The Democrats Have A Problem (And It's Not Just Trump)

"Democracy has disappeared in several other great nations- not because the people of those nations disliked democracy, but because they had grown tired of unemployment and insecurity, of seeing their children hungry while they sat helpless... In desperation, they chose to sacrifice their liberty in the hope of getting something to eat." FDR

A young Senator by the name of Barack Obama was on the campaign trail, gleefully inspiring throngs of American voters with the uplifting message ‘Yes We Can!’ Meanwhile, he put campaigning on hold for a brief moment to cast his Senate vote in favour of G. W. Bush’s no-strings-attached ‘Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,’ more commonly known as the ‘bank bailout’ following the financial crash. The Act gave $443.5 billion of taxpayer money, under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), to Wall Street fat cats in exchange for their toxic assets. Toxic assets are investments which lose all value and are impossible to sell at any price because the demand for them collapses. People refuse to buy them because it is a surefire way to lose money. Following the financial crash, the banks had billions of dollars worth of toxic assets, which only the government was willing to buy. This was private debts becoming a public liability. When hopeful candidate Senator Obama became President Obama, he quickly sought to expand this program. And therein lies the injustice. Ordinary people were offered little support in comparison to the bankers. Many were left with nothing following the crash. They got no government assistance, not because they didn't deserve it or that it couldn't be done, but because their material conditions were secondary to the prime goal of sustaining capitalism. And what words did he utter in his first months in office to these Wall Street giants, words which would be the course of America’s descent towards Fascism: ‘My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks…help me help you.'

As we are all aware by now, to the dismay of millions of people across the globe, Donald Trump won the 2024 US election - although polls leading up to the election were tight. The Democrats thought they could win with Kamala Harris' message of restoring abortion rights and championing women. Harris ran a campaign not too dissimilar to Hillary Clinton's in 2016, who also lost to Trump. But this time, even more starkly... Harris failed to win the popular vote. So, how could a campaign with seemingly so much momentum lose so spectacularly?

I believe this question can be answered in two easy steps, and the antidote to accelerating authoritarianism is equally attainable.

Firstly, election results show that in ALL Democratic counties in the US, Biden achieved a higher number of votes in 2020 than Harris did in 2024. So, why were traditionally blue voters inclined to vote either third-party or to not vote at all? Palestine. It was a key issue of this campaign that the Democrats chose to ignore at their own peril. Many people, myself included, lay the blame for the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the continued military assaults in the West Bank and Lebanon at the hands of the Biden administration. America has provided $17.9 billion worth of military aid to Israel since October 7th 2023. This military hardware (including massively destructive MK-84 2000lb bombs) is used to obliterate homes, hospitals and schools filled with civilians, aid workers, and medical staff. To put this in a broader context, America has provided more than $225 billion of military aid to Israel since the Nakba of 1948, when the state of Israel was founded.

On a personal note, as a dual US-Irish citizen, I struggled massively to cast my ballot in favour of Harris this election. I was sickened at the dismissive way she treated pro-Palestinian activists and the comments she made regarding the issue at the Democratic National Convention. She stated, 'And let me be clear. I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself...' Meanwhile, pro-Palestinian delegates were denied a speaking slot at the DNC. Moreover, at a rally in Detroit, Harris' speech was interrupted by pro-Palestinian protesters shouting, 'Kamala, Kamala you can't hide! We won't vote for genocide.' Harris responded to these remarks, made by impassioned protesters, by retorting, 'You know what? If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I'm speaking.' To me, this epitomises the problem with Harris' campaign. She failed to listen to the very real and very important concerns regarding the onslaught against Gaza. Her strategy boiled down to, 'I'm not Trump, so you gotta vote for me no matter what.' Without decisive action to stop something which has been termed a 'plausible genocide' by the International Court of Justice, topped with a renewal to keep supplying the weapons causing the genocide, it is understandable why so many pro-Palestinians could not support Harris, despite her not being Donald Trump. Ultimately, I did choose to vote for Harris as my home state, Georgia, is a swing state and would, therefore, be crucial in deciding the outcome of this election. Overall, reluctantly and with great difficulty, I decided Harris would be the lesser of two evils. But the decision was not without huge moral question marks.

