons. Johns is also an upcoming master’s student at Georgetown University’s Center for Security Studies where she will concentrate on the intersection between technology and security. Previously, Johns worked as a project associate for DPRK Counterproliferation at CRDF Global, focusing on WMD nonproliferation initiatives to curb North Korea’s ability to gain revenue to build its weapons programs. Johns graduated with her bachelor’s in political science with minors in Music and Korean from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC).

Forget Wealth Tax. We Should Abolish Extreme Wealth Altogether

Wealth taxation may sound like a good idea, but can it really address, let alone solve, the problem of inequality?

By CJ Polychroniou

August 2, 2024

Source: Common Dreams



Economic inequality is the scourge of the 21st century. The rich are getting richer and faster than any other time since the onset of neoliberalism, which calls for “free-market” capitalism, regressive taxation, fiscal austerity and the rejection of the social state. They get richer not only when the economy is on an upswing but even amid crises. Billionaires more than doubled their net worth during the pandemic, according to Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

The latest analysis shows that the richest 1 percent gained $42 trillion in new wealth over the past decade, which amounts to “nearly 34 times more than the entire bottom 50 percent of the world’s population.” In the meantime, the very poor and low-income people across the globe, including the U.S., are actually getting poorer. So much for trickle-down economics which was popularized during the 1980s by the Reagan administration’s vast capital gains and income tax cuts and continues to persist to this day in spite of its major flaws. Cutting taxes on the rich not only increases economic inequality but has no effect on economic growth and unemployment.

There must be something very rotten with an economic system that allows individuals to generate obscene amounts of wealth to the point they can hijack the political system and undermine democracy.

However, inequality should not be examined purely from an economic perspective. Over the years, numerous studies have shown that economic inequality influences public attitudes toward democracy by generating political disillusion and low trust in government and other institutions, like Congress. Inequality also undermines social mobility, contributes to political polarization and fuels authoritarianism.

Finally, inequality contributes to climate change. The richest 1 percent is responsible for more carbon emissions than the poorest 66 percent, according to a 2023 report by Oxfam. Of course, while the world’s wealthiest people make a huge contribution to climate change, they are also able to insulate themselves from the worst impacts of global warming.

In sum, the super-rich can be blamed for many of the most serious ills confronting societies in the twentieth-first century. The only consequential question here is this: what can be done about it then?

One of the most frequent responses to the problem of rising inequality is a call for the implementation of a wealth tax. Wealth taxation may sound like a good idea, but can it really address, let alone solve, the problem of inequality? The answer is an unqualified “no.” At least for the world’s advanced economies. Indeed, even if it’s possible to discover all the wealth that the very rich people own (much of which is hidden in companies or put in trusts) and then proceed with an accurate asset valuation, this will have very little impact, if any, on the daily lives of people who try to survive on minimum wages. Wealth taxation alone will have no impact on workers without social protection and no bargaining power at companies. It won’t protect workers at the “gig economy” and part-time workers.

To effectively address economic inequality, we must identify the root cause of the problem, and one simple way to do this is by asking a rather simple question: How does one become superrich? Where does this immense wealth come from? Because as the renowned progressive economist James K. Boyce recently put it “nobody ‘earns’ a billion dollars.

There must be something very rotten with an economic system that allows individuals to generate obscene amounts of wealth to the point they can hijack the political system and undermine democracy. Democracy cannot exist when we have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few. The idea that rich and poor are equal before government in democratic societies is ludicrous. As disparities in wealth and income grow, so do the disparities in political influence.

Take corporations, for example, which exert enormous influence, thanks primarily to campaign donations and lobbying Their actions, which range from opposing labor laws and policies that benefit workers to restricting unionization, exacerbate inequalities at all levels of society and across the globe. Moreover, the surge in billionaire wealth and the surge in “corporate power and monopoly power” form a powerful connection. The very rich are not simply beneficiaries of the existing economic order. They are in control of the working arrangements of the global economic system. Yet despite the enormous power that corporations have on people’s lives and the communities in which they operate, there are very few policies and mechanisms at national or international level to curtail that power.

Of course, we know that billionaires and big corporations pay very little in taxes, but we need much more than wealth and corporate taxation. We need ways to curb the power of big corporations and their drive to maximize shareholder value at the expense of everything else. We should also set a cap on extreme wealth. There is no social value for having billionaires. We should abolish the superrich, perhaps an easier task, politically speaking, than finding ways to tax them. Democratic societies could hold a referendum on whether we should abolish extreme wealth.

In addition, we could create economic arrangements that provide a minimum income to ensure that everyone’s basic needs are met. This can be done either through universal basic income or guaranteed income programs.

Last, but not least, we can challenge the rule of capital by advancing democratic forms of economic governance and economic planning. Participatory economics is one such alternative that would change the economy as we know it since it entails social ownership of production and self-managed workplaces. Worker cooperatives are established is various parts of Europe, particularly in Italy and Spain. The Mondragon Corporation in the Basque region of Spain is owned by its workers and represents the biggest and most successful case of worker cooperatives. Of course, for economic transformation to occur, breaking down hierarchical structures and putting workers in charge of business activities is not enough. What needs to happen is that the values of worker cooperatives spread across the economy and that power is wrested away from the capitalist class.In today’s world, we can tackle economic inequality only by shifting the conversation to its root causes and then coming up with blends of policies that work together to put an end to the driving forces behind inequality. Spending all political capital on something like a wealth tax will only help to prolong the life of an immensely cruel and dangerous economic system. An easier and far more effective way to end plutocracy is through the power of democracy via a binding referendum that calls on citizens to decide whether or not we should abolish altogether extreme wealth.




