THIS was always going to happen. After the Democrats ran a pro-business, centrist, vision-free campaign and lost, progressives are being blamed to justify hurtling off to right. Whatever happened, the narrative spun by the corporate Democrats would have been to hammer the left. If Kamala Harris had secured the White House, the same faction would have loudly claimed it was vindication of rejecting progressive promises. Heads we win – tails you lose.
One anonymous Democratic aide declared “Our party must learn that outside of our tiny insular bubble, AOC (Alexandria Ocasio Cortez) is toxic to the Democratic brand with swing voters. Her primetime DNC (Democratic National Convention) speaking slot played directly into the narratives that lost us this election.” Another Democratic outrider declared on television: “The progressive era should be over if they want to start winning again.” One pundit declared that the Democrats had lost because they had run on “extraordinarily niche issues like gender fluidity” and “defunding the police” – none of which had anything to do with Harris’s campaign at all.
READ MORE: Having Scottish ancestry could help Americans move to Scotland, says immigration expert
Indeed, Harris reportedly acted on the advice of her brother-in-law – the chief legal officer of Uber – to steer away from challenging corporate America, and made billionaire Mark Cuban one of its key figureheads. Another central fixture was Liz Cheney, the right-wing Republican and daughter of war criminal Dick Cheney, handing Donald Trump of people an open goal as he correctly identified George W Bush’s vice-president as a mass murderer of Muslims. When asked on television what she would do differently from Joe Biden, all she could profer was putting a Republican in her cabinet. As one CNN political correspondent put it, “she was not running as a progressive”. She instead “ran as a centrist, consensus driven Democrat, actively inviting Republicans into the coalition".
even though the polling shows he was more popular among independent voters than Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, Liz Cheney and other political figures. He issued a rightly excoriating statement, declaring: “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 pointed out how working-class people were suffering, that 60% of Americans lived pay check to pay check, as well as a crucial fact which lies at the heart of the political tumult of the modern US: “Unbelievably, real inflation-accounted-for weekly wages for the average American worker are actually lower now than they were 50 years ago.”
Indeed, there was a politician who called for the Democrats to run on bread-and-butter economic populism relevant to the lives of struggling working-class Americans. That man was Bernie Sanders, whose advice was ignored –This great stagnation of living standards – leaving most American workers no better off than they were in the age of Richard Nixon – is something that was strongly impressed upon me as I travelled the Rust Belt states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and North Carolina in the run-up to the elections. Yes, for some Trump supporters, blatant racism was the key driving force – at a rally in Milwaukee, one young Trumper spat on the floor as he ranted about “illegals”. For others, the scapegoating of migrants is itself misdirected pain, blaming them for their acute struggles. Real wages have overall stagnated under Joe Biden. Since 2020, food prices have gone up by 35%. You cannot expect so many Americans to feel economic pain without consequences.
An obvious retort is such inflation has been felt everywhere, punishing incumbents, too. This is of course true – but the corporate wings of supposedly progressive parties make the fatal mistake of treating economic misery as like the weather, a fact of life you can do little about. What they should have done is loudly articulate the pain being suffered by Americans –squarely directing anger at a thriving elite, and offering compelling solutions. They failed to do so, allowing Trump instead to articulate that fury and direct it in all the wrong directions.
READ MORE: David Pratt: What I learned from the US election result
It would be a mistake, too, to see this as a surge in Trumpism. Donald Trump has secured around the same number of votes as last time, when he lost. The difference is the Democrats have lost millions of votes. Who these non-voters are matters: Why weren’t they inspired to march to polling stations simply by dark threats of fascism? We do know that some were repelled by US complicity in Israel’s genocide – not least the Muslim American citizens I spoke to in Dearborn, Michigan. But for most, it was likely to be a lack of faith that Kamala Harris had answers to the burning injustices defining their lives.
The Democrats have a choice. They can simply hope that Trump will simply disintegrate in office, and they can swoop back into the White House by default, without having to offer much. This would be a grave mistake. The system is broken in the US, and most Americans know it. Unless the Democrats offer actual answers then the future of the US – and the world at large –will be very dark indeed.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel