As we pore over the ruins of post-election USA, various commentators have rushed to conclusions. Some say that Kamala Harris lost because voters were too racist, too sexist, or too Transphobic. Others go further and blame Muslims and Palestine activists for being too concerned about genocide to vote in their own interests. The main conclusions of these analyses is that the USA is irredeemably reactionary, and that the next Democrat candidate must tack even further to the right.
What these commentators downplay, or downright ignore, is that Harris ran a terrible campaign. The voting figures show that Harris lost the campaign rather than Trump winning it. Michael Roberts reports that, “contrary to the usual hype of a ‘massive voter turnout,’ fewer Americans eligible to vote bothered to do so compared to 2020. Then over 158m voted, this time the vote was down to 153m. The voter turnout of those eligible fell to 62.2% from the high of 65.9% in 2020.”
One should be careful with such figures, as voting turnout was generally up on previous elections, but with nearly all votes counted, Associated Press reports that 76,851,910 people voted for Trump and 74,348,719 for Harris. This compares to the 2020 figures of 81,283,501 for Biden and 74,223,975 for Trump. This means that although Trump had a slight gain in voters, the real story is of the 7 million voters, who were no longer prepared to vote Democrat.
Despite her massive failure, Harris saw no problems in her campaign as reported by Piotr Smolar in Le Monde: “Despite the scale of her defeat, there was no trace of regret, only gratitude for the unwavering support of her heartbroken campaign volunteers. ‘I’m so proud of the race we ran. And the way we ran it.’” After she announced that she may run again in 2028, US Americans should be very scared.
This does not just affect the USA. With elections due in Germany this February, it is high time to ask why Harris ran such an unsuccessful campaign. I fear that German liberal and Left parties are about to repeat the same mistakes. Is this inevitable? Can the Left succeed if it merely offers a watered down version of old right wing politics? If not, do we have a convincing vision of something else?
Apeing Trump
For all the claims that Harris’s campaign was too left wing, on many issues, she was barely distinguishable from her right wing opponent. When asked what would distinguish her presidency from Biden’s, she initially said: “not a thing comes to mind,” then, “Listen, I plan on having a Republican in my Cabinet. You ask me what’s the difference between Joe Biden and me, well that will be one of the differences.”
As Gabriel Winant remarked: “the only issues on which Harris hinted of a break with Biden concerned more favorable treatment of the billionaires who surrounded her, and her closest advisers included figures like David Plouffe, former senior vice president of Uber, and Harris’s brother-in-law Tony West, formerly the chief legal officer of Uber, who successfully urged her to drop Biden-era populism and cultivate relations with corporate allies.”
On the campaign trail, Harris surrounded herself with right wingers, including Liz Cheney, accurately described by Elaine Godfrey as “the pro-life, ultraconservative daughter of Dick.” This was not a great move in a campaign for which one of the main issues was abortion rights. Godrey talked to “Brittany Prime, a self-identified moderate Republican and a co-founder of the anti-Trump organization Women4US,” who said that, “they assure voters that backing a Democrat ‘doesn’t mean you aren’t a Republican anymore’.”
Although Naomi Klein supported Harris as a lesser evil to Trump, she commented: “she’s sending a message to that base that, ‘Sorry, you know, I’m more interested in Liz Cheney and Dick Cheney and getting Republicans than I am interested in listening to Palestinians, to Muslims, to Arabs, to the left generally, to the antiwar forces.’ She’s told us we’re irrelevant.”
The consequences of this strategy were largely ignored by commentators. In order to win a popular vote, you need people to drum up support, and to get their friends and neighbours to vote for and campaign for you. Harris’s campaign created a disillusionment in the party base, which could not be compensated by the $5 billion spent by the Democrats on campaign ads (significantly more than that was spent by the Republicans).