CJ Polychroniou

C.J. Polychroniou is a political scientist/political economist, author, and journalist who has taught and worked in numerous universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. Currently, his main research interests are in U.S. politics and the political economy of the United States, European economic integration, globalization, climate change and environmental economics, and the deconstruction of neoliberalism’s politico-economic project. He has published scores of books and over one thousand articles which have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. His latest books are Optimism Over Despair: Noam Chomsky On Capitalism, Empire, and Social Change (2017); Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal: The Political Economy of Saving the Planet (with Noam Chomsky and Robert Pollin as primary authors, 2020); The Precipice: Neoliberalism, the Pandemic, and the Urgent Need for Radical Change (an anthology of interviews with Noam Chomsky, 2021); and Economics and the Left: Interviews with Progressive Economists (2021).

Open Letter from Veterans For Peace to Vice President Kamala Harris

By Veterans For Peace

August 1, 2024

Source: Peace and Planet News





Dear Vice President Harris,

We are reaching out to you as military veterans who have fought in multiple US wars, and who continue to uphold the US Constitution and international law, to organize for justice and equality in our home communities, and to advocate for a peaceful foreign policy.

We are appalled by the ongoing Israeli slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinian men, women and children and by the maiming of tens of thousands more. We are outraged by the systematic blocking of food, leading to malnutrition, starvation, disease and the deaths of many more, particularly babies and young children. These are unbearable and unacceptable crimes that will go down in the history books as a terrible genocide – a holocaust.

Vice President Harris, many veterans listened carefully to your remarks after your recent meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. You said:

“What has happened in Gaza over the past nine months is devastating — the images of dead children and desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third, or fourth time. We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering. And I will not be silent…. It is time for this war to end and end in a way where Israel is secure, all the hostages are released, the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza ends, and the Palestinian people can exercise their right to freedom, dignity, and self-determination… So, to everyone who has been calling for a ceasefire and to everyone who yearns for peace, I see you and I hear you.”

Veterans For Peace wholeheartedly concurs with these sentiments, Vice President Harris. We applaud you for expressing sympathy with the Palestinian people. We also refuse to become numb to their suffering, and we cannot be silent. Like so many of our fellow citizens, including Jewish Americans, we are deeply disturbed that our government continues to provide Israel with a steady supply of bombs, and to provide political cover for Israeli leaders charged with war crimes.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has documented actions by Israeli leaders up to the crime of genocide, and has ordered Israeli leaders to take all necessary measures to avoid repeating such crimes. Yet the Israeli government and military have doubled down on slaughter and starvation. Recently the ICJ declared Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories to be illegal and called on all the nations of the world to take action to end that illegal occupation.

As Veterans For Peace has stated in letters to the State Department and President Biden, the Biden Administration is violating multiple US laws when it sends bombs to Israel to be dropped on innocent Palestinians: Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, the Foreign Assistance Act, the Arms Control Export Act, the US War Crimes Act, the Leahy Law, and the Genocide Prevention Implementation Act.

Our many members in over 100 US cities were outraged by the invitation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress, and we were apoplectic upon hearing Netanyahu’s bellicose and divisive remarks. Vice President Harris, we took some solace from your decision not to preside or be present at this embarrassing spectacle. You were the first member of the Biden administration to call for a “ceasefire.” So we are cautiously optimistic that, if elected President, you will work to end the criminal siege of Gaza.

However, your presidency would not begin until January 20 – almost six months from now. We urge you to listen to your most avid supporters – women, people of color and young voters. Listen to Arab Americans. And listen to veterans who know the horrible reality of war.

Don’t wait until January. Do the right thing NOW, even as you are campaigning for president. Please urge President Biden to change course in Gaza, to support an immediate, permanent ceasefire, and to stop sending weapons to Israel as long as this massacre continues.

Veterans For Peace is also concerned about the hostages. We unite with the Israeli families who are demanding the release of their family members who are captive in Gaza, and we unite the Palestinian families who are calling for the release of thousands of Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails.

As you must know, Vice President Harris, continued US support for Israel amid the Gaza genocide also risks further regional and global escalation, with potentially irreversible consequences, even the unthinkable horror of nuclear war. We urge you to demonstrate the kind of leadership for which so many people are waiting – for which we are hoping and praying. Please use all your influence to bring an end to the unfathomable suffering in Gaza.

Veterans For Peace believes that justice and humanity require an immediate, permanent ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, the opening of Gaza’s borders for massive humanitarian and medical aid, and the end of US arms shipments to Israel.

Like you, Ms. Vice President, we are calling for Palestinian self-determination, which requires the dismantling of apartheid and occupation, guaranteed equal rights for all who live in Israel/Palestine, and recognition of the right of return of refugees who are living in exile. Without these elements, there will never be peace and security for anyone living in that land.