On the other hand, Trump was able to position himself as the pro-peace candidate. Not because he espouses a message of peace at all, but because he could see the moral dilemma facing undecided voters based on the issues of Palestine and Ukraine. He understood Americans' frustrations with billions of dollars being sent to other countries whilst they suffer in poverty. Trump was able to switch the vote in Dearborn, Michigan (a critical swing state, and the town with the largest Arab-American population) by visiting Lebanese restaurants, interacting with the staff and customers, and reassuring people that he would attempt to end the violence. Thus, Trump courted the Arab-American vote. In contrast, Harris wheeled out Bill Clinton in Michigan in the weeks leading up to the election to essentially chastise undecided voters who might not vote because of Palestine. Even more damning, Harris didn't even visit Dearborn. Donald Trump will not do anything to liberate the people of Palestine, but he was able to weaponise the Democrats' failure on this key issue and optically it seemed like he was the champion of peace, and most importantly, Arab-Americans. One Trump voter summarizes this as, 'Even if he [Trump] will continue this genocide at a 99% chance, I'm going to take the 1% chance that he's going to stop it, as opposed to the 100% chance it's going to continue under Harris.' With an estimated 44,383 Palestinians dead - probably many more when the people buried under rubble are accounted for, why was it so hard for Harris to give a clear answer on what she would do to protect Palestinians? A clear answer could have made her the President of the United States.

Secondly, why did I begin this piece by referencing Barack Obama? Because he made the pivotal decision to 'save the banks' rather than normal Americans when unregulated capitalism stood at the crossroads. The financial crash could have been a wake-up call to the dangers of unbridled neoliberalism, but instead, Obama set America on the same stale trajectory that caused the crash in the first place, and it is a path the Democrats have never veered from.

This is most evident in Harris' open courting of traditional Republican voters. Harris' campaign began with albeit timid attempts to voice a meaningful message of attacking corporate greed and improving the material conditions of Americans. However, when she employed her brother-in-law, Tony West, as one of her chief economic advisors, these very necessary and popular messages disappeared. And what replaced them? Vibes-oriented, 'feel good' messages about hope and optimism with absolutely no policy commitments to back them up. West implored Harris not to attack Big Business if she wanted access to his network of CEO's. This shift in strategy is also explained by West being the Senior Vice President and chief legal officer of Uber and former general counsel of Pepsico, so he clearly has vested interests in Big Business. As an aside, it ought to be noted that Pepsico and its acquired company, Sodastream, hold a prominent place on the boycott list for Palestine, further underscoring Harris' reluctance to divest from Israel. So, as Harris' campaign progressed, figures she brought on stage like Shawn Fain (a labour Unionist who has served as president of United Auto Workers since 2023) were replaced by figures like Liz Cheney (an indentured Republican). Harris wanted to widen her net of voters to capture Republicans, but instead, her base crumbled. By appearing to be the candidate not representative of working-class people, something Trump was able to do effectively, Harris sacrificed a key part of her voting base at the altar of unfettered capitalism. Furthermore, Harris sidelined important players in this election, namely true progressives like Bernie Sanders. Whilst Sanders did receive a platform at the DNC, the most prevalent messages delivered were, 'we will protect capitalism, we are the party of status quo, we will defend our sacred institutions.' Meanwhile, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker addressed the convention crowd, saying, 'Take it from an actual billionaire, Trump is rich in only one thing: stupidity.' It is no wonder working Americans view the Democrats as the party of elitism.

Senator Bernie Sanders correctly identified why the Democrats lost this election. In a statement, he said: 'It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them.' He goes on to list the fact that Americans pay more than any other nation for prescription drugs, that 60% of people live paycheck to paycheck, and that the gulf between the wealthy and the poor has widened vastly. Americans' paychecks are now worth less than they were 50 years ago due to inflation, and, above all else, people are suffering. It is clear that the 'status quo' will no longer do. Well, it is clear to everyone but prominent Democratic politicians whose political careers are bankrolled by big banks, big pharma, the National Rifle Association and corporate America. It's no wonder progress is seldom made.

And now, many news outlets in the US have laid the blame for this crushing Democratic defeat at the feet of being too 'woke,' too 'radical,' not tacking far enough to the right, etc... But, I would argue it is clear what the Democrats have to do. If they are to electorally succeed and regain power, they must pose a real opposition to Trump's right-wing populist, authoritarian regime. They must unequivocally and proudly propose 'bread and butter' policies... (literally), as FDR realised so many years ago.