Throwing migrants under the bus
Nowhere was Harris’s flirtation with right wing politics more evident than in her statements on migration. Rather than criticizing Trump for his racist pleas to “Build the Wall” between the USA and Mexico, she complained that Trump “has been talking a big game about securing our border, but he does not walk the walk.” At the same time, when asked about Trump’s wall she answered, “I’m not afraid of good ideas where they occur.”
The former cop criticized Trump from the right, saying, “How much of that wall did he build? I think the last number I saw is about 2 percent. And then when it came time for him to do a photo op you know where he did it? In the part of the wall that President Obama built.” Her campaign highlighted the border security bill, which the Democrats cobbled together with the support of the far-right white nationalist National Border Patrol Council.
Adam Johnson summarizes the bill as promising “$8 billion in emergency funding for ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], including $3 billion to increase detentions; a mechanism to ‘shut down’ the border if a certain number of people cross; $7 billion in emergency funding for Customs and Border Protection; and a continuation of Trump’s border wall.” Harris complained that the Republicans scuppered the bill and promised to enforce it if she won the election.
Harris could have argued, as Michael Roberts does, that, “if immigration growth slacks off or if a new administration introduces severe curbs or even bans of immigration, US economic growth and living standards will suffer.” She could have made a positive and inspirational plea for unity and solidarity, or simply taken a principled stand. Instead, she pandered to Trump’s racism
Johnson concludes, “the decision to wildly contradict the party’s previous position on immigration and take a hard-right turn signals to every constituent member of the tenuous Democratic coalition that they — at any point it is deemed convenient — are entirely expendable. A myopic ethos in a party that’s constantly flabbergasted as to why it has such unenthusiastic support and low voter turnout.”
It’s the economy, stupid
Commentators differ about whether or not the economy improved under Biden. But most agree that public perception was that it had gotten worse. Many articles cite a poll in Fortune magazine, which found that, “some two-thirds (67%) of voters said the condition of the economy was ‘not good/poor,’ and that ‘any macroeconomic gains were entirely overshadowed by voters’ feelings about the dollars and cents in their own personal budgets.”
Another poll, by AP News reported that, “about 9 in 10 voters were very or somewhat concerned about the cost of groceries, and about 8 in 10 were concerned about their health care costs, their housing costs or the cost of gas.” And one from CNN said that, “in 2020, just about one-fifth of voters said they were doing worse than four years before. This year, it’s nearly half of voters who say they are doing worse than four years ago. Trump won them overwhelmingly.”
Such fears are based on real facts. According to Gabriel Winant: “By the middle of his term, Biden had become a de facto austerity president, overseeing the lapse of welfare state expansions, including not just the loss of the child tax credit and temporary cash relief but the retrenchment of SNAP and the booting of millions off Medicaid, all during a period of unified Democratic control.”
A March 2024 poll by KFF found that about half of U.S. adults said it is difficult to afford health care costs. One in four adults said that in the past 12 months they have skipped or postponed getting the healthcare they needed because of the cost. 21% said they had not filled a prescription because of the cost. 41% reported having debt due to medical or dental bills.
Even if the fears were baseless and Biden had presided over a flourishing US economy, the candidates were faced with many voters who felt that things were getting worse. How did they react? Harris arrogantly told voters that they were mistaken, whereas Trump said that he felt their pain and offered solutions. It does not matter that Trump’s “solutions” were racist and impractical. Many voters were desperate for change and saw that Harris was promising more of the same.
Harris patronised voters, confirming their belief that she was an establishment figure, who could not understand their lives. This was deeply reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s campaign of 2016, which was equally unable to stop Trump. As Naomi Klein said, “I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it’s wealthier, you know, well-educated people who are still resonating with Harris, and it’s people who are closest to the pain going, ‘What are you talking about? You know, this is not a joyful moment. You’ve got to earn our joy.’”