Vice President Harris, you said you would work to “earn and win” your party’s nomination for president, as well as the trust and support of the American people. We ask you to take our concerns very seriously. We believe that the majority of people in the United States and around the world share these concerns. We have seen enough of war, colonization, apartheid and forced starvation. It is time to usher in a New Era of Peace, International Cooperation and Human Rights for All People. Let it begin with Gaza. Let it begin NOW.

Sincerely,

Susan Schnall, President

VETERANS FOR PEACE

10 Principles for Perpetual Peace in the 21st Century

By Jeffrey Sachs

August 2, 2024

Source: Common Dreams

The sculpture “Non-Violence” by Carl Fredrik Reuterswärd is shown outside U.N. headquarters in New York City. (Photo: Zheng Zhou/Wikipedia/CC BY-SA 3.0)

The United Nations-based structures are fragile and in need of an urgent upgrade; we should consider this one at the U.N. Summit of the Future in September.Next year will mark the 230th anniversary of Immanuel Kant’s celebrated essay on “Perpetual Peace” (1795). The great German philosopher put forward a set of guiding principles to achieve perpetual peace among the nations of his day. As we grapple with a world at war, and indeed at dire risk of nuclear Armageddon, we should build on Kant’s approach for our own time. An updated set of principles should be considered at the United Nations Summit of the Future in September.

Kant was fully aware that his proposals would face the skepticism of “practical” politicians:

The practical politician assumes the attitude of looking down with great self-satisfaction on the political theorist as a pedant whose empty ideas in no way threaten the security of the state, inasmuch as the state must proceed on empirical principles; so the theorist is allowed to play his game without interference from the worldly-wise statesman.

Nonetheless, as historian Mark Mazower noted in his magisterial account of global governance, Kant’s was a “text that would intermittently influence generations of thinkers about world government down to our own day,” helping to lay the groundwork for the United Nations and international law on human rights, the conduct of war, and arms control.

Kant’s core proposals centered on three ideas. First, he rejected standing armies. Standing armies “incessantly menace other states by their readiness to appear at all times prepared for war.” In this, Kant anticipated by a century and a half the famous warning by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower of the dangers of a military-industrial complex. Second, Kant called for non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations. In this, Kant inveighed against the kind of covert operations that the U.S. has used relentlessly to topple foreign governments. Third, Kant called for a “federation of free states,” which in our time became the United Nations, a “federation” of 193 states pledged to operate under the U.N. Charter.

Kant put great hopes on republicanism as opposed to one-person rule as a check on war-making. Kant reasoned that a single ruler would readily succumb to the temptation of war:


…a declaration of war is the easiest thing in the world to decide upon, because war does not require of the ruler, who is the proprietor and not a member of the state, the least sacrifice of the pleasures of his table, the chase, his country houses, his court functions, and the like. He may, therefore, resolve on war as on a pleasure party for the most trivial reasons, and with perfect indifference leave the justification which decency requires to the diplomatic corps who are ever ready to provide it.

By contrast, according to Kant:


…if the consent of the citizens is required in order to decide that war should be declared (and in this [republican] constitution it cannot but be the case), nothing is more natural than that they would be very cautious in commencing such a poor game, decreeing for themselves all the calamities of war.

Kant was far too optimistic about the ability of public opinion to constrain war-making. Both the Athenian and Roman republics were notoriously belligerent. Britain was the 19th century’s leading democracy, but perhaps its most belligerent power. For decades, the U.S. has engaged in non-stop wars of choice and violent overthrows of foreign governments.

There are at least three reasons why Kant got this wrong. First, even in democracies, the choice to launch wars almost always lies with a small elite group who are in fact largely insulated from public opinion. Second, and equally important, public opinion is relatively easy to manipulate through propaganda to stir the public backing for war. Third, the public can be insulated in the short term from the high costs of war by financing war through debt rather than taxation, and by relying on contractors, paid recruits, and foreign fighters rather than conscription.

Kant’s core ideas on perpetual peace helped move the world toward international law, human rights, and the decent conduct in war (such as the Geneva Conventions) in the 20th century. Yet despite the innovations in global institutions, the world remains dreadfully far from peace. According to the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, we are 90 seconds to midnight, closer to nuclear war than at any time since the clock’s introduction in 1947.

The global apparatus of the U.N. and international law has arguably prevented a third world war to date. U.N. Secretary-General U Thant, for example, played a vital role in peacefully resolving the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet the U.N.-based structures are fragile and in need of an urgent upgrade.

For this reason, I urge that we formulate and adopt a new set of principles based on four key geopolitical realities of our time.

First, we are living with the nuclear Sword of Damocles over our heads. President John F. Kennedy put it eloquently 60 years ago in his famous Peace Speech, when he declared:


I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age where great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age where a single nuclear weapon contains almost 10 times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War.

Second, we have arrived at true multipolarity. For the first since the 19th century, Asia has overtaken the West in economic output. We are long past the Cold War era in which the U.S. and Soviet Union dominated, or the “unipolar moment” claimed by the U.S. after the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991. The U.S. is now one of several superpowers, including Russia, China, and India, with several regional powers as well (including Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea). The U.S. and its allies cannot unilaterally exact their will in Ukraine, the Middle East, or the Indo-Pacific region. The U.S. must learn to cooperate with the other powers.

