What Do We Gain from These Elections?

Original Artwork by Sophie Barnet-Higgins

Much has been written about the losses we—the Left, progressives, socialists, and similar—now face after the 2024 US elections. Much dismay, despair, and fear have been expressed, a natural response considering the overt threats the coming regime has openly launched against us, our hard-fought gains, and so many groups of people we either belong to or hold dear.

Is positing that amid the losses we also have gains merely whistling in the dark, refusing to look at reality?

I don’t think so. Without in any way minimizing the hardships and challenges, I believe there are actual positives for us.

It hasn’t been all that great under the Democrats

First, as a rather backhanded consolation, we can take note of the recent deterioration under the Democrats of our rights to political and cultural expression. While it has centered chiefly on those who call for changing US policy toward Palestine, the McCarthyist climate we’re seeing, especially since Fall of 2023 has a broad chilling effect on speech and activism. This Democratic Administration has supported, at all levels, vicious police repression, widespread firings, and other tactics employed to suppress dissent, while ignoring the demands and pleas of the majority of the US population to halt the genocide of the Palestinians, a desire shared by the vast majority of the world. (See also here, showing this growing trend approaching the election.)

What’s more, in general the policies of the Biden-Harris Administration have centered increasingly on war-making and escalating nuclear brinksmanship in Ukraine and elsewhere that recklessly threatens the entire world, while minimizing focus on—or at best giving insufficient attention to—ese the essential work needed to stem, much less reverse, the climate catastrophe. And that’s not even mentioning the inflation and other economic negatives that all but those most insulated by wealth—i.e., the ruling and governing class—feel daily.

The election results were not the overturning of a genuinely progressive situation, one where we were making true progress toward the changes needed to reverse the several paths toward disaster we are on. Rather, we have been jostling and jockeying for small gains in a sharply narrowing political and cultural space. Recognizing this can help shift away from the viewpoint that we, the progressive forces, the Left of this country, have suffered a crushing, ignominious defeat. This point becomes clearer, as I outline below, the more we distinguish our “we” of Left and popular, working class forces, from the Democratic party establishment.

All this is not to say that the material situation for many of us won’t get much worse under the Trump Administration, especially for the most vulnerable—Brown and Black people, particularly immigrants, poor, low-wage, low-wealth folk, women, Indigenous, gender non-conforming, disabled, and others—as well as for those most vocal in opposing injustice. The question is, without denying or downplaying the threats, or falling into total despair, what advantages and benefits have we gained from our latest electoral experience?

A major one I feel we can celebrate is clarity. What have we gained clarity about?

Identity/diversity politics versus genuine justice and equality

Many were elated when Harris was selected (recall that there was no Democratic primary) to replace the failing Biden. People hoped that despite the racism and sexism she would face, Kamala Harris would appeal to enough people in the identities she represents—women, people of African and Asian heritage, especially women of those ethnicities—as well as to White people eager to demonstrate that we have gotten sufficiently past racism and sexism to elect her.

But that did not happen. Racism and sexism are too embedded in our politics and economy. Running, even electing, someone targeted by those oppressions will not overcome them, as we saw with Barack Obama. And Kamala Harris had the double hurdle of race and gender, the latter perhaps being even tougher than the former—though millions upon millions of people did vote for her, as they did for Hillary Clinton.

If Harris had convincingly promised to include and fight for people targeted by racism and sexism (in a manner more sweeping and convincing than her focus on reproductive rights, which is important but not nearly the whole picture), she might have garnered enough support to counter Trump’s racism and misogyny. But her history and campaign did not indicate she would push for change, and simply possessing these identities did not gain her sufficient support to outweigh the prejudices of the other side, exploited by the lack of sufficient promise that voting for the Democrats would substantially improve people’s lives.

We now have greater clarity that identity politics is insufficient, and that effectively addressing racism and patriarchy requires systemic change.

The Bloom is off the Democrats

The willingness to promise social and economic benefits, and to a certain extent fulfill those promises, was for a long time a hallmark of the Democratic Party.

To remain a convincing opponent to the Republicans within this system, the Democrats could, as happened during the Great Depression, take a strong stand for material improvement in the situation of women and people of the global majority in this country while also improving the lives of White working class people.

In the last several decades, however, the Democrats have abandoned this tack, leaning instead toward the broad capitalist policy known by the uninformative term of “neoliberalism.” Governments both Republican and Democrat now follow a similar playbook, which leads to sharply rising inequality, increasing privatization, erosion of the public sphere, and disregard of the will and needs of most people.

The nature of our enemies and our friends

Many progressives maintained during the lead-up to the elections that the reason to back the Democrats is not because we believe they can solve the problems we care about, but rather because they are more workable opponents than fascists, more readily pressured, and less implacable than right-wing authoritarians.