Even if the economy is doing better, this does not mean that the wealth will trickle down to the majority of people. Economist Michael Roberts wrote, “between 2020-2023, real pretax income growth for the bottom 50% of income earners in the US was basically zero. Prices of goods and services are up over 20% since the end of the pandemic and for basic foodstuffs and services it is even higher. Moreover, the huge hike in interest rates by the Federal Reserve to ‘control’ inflation drove up mortgage rates, insurance premiums, car lease payment and credit card bills.”
How important was Palestine?
In an ABC poll after the election, voters were asked which one of five issues most affected their vote. Just 4% said foreign policy, compared to 14% who said abortion, 32% for the economy, 12% immigration and 34% the state of democracy. At first sight, Palestine (which, after all, is only part of US foreign policy) did not significantly affect the election results.
While it might be true that Palestine had little effect on primary voting intentions, it became symbolic of a government which had become arrogant and out of touch. Gallup reported that a clear majority of US Americans opposed Israel’s actions in Gaza, but the Biden government, with Harris as proud Vice President, never wavered from its moral, financial, and military support for Israel.
Mitchell Plitnick argues in Mondoweiss, “Gaza became a symbol for the lack of substance among the Democrats and their manifest policy failures. The Democrats’ response to the horror their own constituents have expressed at what we are doing in Gaza produced a revulsion that alienated many voters.”
People saw the links between huge financial support for Israel and insecurity and repression at home. A Tweet by Nina Turner put it succinctly, “It’s not much deeper than the Democratic Party telling Americans that the economy was booming and calling it ‘Bidenomics’ while people struggled to afford rent and groceries. Then they funded a genocide and came after those who spoke out.”
Early in her campaign, Harris did recognise the need to offer lip service to Palestinian pain, saying, for example, “This year has been difficult, given the scale of death and destruction in Gaza and given the civilian casualties and displacement in Lebanon, it is devastating. And as president, I will do everything in my power to end the war in Gaza, to bring home the hostages, end the suffering in Gaza.”
Even in this speech, she promised to guarantee the security of Israel and was low on detail on how she would get any of this done. At the Democratic Convention in Chicago, the Democratic establishment denied speaking rights to any Palestinian. Meanwhile pro-Israel hawks like Ritchie Torres were sent to campaign in Michigan.
Gabriel Winant reported on the response of people attending the Democratic National to demonstrators outside who were chanting the names and ages of dead Palestinian children: “The attendees did not simply ignore the demonstration, as one might have expected; rather, they exaggeratedly plugged their ears, made mocking faces, and, in one notable case, sarcastically mimicked the chant: ‘Eighteen years old!’”
There were two key moments in Michigan, home to the largest US-Arab community, where the Harris campaign showed its utter contempt for people campaigning against genocide. The first was Harris’s now infamous speech, where she told protestors to shut up because “I’m speaking.” The second was just 5 days before the election when she sent Bill Clinton to tell a rally that Hamas “forced” Israel to kill Palestinian civilians.
Palestine may not have been the key issue for most voters, but for many, particularly those with murdered relatives in the area, it was very important. Once more, the Democrats’ arrogance and indifference to their audience lost them not just potential voters and campaigners, but also the moral high ground, even though they were campaigning against a racist, sexist convicted felon.
What does this mean for the upcoming German elections?
On the same day that US-Americans learned that Trump would be president, the German government fell after the governing parties were unable to agree on a budget. There will be new elections in February, and the prospects do not look good for Leftists and liberals of any denomination.
Just as in the USA, many votes will be made in response to Germany’s stumbling economy, which, according to Professor Timo Wollmershäuser, “is stuck and languishing in the doldrums, while other countries are feeling the upswing.”
Volkswagen recently announced a 60% drop in profits and the closure of 3 factories, with consequent job losses. If Trump imposes tariffs, as he has threatened, the German car industry will be further hit. The US is Volkswagen’s second largest export market after China, with 400,000 cars exported in 2023.