Third, we now have an extensive and historically unprecedented set of international institutions for formulating and adopting global goals (e.g., regarding climate, sustainable development, and nuclear disarmament), adjudicating international law, and expressing the will of the global community (e.g., in the U.N. General Assembly and U.N. Security Council). Yes, these international institutions are still weak when the great powers choose to ignore them, yet they offer invaluable tools for building a true federation of nations in Kant’s sense.

Fourth, humanity’s fate is more tightly interconnected than ever. Global public goods—sustainable development, nuclear disarmament, protection of the Earth’s biodiversity, prevention of war, pandemic prevention and control—are far more central to our shared fate than at any previous time in human history. Again, we can turn to JFK’s wisdom, which rings as true today as then:


So let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s futures. And we are all mortal.

What principles should we adopt in our time that could contribute to perpetual peace? I propose 10 Principles for Perpetual Peace in the 21st Century, and invite others to revise, edit, or make their own list.

The first five of my principles are the Principles of Peaceful Coexistence proposed by China 70 years ago and subsequently adopted by the Non-Aligned nations. These are:

1. Mutual respect of all nations for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other nations;
2. Mutual non-aggression of all nations towards other nations;
3. Mutual non-interference by all nations in the internal affairs of other nations (such as through wars of choice, regime change operations, or unilateral sanctions);
4. Equality and mutual benefits in the interactions among nations; and
5. Peaceful co-existence of all nations.

To implement these five core principles, I recommend five specific principles of action:

6. The closure of overseas military bases, of which the U.S. and U.K. have by far the largest number.
7. The end of covert regime-change operations and unilateral coercive economic measures, which are grave violations of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations. (Political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke has carefully documented 64 U.S. covert regime-change operations during 1947-1969, and the pervasive destabilization caused by such operations.
8. Adherence by all nuclear powers (U.S., Russia, China, U.K., France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea) to Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: “All Parties must pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
9. The commitment by all countries “not to strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other countries,” (as per the OSCE Charter). States will not enter into military alliances that threaten their neighbors, and commit to resolve disputes through peaceful negotiations and security arrangements backed by the United Nations Security Council.
10. The commitment by all nations to cooperate in protecting the global commons and providing global public goods, including fulfillment of the Paris climate agreement, the Sustainable Development Goals, and reform of U.N. institutions.

Today’s great power confrontations, notably the U.S. conflicts with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, are largely due to America’s continued pursuit of unipolarity via regime change operations, wars of choice, unilateral coercive sanctions, and the global network of U.S. military bases and alliances. The 10 principles listed above would help to move the world to peaceful multilateralism governed by the U.N. Charter and the international rule of law.

Election 2024: as ‘Neofascist’ Trump Targets Immigrants, How Will the Left Respond?

By Juan Gonzalez, José Luis Granados Ceja , Nana Gyamfi , Emily Lee 

July 29, 2024

Source: The Real News Network

The debate about immigration and the humanitarian crisis at the US-Mexico border has taken center stage in the 2024 elections. But the terms of that “debate” have been set by Donald Trump and the MAGA right, who are calling for “mass deportation” and continue to demonize and scapegoat immigrants as the root cause of America’s economic and political decline.

With Democrats adopting much of the right’s framing of the “immigration debate” and the “border crisis,” how should the left respond? In the face of the MAGA right’s neofascist anti-immigrant campaign, what can working people do—during this election season and beyond—to build a truly multiracial resistance that defends the rights of all? Juan González, co-host of ‪@DemocracyNow‬, hosts a timely and critical panel for The Real News on immigration, democracy, and the 2024 elections.

Panelists include: José Luis Granados Ceja of Venezuelanalysis and Mexico Solidarity Media; Nana Gyamfi, Executive Director of the Black Alliance for Just Immigration; and Emily Lee, Executive Director of Seed the Vote.

This panel is cosponsored by Liberation Road.

Pre-Production: Bill Gallegos, Maximillian Alvarez, Kayla Rivara

Studio Production: David Hebden, Cameron Granadino Post-Production: Adam Coley

The United States presidential election after Biden’s withdrawal — The energy has changed. The underlying politics have not.

By Max Elbaum

Published 3 August, 2024

LINKS

First published at Convergence Magazine.

The Joe Biden-to-Kamala Harris handoff has produced a dramatic shift in mood among all opponents of MAGA’s white Christian Nationalist agenda. The gloom about prospects for defeating authoritarianism in 2024 that hung in the air for months has been replaced by a surge of energy and hope.

That hope can produce a big win in November, but only if it is translated into effective action grounded in realism. The balance of forces that existed before Biden withdrew remains the same. Likewise unchanged are the differing political programs of those contending for power—the MAGA-controlled GOP, the Biden-Harris (now Harris-?) wing of the Democratic Party, and the still-developing progressive trend that started to take its current shape in 2016.

To begin sorting through the complexities of the moment, let’s examine what forced Biden to step down.

Ceasefire movement laid the groundwork

The unprecedented movement for a ceasefire and an end to US complicity with the Israeli genocide in Gaza laid the groundwork for Biden’s withdrawal. The sustained protests consistently spotlighted the moral bankruptcy and political cowardice of a President whose “red lines” were just hot air. They were irrefutable evidence that Biden had alienated large numbers in constituencies absolutely essential to any electoral victory.