At the risk of criticism from comrades, allow me to advance some thoughts on why this may not be case:

• Raising consciousness about an overt enemy is simpler. The narrative is clearer, less muddled with the illusions and empty promises of forces who seem to share our goals, and yet in reality do not. In Mexico and other places in Latin America (and, I expect, in the rest of the Global South) that in these places capitalism is not so well-disguised nor so cloaked in enticing narratives. There, the oligarchies and the authoritarians who govern on their behalf are clearly defined. This does not make them less horrible, but it does make them easier to identify and easier to demonstrate reasons to oppose them.

• Many sectors of society perennially experience the effects of overt repression, no matter which party is in power. With a right-wing government, a wider range of people witness and experience harsh treatment. It may sound heartless to cite this as an advantage, but when more people—especially those of us who have been protected and comfortable—no longer can count on this being the case, we see more clearly the urgency of standing together as equals with those who we may have considered, perhaps unconsciously, “others.” Losing hope of crumbs from the table (let alone of actually being invited to the table) which is set exclusively for a tiny minority of the wealthy and powerful—again, regardless of which party is in power—can open many eyes to the nature of who we are actually up against, and who are our real allies, comrades, and relations.

• In an instructive article, Arun Gupta examines this oft-cited point of the Democrats being a more desirable opponent. The arguments for that include that is easier to push a Democratic president to the left, and that when there’s less political repression people are more open to organizing for change. However, having studied protest movements for the last several decades he concludes that the record shows that under Republican presidents, including the first Trump presidency, protest movements have often been stronger.

• Having climate catastrophe deniers and rabid fossil fuel advocates in power is certainly a nightmare. Yet with Democrats in power for most of the last 30 years the same fossil fuel advocates also held sway, slowing the world’s capacity to address the crisis, and worsening it through wars for oil and other issues.

• Being caught between the terrible Republicans and the nearly as terrible Democrats gives us little room to maneuver and mobilize. This could change in a terrain that may be harsh but less constrained.

The benefits that people still have, moreover, are not gifts from the Democrats or any sector of the ruling class, but victories won in hard-fought battles. In this new environment it will likely be more evident that only movements, not elected officials, can defend the gains and safeguards that have made life better for all of us, and which we have in fact had to fight for constantly no matter who is in power.

Unmasking

A key point of clarity we have gained is insight into the Democratic party’s dual role. I don’t mean the often-used term “duopoly” but what I think are the two faces of the Democratic Party’s underlying mission:

1. To act as one side of the see-saw that keeps US politics focused on elections rather than on real social and economic inequities, and

2. To function as the tent under which progressive, labor, non-profit, etc. forces are forced to huddle, making sure to limit their activity to not challenging the basic power structure.

I would suggest that given the above, these elections have advanced us toward an understanding that our fight is not with the Democrats against the Republicans, but rather as a broad cohort of genuine progressive forces seeking fundamental change independent of both establishment parties.

We’re Running for President, Won’t You Come Along?

What if we stand back a few paces and look at the whole idea of presidents—as well as kings and sundry rulers at the pinnacles of power. How did we humans come up with this? Our species is naturally collective and loves thinking and acting together. How did we get into the habit of letting a single person or tiny cabal gain so much control over our lives, resources, and everything else? Why do we defend this arrangement over and over, around the world and throughout history, at the cost of millions of lives?

Returning to the US version of this peculiar framework, how can a democracy have an infinitesimal minority of people “represent” us, especially when they must buy their way into office with millions of dollars in campaign contributions and personal wealth? Why are the institutions where we conduct our lives—workplace, school, family—not democracies? Why is there so little democracy in what we’re always told is the best democracy in the world, and why don’t we hear more about this?

What if the ways our electoral system fails at democracy—such as requiring millions of dollars to run for office, excluding other parties, and much more--became a springboard to talk more broadly about this whole concept of electoral, “representative” democracy? And to learn about other forms of decision-making and carrying out decisions?

Many on the Left advocate new systems based on participatory democracy. That said, this moment that representative democracy has failed us seems a great opportunity to explore how changing the existing US electoral process, and many have advocated,¹ would improve it even without changing the underlying foundations. Among the many examples in this country and elsewhere:

• Making voting day a paid work holiday, preferably Sunday, as in India and many other countries.

• Making voting a simple requirement of citizenship, like paying taxes, as in India and many other countries.

• Allowing proportional representation to eliminate the tyranny of winner-take-all voting, which leaves out many choices and minority voices.

• Eliminating the obsolete, racist electoral college, which allows a candidate to be elected president despite losing the popular vote (and does not exist anywhere else in the world.)

• Eliminating the gerrymandering of electoral districts.

• And—the big one—instituting public financing of elections and eliminating the ability to buy elections, which, Supreme Court aside, is recognized everywhere as undemocratic.