Volkswagen also announced dividends of 6.5% for their shareholders, which shows just who is benefitting from the crisis. The CDU, likely winners of the next election, are promising an Agenda 2035, a follow-up to Gerhard Schröders Agenda 2020 which was a massive attack on the unemployed. This will result in further attacks on social services, and an even larger gap between rich and poor.
And in the wings, the increasingly fascist AfD is waiting. Having already achieved massive success in local elections in East Germany, the AfD is currently polling as Germany’s second most popular party, and expecting significant gains at the coming snap election.
The response of Germany’s Left-liberal parties
How have parties like the SPD and the Greens responded to the rising fascist threat? In January this year, it was reported that prominent members of the AfD had attended a meeting with “the head of the right-wing extremist Identitarian Movement and neo-Nazi activists to discuss a masterplan for the mass deportation of migrants and ‘non-assimilated’ German citizens or what both sides call ‘remigration’.”
It was difficult for left-liberal parties to take the moral high ground. The previous October, SPD Chancellor Olaf Scholz had appeared on the front cover of Spiegel magazine with the headline, “We have to deport people more often and faster.” One month earlier and in the same magazine, Green Foreign Secretary Annalena Baerbock had called for increased deportations.
The Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW), a supposedly left wing break from Die Linke, has consistently taken a hard line on refugees. After a knife attack in Solingen by a Syrian refugee, Wagenknecht called on Scholz to “send a stop signal to the world. The welcome culture is over.” Wagenknecht called for a “turning point in refugee policies,” and issued a racist 6-point policy plan.
Worried about the threat from the AfD, the mainstream parties seem to think that they can fight racism with more racism. I hate to quote the old fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen, but as he said back in 1991, people prefer the original to the copy.
When French parties tried a similar strategy in the 1980s, this legitimized the French fascist party the Front National (now Rassemblement National). The whole discussion in French society moved to the right, and FN ideas — which had previously belonged to the racist fringe — became respectable.
Die Linke: the abstention party
On the same day the US election results were announced and the German government fell, that same government passed an antisemitism resolution, which could lead to widescale deportations of Palestinians and their supporters. How did Die Linke, the party of the Left, respond? It abstained. And when the Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) brought in an amendment which slightly improved the motion, Die Linke abstained again. Rather than being a leader of social movements, or a consistent fighter against racism, Die Linke has become the abstention party.
It is not just Gaza. On Ukraine, on fighting fascism, on the environment, Die Linke has failed to take a lead. It has abstained — sometimes literally, sometimes metaphorically. Is it any wonder that it is haemorraging voters to the nationalist, racist BSW?
We are facing an election campaign in which migration will play a large role, and most parties are competing with each other for who can attack refugees the most. Even Die Linke abstained on the antisemitism resolution — something that has become increasingly common in a party which is petrified of taking a position that might be controversial.
Die Linke is planning a “Haustürwahlkampf” — a house door election campaign, consisting of knocking on people’s doors and asking them what they think. It sounds great, an exercise in democracy. But what do you say to people who say they’re for genocide, or that they’re a racist? Will the election campaign just be an extension of the current policy of abstaining on anything which might be unpopular?
Conclusion
This is not just about elections, which are only a small part of the political process. Basing your politics on saying what you think people want to hear does not just risk them dismissing you as an insincere opportunist. It also means abdicating any principles, and giving up on trying to change people’s minds. There are some subjects which will lose you votes in an election. This does not mean that we should stop talking about them and fighting for them.
In the USA and in Germany, it is increasingly clear that we cannot rely on parliamentarians to fight our battles for us. We need to build a principled extra-parliamentary opposition based on solidarity, anti-racism and unconditional support for Palestinians.
The best way of getting the politicians we deserve is to build a mass movement that they cannot ignore. If this or that politician takes a principled stance, I welcome them for it. But I will leave the last word to the Clyde Workers Committee of 1915. This statement applies to trade union leaders, but it is just as suitable for any career politician, “We will support the officials just ‘so long as they rightly represent the workers, but we will act independently immediately they misrepresent them.”