That meant the pump was already primed for change when Biden’s debate debacle showed the world that he was unable to effectively combat Trump even on the issues where he had actual accomplishments or had majority support.

That combination punctured the bubble of denial that had pervaded the Democratic Party leadership for the last year. For several weeks, leaks and speculation about their ensuing rethink filled the headlines.

On the broad Left, the conversation about what was underway reflected the widespread opinion that mainstream Democrats don’t offer a program that can inspire the working-class majority and are incompetent at messaging even when they do something positive. But the Democratic leadership’s apparent paralysis while facing the prospect of a landslide defeat seemed to bolster the idea that mainstream Democrats are mired in denial about the danger from the Right, and only get combative when they battle the Left.

But then the hammer came down. Led by their toughest and savviest heavyweight, Nancy Pelosi, top Democrats faced facts and moved to push Biden out. And once they succeeded, they quickly got behind Kamala Harris and gave her the green light: Make this a fight.

And Kamala Harris came out swinging.

Three lessons

There are three lessons here.

One, even before a militant grassroots movement achieves its immediate goal (in this case, a ceasefire) it can alter political dynamics in the country.

Two, by playing a sparkplug role in forcing Biden to withdraw, the movement for a ceasefire and Palestinian rights showed once again that it is at the cutting edge in the fight for peace and for consistent opposition to fascism.

Three, a Left that opts to sit out the fight because it objects to the weaknesses and inconsistencies in mainstream Democrats’ opposition to fascism will have little credibility with the millions whose spirits have been lifted by the one-two punch of Biden being forced out and Harris launching what is shaping up as the most combative Democratic presidential campaign in decades.

This is energy at scale

The speed and scale of the energy surge underway has outstripped anything since the first Women’s March on January 21, 2017 and the uprising that began immediately after the police murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2020.

Within days of the baton being passed, 44,000 Black women joined a Zoom that raised $1.5 million and more than 20,000 Black men joined a call and raised over $1 million. Groups that had been struggling to recruit people to postcard, text and canvass got flooded with volunteers. Showing Up For Racial Justice (SURJ) sponsored a series of three calls for white people and more than 20,000 registered. A “White Women Answer the Call” session initiated by anti-gun violence activist and founder of Moms Demand Action Shannon Watts broke the record for the largest Zoom call ever with 164,000 participants.

This outpouring reflects the deep and wide hunger for a fighting response to what millions of people in the US regard as an existential threat to their rights and livelihoods. It’s not that tens of thousands studied Kamala’s political positions and decided they were better than Biden’s, though many of course hope they are. The shift in mood that is translating into action is not driven by a change in policy. The surge is driven by a call to fight.

Voices in the progressive wing of the anti-MAGA front – electeds like Bernie, AOC and Cori Bush, labor leaders like Shawn Fain, people’s organizations like the Working Families Party and Progressive Democrats of America – have been working to rouse the electorate all along. But it’s hard to build excitement when the electoral standard-bearer’s posture signals the exact opposite of the militancy needed. Once Kamala showed she could take the gloves off, the dam burst.

What about the politics?

The contrast between Harris and Biden on fighting mode is not matched by a comparable difference in their political programs. Harris has, after all, been a loyal part of the current administration and has long functioned within the parameters of the Democratic mainstream. And initial indications are that she is assembling her campaign team and the advisers who will flank her if she is elected from the same pool of insiders that have surrounded Biden.

That said, Harris comes from a different political generation and has not been as cocooned as Biden from current cultural trends and the sentiments in younger generations. That shows in some of her rhetoric, and it means that she is likely to be more susceptible to pressure on several key issues than Biden has been.

Both the inertia and the potential openings in the above combination have already shown up in Harris’ positioning on the Gaza genocide and US support for Israel. She continues to pledge “unwavering” support for Israel, she issued a terrible statement denouncing the protests against Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, and she gives no sign she is breaking with the administration on any concrete action item. But she did break tradition and skip Netanyahu’s speech; her on-camera remarks after meeting privately with him lifted up the importance of Palestinian life in a way Biden never could manage, and her stress on achieving a ceasefire has reportedly made Israeli officials nervous.

Only continuing pressure will reveal whether Harris can be moved from words to real action. A new vehicle for such pressure is the Not Another Bomb initiative just launched by the Uncommitted Movement. Like the hundreds of thousands of uncommitted primary votes that played a big part in priming the pump for Biden to withdraw, this new campaign has the potential to turn the shifting sentiment among left-of-centner constituencies and young people generally and the Democratic voting base in particular into a powerful political force.

The potential for change here is underscored by looking again at Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi skipped Netanyahu’s speech, saying afterwards that it was “by far the worst presentation of any foreign dignitary invited and honored with the privilege of addressing the Congress of the United States.” She stated that Netanyahu’s time would be better spent achieving a ceasefire. That kind of stance coming from this powerful Democratic stalwart is clear evidence that the movement for Palestine has made a difference, and is a huge incentive not just to keep up but to intensify our efforts. And another big battle on this front, Cori Bush vs. AIPAC, is right around the corner.

The same goes for immigration, real action to combat climate change, and every other issue on which progressives differ with mainstream Democrats. Defeating MAGA is an essential step on the road to changing the country, but so is building the clout to force deep-going change as the fascists are pushed back.