Noting both how mild and reasonable such changes are, and how far away most of them appear in this political climate, can at least puncture any illusions that our system is the best democracy in the world, that we have any legitimate claim to being arbiters of democracy elsewhere, and that democracy is in fact what the empire’s war machine is actually defending.

Clarity and humility on this point can open us to learning about the examples of more genuine democracy here and around the world.

The chance to revisit our assumptions

Instead of tearing our hair out and wondering “how those Republicans and Maga folks could vote in ways so contrary to their own interests,” why not assume that people do vote what they perceive and feel to be their interests, and that this is the case for all of us.

I am pretty sure every voter makes the effort to calculate what choice comes closest to their interests. Some proportion of people are wholeheartedly in support of one of the choices, but many are not, and must simply decide on what seems most reasonable for them given the options. If we respectfully consider that each person has made the choice that seems best to them, after weighing the information they have at hand, we will do much better than if we simply dismiss as wrongheaded the millions who made a different choice than we did.

In this past election, people made one of four choices: Democrat, Republican, third party, or not voting. A few campaigns may have included a viable write-in candidate, but in most cases a write-in is equivalent to not voting, although concerted campaigns like Uncommitted attempted to use the ballot collectively to make a choice that was not officially offered.

If we have a problem we know needs a whole set of power tools to fix, but we’re each only allowed to choose between a toothbrush, a spoon, or a baseball bat, rather than dismiss those who selected a different inadequate implement, why not assume that each of us did our best to choose what seemed best in a poor situation.

Rather than label working people (that is, not elites or their ideologues) as fascists, sellouts, ultra-leftists, or dropouts (or whatever other labels come to mind), let’s use the opportunity to be curious and open-minded towards the folks whose class reality we share but whose interpretation of that reality may be very different. This applies to working class people who hold conservative or reactionary viewpoints, but it also applies to us on the Left.

Right now we have a great opportunity to listen to our own comrades on the Left who made a choice we reject, whether it was to vote a certain way, or not at all, or however they tried to make sense of this senseless system. I looked at some of these thought processes in last month’s essay, Both And. Rather than condemning the folks who actually want things very similar to us, both individually and as political beings, we have the chance to listen and find out where our heads and hearts are at.

Movements are built by connecting, finding common ground, exactly at the place where we each are. This requires not assuming we know better or that we ourselves don’t have our own assumptions and prejudices.

Understanding is not justifying! Being curious does not mean sympathizing! But listening to each other as equals can reveal all kinds of new layers and complexities that will help in facing the major challenges we’re headed into.

Happy It’s Over!!

Elections are hell on us on the Left. They eat our movements and spit out a sorry, disorganized mess. For example, the energy of the burgeoning movement against the Iraq War was funneled into the campaign of Barack Obama. Yet, although he campaigned as a progressive he continued the Iraq war, drone warfare, mass deportations and more.

Every four years we go through turmoil figuring out our stance during elections. Specifically we wrangle over how to relate to the Democratic Party, a container hostile to popular movements and the Left, which traps us and leads us to tear at each other like bagged cats.

Arguably, this entrapment is one of the major purposes of the US electoral setup, which forces us to claw at one another yet defangs our capability to collectively confront and possibly spring this trap we’re in.

All this takes a major toll of energy and emotional stability on us as people. We feel fear, despair, and powerlessness as we see the Democratic party lose—whether we supported them wholeheartedly, half-heartedly, or not at all. Yet when we “win,” this does not really mean that our principles and interests are truly represented, only that the prospects for the next four years are—we hope!—less bad.

We can take the opportunity to notice how poorly the Democratic party treats the working class and the organizations representing its interests—even when the latter support them! I am not much for analogies with individual relationships, but this sounds a lot like Nancy in Oliver! who stayed “as long as he needs me” with the abusive Bill.

Supporting the Democrats despite this treatment makes us feel like crap. I don’t know about you, but to me it sort of feels good, albeit painful, to recognize this and decide it’s time to get out of such a bad relationship.

At this moment, more than ever, we need to think about ourselves separately from the Democratic party. I am not saying the solution is this or that party alternative. Rather, we now can think about our identity as a broad group of people who desire and who work for a more just society.

From a standpoint of consciousness of our independent power we can ask:

• How and where do our interests overlap with elements of the Democratic party? How, if at all, might alliances with them help us create an effective movement for the fundamental social transformation we know is needed? In what ways might linking with them harm us?

• How can we change this unhealthy relationship in order to connect with Democrats (and any other force that might, on occasion, coincide with our goals) only to the extent we set terms that work for us towards meeting our authentic goals and enter into pacts that recognize our worth and power.

In sum, if we can now better see the ground under our feet, hard and rocky though it is, and together push off from there, then we have gained a great deal.

---

Big thanks to Maja Tartaro, Brian Higgins, and Sophie Barnet-Higgins for their help!!

1. For example, Protect Democracy, and many more.