Portside

I expected a narrow Democratic victory followed by months of chaos. Instead, Trump won a decisive victory in the Electoral College, winning the national popular vote by 50-48 %, while the Republicans won narrow majorities in the House and Senate.

I had not accounted for how ineptly the Democratic Party would wage the Harris campaign. Instead of building upon a rather well staged Democratic National Convention [apart from the criminally stupid refusal to allow any pro-Palestinian Muslim to speak], and upon a clear Harris victory in her only debate with Trump, the Democratic presidential campaign reverted to the disastrous formula of the failed 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign.  Billions of dollars raised from major donors were wasted on ad campaigns on the theme of Harris [normal] is not Trump [weird].  Harris campaigned alongside Liz Cheney and other renegade Republicans, celebrities, and billionaire supporters, tossing out only a few scattered pro-working-class proposals and messaging.  She also moved to the right on immigration, border controls and policing.   Nonetheless, few Republicans crossed over to support her, while some eight million traditionally Democratic voters did not bother to cast Presidential ballots, even while most ballot measures supporting reproductive rights, increases in the minimum wage and other progressive measures passed even in “Red” states.

In this election, Normal did not defeat Weird. Trump won every one of the seven “battleground” states to which both sides dedicated most of their campaign appearances and advertising budgets. Whereas the ongoing genocide in Gaza played a role in Michigan, where Trump carried the heavily Arab-American city of Dearborn, which normally votes strongly Democratic, by 42%-36% over Harris with Green Party candidate Jill Stein at 18%, every battleground state showed lower voting participation by all demographic groups who usually make up the Democratic base – young, African-American and Hispanic people.

Exit polling reflects that most Trump voters cited economic factors, mainly increased costs of food and rents, together with inadequate income.  About 2/3 of Americans report living paycheck-to-paycheck, with no substantial savings.  Net working-class incomes, which rose briefly because of government payments during the pandemic, quickly fell again when these measures were cancelled.  Polls also indicate that Trump won a slender majority of all voters with incomes under $100,000 while Harris won a similar majority of voters with incomes over $100,000.  The level of formal education played a similar role, with higher educational levels leaning to Harris and lower levels to Trump.   This suggests an ongoing de-alignment of the major political parties, with Trump receiving a lot of his support from voters dissatisfied with the economic and social status quo and the national Democratic Party saddled not only with incumbency, but with defending an unsatisfactory status quo.

Voters belonging to union households voted Democrat by about 57% to 43%.  In general, union members have been able to compensate for price increases with higher negotiated wages. It was probably more salient that many unions canvassed and campaigned hard among their members to vote Democratic, because of the Biden administration’s better Labor Board appointments.

Not surprisingly, in the weeks since the Democratic defeat, politicos and pundits have been playing the “blame game”.  There seems to be a concerted effort in establishment media to ascribe the Democratic defeat to the “Woke Left” influence on the Party. These pundits advocate moving to the “center”, which may include throwing immigrants, Muslims, trans people, and other targets of MAGA propaganda under the bus in the hopes of placating Trump. However, there is no evidence that this “strategic retreat” would work out well for the Democratic Party in the short or longer term.

For half a century most Democrats have “hunkered down” when faced with major challenges from the Right rather than offering serious resistance.    The assumption is that the electorate will tire of right-wing ineptitude and that the pendulum will automatically swing back to them. This is a dangerous path now.  Unlike Trump’s first term, when he seemed to be surprised by his electoral victory and had no plan for governing, the MAGA movement is better prepared to seize power.  Trump has already announced the appointments of a series of right-wing ideologues to his cabinet, many drawn directly from the authors of Project 2025, with the intention of permanently cementing an authoritarian regime in place. Concrete plans for mobilizing the military to carry out mass deportations are already being made, and under the direction of extremist billionaire Elon Musk lists of thousands of civil servants to be dismissed and replaced with Trump loyalists are being compiled.

So far congressional Democrats seem unprepared to resist. 52 Congressional Democrats initially voted along with virtually all Republicans for granting the incoming administration the right to arbitrarily close non-profit organizations that it declares to be associating with “terrorists.”   This failed to reach the 2/3 super-majority necessary under the rule then in practice, but reintroduced under normal rules, it passed the House again, this time with 15 votes from Democrats.  Patterned on Orban’s creeping proto-Fascist regime in Hungary, the legislation is intended initially to shut down pro-Palestinian organizations, but Left and progressive movements rightly fear that any organization that angers Trump will be targeted as well.

Senate Democrats are also wavering. Only 19 Democratic Senators supported resolutions introduced by Bernie Sanders to apply existing US legislation to Israel that requires that the US suspend military assistance to regimes guilty of serious human rights abuses. The Sanders initiative was supported by many unions and progressive organizations who are normally part of the Democratic Party’s base.

In contrast, most Left organizations seem better prepared to organize the fight to resist MAGA. More than 100,000 people joined a virtual mass resistance call organized by the Working Family Party and other allied organizations. DSA chapters across the country are reporting large numbers attending orientation sessions, while its national membership has begun to grow at an accelerated pace comparable to that of 2016-17 following the first Trump victory. If MAGA is better prepared to consolidate its Christian authoritarian regime than it was before, DSA is also better situated institutionally than it was in 2017 to channel the energies of new members into effective political and labor organizing. Despite (or even because of?) its ideological diversity, national DSA is now better equipped with functioning committees of experienced volunteers covering a wide spectrum of issues that will be at serous play in US society in the coming years, including defending migrant and refugee rights, trans rights, and those of other vulnerable people targeted by MAGA propaganda. DSA members are also building the ranks of unionized workers in many unions, as well as electing more democratic socialists to office at the local level, building a deeper bench to buttress the Congressional Squad and Sen. Sanders.

All this may not be enough to withstand a determined attack on the Left by MAGA, but if DSA can graduate from the kindergarten playground to the real political world, it can make a major contribution to putting the interests of the inclusive and diverse working class onto the national political agenda. The Democratic Party has increasingly failed to do this, costing it not only the election in 2024, but also its longer-term status as a governing left-center party. The Left disagrees on what to do about this accelerating de-alignment of the working class, but cannot pretend it is not happening.

Paul Garver is a member of Democratic Socialists of America.

Chartist is the bi-monthly political magazine of the democratic left. In honouring the Chartists of the 19th century, our idea of democratic socialism is as much about the political movement and means of mobilisation used to advance political ideas as it is about the ideas themselves. Chartist seeks to provide a space for those who subscribe to this broad ideal.