Progressives are seizing the moment

Because of the gains progressives have made since 2016—including important shifts in the labor movement—we now have both influential figures and organizational infrastructure to make a difference in this new climate. The sophistication now exists to move in a way that strengthens the overall anti-MAGA front, grows the clout of social justice organizations, and moves the Democratic mainstream closer to our positions on key policy issues.

This does not require tactical uniformity in the progressive camp. As of this writing, for example, the United Auto Workers and Rashida Tlaib are withholding their endorsements, stressing the pressure side of this moment of new opportunity. Other Squad members—Cori Bush, Ilhan Omar, AOC and Ayanna Presley —have all endorsed Kamala, as have the AFL-CIO and numerous national unions (Service Employees International Union, American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association) and grassroots progressive organizations (Community Change Action, March for Our Lives, Black Voters Matter).

Of particular note is the increased cooperation among progressive national and local groups reflected in common messaging and coordination of practical efforts. On July 25, the Working Families Party, Center for Popular Democracy Action, and People’s Action jointly announced their endorsement of Harris and “pledged to mobilize their national member bases to knock on over 5 million doors in key battleground states, including Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Arizona.”

The Working Families Party also has been joined by SURJ, Seed the Vote and the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL) in a common 2024 effort of political education and action situated within a long-term strategy to gain governing power. In explaining WFP’s plan to “make 2024 a win for working people” and forge a new center of gravity within the progressive movement, WfP director Maurice Mitchell wrote:

We must block MAGA extremists from seizing governing power, and we must build the most viable, durable political vehicle that is beholden and accountable to the people and not the wealthy and corporations.

Where are the socialists?

When faced with the threat (or reality) of authoritarian or fascist rule, socialists, communists, and revolutionaries in most times and places have sought to galvanize the broadest possible front in defense of democratic space, and to rally the most progressive forces in their society to contend for influence and leadership within that front.

Some socialists are taking that kind of approach to US politics today. Framing the 2024 election as one essential-to-win fight in the long-term battle to win working-class political power, several socialist groups are throwing themselves into the anti-MAGA fight with all they’ve got.

These include the Communist Party USA, whose resolution on the 2024 elections contains a “call to action to help build and actively participate in the broad all-people’s front to block fascism”; the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism whose editorial statement is titled “The Core of Our 2024 Elections: Democracy vs. Fascism”; and Liberation Road, which has issued a statement titled “ Block, Broaden, Build: the 2024 Elections and the Threefold Tasks of the Left.”

These three groups are also joined by the newly formed North Star Socialist Organization, which emerged out of a years-long process of strategy discussion and cadre development. Their Movement Mission 2024 statement says: “Block the Right and Build the Left must be leftists’ guiding orientation for 2024 and upcoming years. Blocking the Right this year must include defeating the Donald Trump and MAGA campaign to commandeer the power of the presidency…”

All these formations have the potential for growing their influence in the newly energized anti-MAGA front. The Liberation Road and North Star groups are especially well- positioned to boost the influence and anti-MAGA contributions of some of the progressive world’s most dynamic sectors: many of their members are already embedded in labor and many of the state-based power-building organizations and issue-focused organizing networks that relate to the Working Families Party-led motion noted above.

But these groups, even taken together, are far smaller than the largest socialist group in the US, Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Unfortunately, the current majority on the leadership body of DSA does not agree with positioning the organization within the anti-MAGA front and assigns little importance to most of that front’s progressive wing. They refrain from a call to defeat MAGA in 2024, instead calling for a focus on building a new party as an alternative to both the Republicans and Democrats.

Many DSA members—perhaps a majority—disagree with this view. So while the organization as such sits out the 2024 presidential contest as it did in 2020, many of these members will be doing what they can to defeat MAGA, especially at the local and state levels, and trying to preserve relationships with those progressives and socialists who are throwing themselves into the anti-fascist fight. Hopefully, their efforts will succeed. But the stance of DSA’s national leadership is not just a missed opportunity for DSA, it is an obstacle to accomplishing those goals.

US-style fascism is on the march. Among most of the constituencies existentially threatened by MAGA there is a surge of new energy for taking on the electoral fight against it. Victory or defeat will still come down to close votes in six battleground states. And with a woman of African American and Asian descent heading the anti-MAGA ticket, we can expect that the racist and sexist tropes floated in the last week will only increase in both viciousness and quantity.

The mood shift produced by the Biden-to-Harris handoff will not by itself produce the changes we need. But the combative energy unleashed is an essential element in moving this country, and failure to connect to it, build it, and fight for influence over its political direction, is to miss the moment.

The gender myopia in this passage from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar stands out at a time when it is largely women’s energy that is driving US politics. But still, these lines capture the moment:

There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.

Max Elbaum is a member of the Convergence Magazine editorial board and the author of Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Lenin, Mao and Che (Verso Books, Third Edition, 2018), a history of the 1970s-‘80s ‘New Communist Movement’ in which he was an active participant. He is also a co-editor, with Linda Burnham and María Poblet, of Power Concedes Nothing: How Grassroots Organizing Wins Elections (OR Books, 2022).

United States: The (undemocratic) Democratic Party machine lurches toward the election

By Sharon Smith

Published 3 August, 2024

LINKS

First published at International Socialism Project.

What the Democratic Party establishment wants, it gets — and that includes its chosen presidential candidate. It had anointed Joe Biden well before the election primary season got underway in early 2024. This is why Biden ran virtually unopposed and predictably won every Democratic primary.

But the path to Biden’s reelection was not as smooth as Democratic Party leaders envisioned, mainly because Biden’s cognitive decline — underway for several years — has accelerated in recent months. Perhaps the leaders of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) believed they could shield the public from Biden’s decline through the entire election cycle by limiting his time in the public eye. That strategy backfired badly. The Party leadership is entirely to blame for the ensuing chaos. But don’t expect them to change course.

For the last three years Party leaders have viciously attacked anyone who observed that President Joe Biden’s mental faculties appeared to be disintegrating (dismissing these critics as, among other things, “bedwetters”). As recently as last month, when the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled, “Behind Closed Doors, Biden Shows Signs of Slipping,” a chorus of Democratic lawmakers (including former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi) called it a “ hit piece” engineered by Republicans.

Party leaders’ about-face

The Party’s leaders had a sudden change of heart after Biden’s abysmal performance debating Donald Trump on June 27th. During some of Biden’s worst moments in the debate, the viewing audience held its collective breath while waiting to learn whether Biden would be able to finish a sentence or instead drift off into an unintelligible mumble. After the debate finished, First Lady Jill Biden famously told him, “Joe, you did such a great job. You answered every question,” as if talking to a toddler as she guided him by the hand off the stage.

In the following weeks, the Party’s elites ripped each other apart as one after another Democrat (many of them lawmakers in competitive electoral races) began to publicly urge Biden to step down. Interestingly, “moderate” congressional Democrats became his loudest critics, but “progressives” stuck by him, voicing their support for Biden to continue his campaign. Bernie Sanders, along with Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (AOC), Ilhan Omar, members of the so-called “Squad,” lined up behind Biden — presumably to protect their future ambitions within the Party apparatus. Rep. Rashida Tlaib from Michigan member was one of the few progressive Democrats to refuse to endorse Biden — because of his unswerving support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Sanders knows what the DNC is capable of, since he was targeted for electoral destruction when his own pro-working class presidential campaign gained traction with voters during the 2020 primary season. After winning the popular vote in the Iowa caucus and then winning the New Hampshire primary, the Democratic Party apparatus pulled out all the stops to sideline Sanders’ campaign. By April of that year, he withdrew from the presidential race and endorsed Joe Biden.

For what it’s worth, AOC has backtracked so much on her support for Palestinians that the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) withdrew its endorsement for her. Once a symbol of the DSA’s hopes to shift the Democratic Party to the left, AOC’s career trajectory has become a harsh reminder that those politicians expecting to shift the Democratic Party leftward from within soon find themselves moving to the right and conforming to Democratic policy.

None of the moderates, of course, raised a complaint about Biden’s role in Israel’s genocidal war. This wasn’t a surprise, since the Democrats have been unwavering supporters of Israeli apartheid throughout Israel’s history.

Party powerbrokers backed Biden despite his cognitive decline

The most powerful Democrats publicly stuck by Biden even as a majority of rank-and-file Democratic voters voiced their desire for him to step down, although some — such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer — more recently privately urged Biden to step aside. A mid-July AP/NORC poll showed 7 in 10 adults, including 65 percent of Democrats, wanted Biden to withdraw, with Trump consistently beating him in polling numbers.

But it appears that the turning point came when the party’s megadonors threatened to withhold further contributions to Biden’s campaign, and panic-stricken Party powerbrokers like Pelosi became more public in pressuring Biden to stand down. Top Hollywood fundraiser George Clooney published a full-page op-ed in the New York Times — although his only qualification on this matter is as a celebrity fundraiser for Democrats.

So, after propping him up for years, the Democrats dropped Biden like a hot potato. Even then, he refused to back down for weeks. He was defiant, even combative, toward his Party adversaries. But Party pressure ultimately prevailed over his enormous ego, and he finally stepped down as a candidate on July 21st.

Minutes after stepping down, Biden endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president.

From there, the transition was seamless. Within hours after Biden’s endorsement, Harris gained the support of nearly everyone in the Democratic Party establishment, from Pelosi to Bill and Hillary Clinton. By the following day, she had received enough Democratic delegate votes to qualify for the nomination in the first round of voting at next month’s Democratic National Convention. Hollywood donors, including Clooney, have also endorsed her en masse.

Although Harris’ nomination is not automatic, she is certainly the most likely nominee — even though she has never won a single primary — because she has the Party establishment’s backing. Within the first 24 hours, Harris garnered a record-breaking $81 million in donations to her campaign. As Harris walked on stage for her first presidential campaign appearance, she was accompanied by Beyoncé’s song “Freedom” — which had become an anthem for the Black Lives Matter movement after George Floyd’s murder in 2020.

Without missing a beat, all the smoke and mirrors were in place, and the Party united behind Harris.

What does Harris stand for?

Some Democratic Party moderates have characterized Harris as “too far left.” Although Harris uses rhetoric that seems to be to the left of Biden, her own history shows otherwise.

Before being elected senator in 2017, Harris built her political career for two decades as a public prosecutor — first as district attorney in San Francisco and then as attorney general in California. Reuters described her record as mixing “criminal justice reform with a tough-on-crime approach.” If this seems contradictory, that is because Harris was contradictory.

While labeled a progressive, Harris was far from consistently so. For example, she opposed the death penalty, yet she also appealed a California court ruling that declared the death penalty unconstitutional. Likewise, she pioneered a program for first-time nonviolent offenders in San Francisco that offered job training and substance abuse treatment. But she also implemented a truancy policy, first in San Francisco and then statewide, that prosecuted the parents of children who were deemed to have missed too much school. Some overzealous authorities threw parents in jail under this policy, even though their children’s school attendance was out of their control. Harris called this one of the law’s “ unintended consequences.”

Harris’ rhetoric has tended to be more progressive than Biden’s, but Biden’s policies are very likely to be Harris’ policies in a future presidency because Harris has never strayed far from them — whatever language she has used.

For example, Harris has expressed more sympathy with Palestinians in recent months. But, as investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill recently reported on Drop Site News,

The truth is that, like most Democrats, Harris has supported Biden’s policies, even if she has raised tactical objections or expressed moral unease with the horrifying death toll. While Harris is not Biden—and does not have a half century of overwhelming support for Israel’s brutality and militarism fueling her positions—she does have her own record of hardline support for Israel, both as a senator and as vice president.

Soon after being elected to the Senate in 2016, Harris earned a reputation as an ardent defender of Israel. She spoke two years in a row at AIPAC conferences and co-sponsored legislation aimed at undermining a United Nations resolution condemning Israel’s illegal annexation of Palestinian land. One of her first international trips as a senator was to Israel where she met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2017. “I support the United States’ commitment to provide Israel with $38 billion in military assistance over the next decade,” Harris told an AIPAC conference that year. “I believe the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable, and we can never let anyone drive a wedge between us. … As long as I’m a United States senator, I will do everything in my power to ensure broad and bipartisan support for Israel’s security and right to self-defense.”

Harris is unapologetically pro-abortion, and unlike Biden, who says he’s “not big on abortion” she uses the word “abortion” in campaign speeches — which in itself is hardly radical. Harris, like Biden, thus far aims merely to “restore Roe” rather than fight for abortion on demand. But in the two years since Roe v Wade was overturned, Republicans have successfully obliterated the right to abortion in the many states with abortion bans and have set their sights on criminalizing contraception and even IVF, along with gender affirming care. There will be no easy path back to recover the basic reproductive rights that have been destroyed.

While circumstances can change, Harris should be expected to continue Democratic Party policies overall if elected — which is why Party leaders anointed her as Biden’s successor. The party’s plan is to work behind the scenes to ensure Harris is nominated at the Democratic National Convention in August.

Of course, it’s anyone’s guess whether the plan will unfold smoothly. House Speaker Mike Johnson threatened Republican lawsuits to force Biden’s name to go back on the ballot in individual states. While such a legal strategy will ultimately fail, it could cause plenty of chaos in the meantime.

It is also possible that a political fight will break out at the Democratic National Convention, and the Democrats’ plan for a smooth passing of the torch will go completely awry.

Either way, the recent turmoil inside the Party has exposed the inner workings of its apparatus — and the political insiders who pull the strings to ensure that members of its inner circle succeed while others fail. They will likely choose a moderate, perhaps from a swing state, as a running mate to “balance out” the ticket.

Expect Trump to run a racist, misogynist campaign (no surprise there)

Of course, the misogynous duo topping the Republican Party ballot guarantee the months ahead will be filled with sexist and racist mudslinging directed at Harris. Trump has already started letting loose at Harris, labeling her “ Dumb as a Rock” on social media.

Meanwhile, Trump’s running mate, Ohio senator JD Vance might be even more contemptuous of women — if that’s possible. In a 2022 Fox News interview with Tucker Carson, Vance stated,

We’re effectively run in this country — via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs — by a bunch of childless cat ladies, who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too. It’s just a basic fact.

If you look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC, the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children. And how does it make any sense that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?

Vance has called for a national abortion ban, although recently “softened” his position to match Trump’s anti-Roe “let the states decide” position. Vance has also spoken out against divorce, arguing that women stuck in marriages that are “maybe even violent” should stay married for the sake of their children. He has further stated, “This is one of the great tricks that the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace … making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear.”

But Trump picked Vance when he still expected Biden to be his opponent. This might prove to be a strategic miscalculation on his part now that Harris has replaced Biden. A clear majority of the population consistently supports abortion rights — a majority that has grown since Roe was overturned. Even in swing states (including Vance’s home state of Ohio) a Pew Research Center in May found that “a clear majority of residents in the top swing state support abortions.”

It is possible that Harris’ support for abortion rights will motivate Democratic Party turnout in November, as it did in 2022 — to the detriment of Republicans.

However, since the election outcome will be determined not by the popular vote but by voters in a handful of swing states, there is no reliable way to predict a winner. Expect another nail-biter on Election Day.

Sharon Smith is the author of Subterranean Fire: A History of Working-Class Radicalism in the United States (Haymarket, 2006) and Women and Socialism: Class, Race, and Capital (revised and updated, Haymarket, 2015).