The dust has yet to settle. The votes are still being counted. Trump is still bemoaning a phantasmic electoral fraud. But it is now set: a deeply divided country has a new president in Joe Biden. Given the circumstances, over a quarter of a million Americans dead, in large part due to the president’s atrocious handling of Coronavirus, eight million driven into deep poverty and protests sparked by the brutal killing of George Floyd at the hands of police violence, the closeness of this result is, on the face of it, shocking. With the Democrats' hopes of winning the Senate fading after Republican victories in Maine, Iowa and South Carolina, President Biden will likely be severely hamstrung. This will make his ability to pass substantial reform close to impossible. Higher taxes on the richest will not be passed. A Green New Deal becomes harder to imagine. Biden’s expanded health care plans look implausible. Donald Trump will be departing from the White House, but Trumpism is far from over.
New Democrats and a warped identity politics over material concerns
Trump is a symptom rather than a cause of America’s decline. The institutional forces that led to Trump’s election and almost reelection are still present. It is a state of affairs that, in large part, began when the Democrats started pursuing a warped conception of identity politics and the courting of the managerial professional class over the interests of material concerns for working people more broadly. A 1971 memo called ‘Changing Sources of Power’ sought to eliminate working-class politics from the Democrats, replacing it with the interests of a growing generation of middle class voters. The memo highlighted how it would oppose a class-based New Deal politics, one that helped FDR win four elections, instead looking to a politics of ‘the psyche’ or ‘the soul’. The 1972 presidential election duly saw a landslide win for Richard Nixon over George McGovern. The two Democratic presidents who won re-elections since then were both disappointments, failing to arrest America’s economic decline, as its middle class continued to shrink.
The Democrats’ embrace of a warped identity politics fails to take anti-racism seriously, and marks a retreat from solidarity to identity, and emphasising individual recognition to a collective struggle against an oppressive social structure, as Asad Haider has persuasively argued. Identities are formed in contemporary political arrangements that are produced and exercised in a range of social practices, as Foucault noted: the division of labour in the factory, the organization of a classroom, and the disciplinary procedures of prisons. Collectives of individuals are subordinated to a dominating power. But identity alone is an abstraction, failing to inform about the specific social relations that have constituted it. Without reference to material considerations it can often fade into vacuous platitudes. It is exemplified by a gestural symbolic politics that is embodied when a politician like Hillary Clinton, who spoke of Black Americans as ‘super predators’ tried to adopt the language of ‘intersectionality’ and ‘white privilege’ when running in 2016 despite being closely associated with policies that have harmed black communities.
Instead, the universality of class links different oppressed identities into a shared narrative that is grounded in lived experience and material needs, and common struggles that different oppressed groups face. Eschewing that results in only symbolic nods to approving of different identities, but fails to address the exploitation and mistreatment different identities share in common. The LGBT community, minorities, and many millions of other Americans have shared interests: they are, largely, oppressed and marginalized by a system that reinforces a patriarchal capitalist structure that is both racist and sexist. Failing to speak out about the causes of oppression and only providing lip service is insufficient and merely PR.
This cultural elitism, of prioritizing white-collar workers over blue-collar workers, has done all it could since the early 70s to eschew the legacy of FDRs New Deal. As Thomas Frank persuasively argues, the Democrats have repeatedly failed for decades to advance traditionally liberal goals. They have failed to expand opportunity, failed to fight for social justice, and failed to ensure workers get a fair deal. Instead, the free market consensus grew so much, with Bill Clinton signing a NAFTA trade deal losing jobs and incomes for workers and shipping manufacturing jobs abroad. He repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, fusing investment and commercial banking, unleashing risky investments and lending, which helped play a role in the 2008 financial crash.
At the precise time bankers saw their shackles removed, Clinton passed the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, heralding long prison stretches for drug users, disproportionately targeting, demonizing and incarcerating black Americans. The Act resulted in a massive expansion of the prison system. It incentivized states to adopt truth-in-sentencing laws, which require prisoners serve at least 85% of their sentence. Clinton was also responsible for the atrocious federal three strikes law, giving life sentences to repeat offenders. The result was more people, disproportionately black and brown, in prison for longer periods of time, tearing families apart, helping the prison industrial complex boom as a result, with the amount of Americans in prison almost doubling from 1993 where there were 949,000 inmates to over 1.5 million in 1995. Rather than expanding opportunity, this reduces it, with the stigma of offenders released often preventing assimilation into society. Slavery ended but the dehumanization that many people of colour suffer has not.
Whilst Obama ran on a ticket of hope and change, his presidency was also marred by disappointments. He failed to close down Guantano Bay, failed to initiate proper reform for the crooks on Wall Street, and failed to stop inequality spiralling. He also saw a rapidly shrinking middle class shrink further still, with the average wealth of the bottom 99% dropping by $4,500 between 2007 and 2016. Whilst over that same period, the average wealth of the top 1 percent rose by $4.9 million. Even his signature reform, the Affordable Care Act, did not go far enough, failing to create a public healthcare system. Obama’s foreign policy also helped destabilize other regions with a significant ramping up of drone strikes, increasing the risk of terrorist attacks in the US as a response. Obama’s presidency even oversaw 9.3 million Americans losing their homes following the financial crash. And it was under Obama’s presidency that the Black Lives Matter movement was formed, following the shooting of black Americans, mostly at the hands of overzealous police officers, as police violence continued to rise.
Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, nevertheless, ran on platforms that heralded a return to a fabled status quo: one that has not been working for millions of Americans for decades. Although Biden was slightly better at sounding more anti-elitist, emphasizing his Scranton roots against Trump’s privileged upbringing, and did not need to deal with misogyny, something that dented Clinton’s chances. Trump, conversely, was able to tap into an anti-establishment resentment, identifying that globalization and neoliberalism have left ordinary Americans with a worse lot. The inability of Democractic candidates to understand or failure to speak about the legitimate economic grievances of working people is why a candidate like Trump can run and win. Trump, despite being a billionaire, and not caring about redistribution in the slightest, realized he would have to pretend to listen to these concerns, and did so. Like an opportunistic populist, he was able to point to an out of touch political elite who have failed to improve livelihoods for many millions of working people.
Just as the New Democrats aimed for a politics of ‘the soul’ rather than speaking of material conditions, Joe Biden’s campaign line was termed ‘a battle for the soul of the nation’ and also avoided progressive policies. With both parties embracing deregulated finance capital and an increasingly authoritarian and racist criminal justice system, undermining workers and living standards, rhetoric about the country’s ‘soul’ misses the point. Life is stark for tens of millions of Americans and no amount of referencing America’s ‘soul’ changes that. When deploying such meaningless platitudes, it is unsurprising that Trump, who at least spoke in part of bringing jobs back and reviving the coal and steal industries, was extremely close to recapturing Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania – the rust belt, symbolic of America’s manufacturing and labour decline – once again. Trump was only 20,000 votes short in Wisconsin, .8% vote short in Pennsylvania and got 48% of the vote in Michigan.
It is clear that the lesson of 2016, which included a failure to offer a positive case for voting Democrat by appealing to a broad coalition that prioritized raising living standards for tens of millions and speaking the language of material considerations was not learnt in 2020. The Democrats failed to introspect after a humiliating loss in 2016; the chances of introspection now they have edged past Trump appear even smaller.
Low-income workers and people of colour constitute a significant voting bloc of the Democrats, and those the Democrats should be fighting for and turning from non-voters into Democrat voters, yet the New Democrats’ embrace of neoliberalism is what they got in return. With neither Republicans or Democrats identifying issues around America’s declining middle class or the losers of globalization, the space grew for a populist opportunist, who could lay blame, justifiably, at the hands of free trade and globalization but also to set the agenda and unjustifiably blame immigrants and Muslims for America’s demise too.
Proactive reactionaries and reactive progressives
Mark Fisher wrote that since the 70s, a tendency has been in play "for reactionary political forces to be pro-active and for progressives to be reactive". It is clear that 2020 was no different. Trump seemed like the person who would get things done: blaming China for the rise of the coronavirus helps escalate his irrational trade war and make it look to ordinary Americans that he is indeed getting something done and putting America first. Similarly, Trump boasted of America being ‘energy independent for the first time’ due to the massive expansion of fracking and oil production. And Trump, contrary to scientific warnings, was pushing to reopen the economy as fast as possible. All of these claims are either false or dangerous. In the first instance, the notion that China is at fault for a global virus is spurious at best, notwithstanding their opaqueness at the start of pandemic. And it also fails to reckon with why China, and countries close to it, have handled their responses to the virus infinitely better than America has. Additionally, Trump has failed to re-shore manufacturing jobs as the trade war with China has hurt America’s economy. Moreover, fracking is ruinous for human health and the environment and oil extraction is unsustainable and damaging for the planet. And finally, reopening the economy without a plan for ensuring safety when coronavirus cases are over 100,000 a day is dancing with the devil. With a media failing to inform voters on these nuances, such details often get drowned out in the noise. And with hyper-partisan media like Fox News working round the clock to spin all of these as successes for Trump, a large section of the country view Trump as a man of action fighting for their interests.
Biden, conversely, failed to seize the narrative or agenda. His sole selling point was not being Trump, merely claiming he would handle the pandemic better but failing to offer a compelling alternative narrative of America’s decline and why he could turn it around. It is a damning indictment that in the middle of a pandemic, healthcare reform failed to be an election defining issue. The richest country ever has 26,000 Americans dying a year waiting for healthcare, as millions delay getting medical help because of skyrocketing costs. Exorbitant prices for drugs and medical treatment results in the US spending much more on health care, at 17% of GDP, more than any other large advanced economy. Biden also refused to advance any progressive response vision to crises such as climate change, racial justice and economic crisis.
Trump’s proactive style also extended to the nature of his electoral campaigning. Trump held big rallies, against scientific advice, often with many unmasked attendees, electrifying his base. The Republicans also had a more effective ground game to get out the vote, whereas the Democrats scaled back on both of these. Biden had a muted campaign, often conducted indoors, unable to meet large amounts of people, and perhaps understandably unwilling to engage in door knocking during the pandemic. The notable exceptions to these being seen in Georgia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Stacey Abrams helped lead teams to increase turnout among Black Americans who are most susceptible to voter suppression.
Helping to cement Trump as a mythological champion fighting for Americans in the eyes of many of his supporters, his contraction of coronavirus actually worked to his advantage. Rather than demonstrate, as most liberals asserted, that his inability to take a deadly virus seriously meant he was not fit to govern, putting himself and Americans all at risk, he instead tried to show how the virus is beatable, and that it ‘taught him a lot’. Describing his treatment, as "the real school not the books school" exemplifies why Trump appeals to his supporters. Rather than established science, lived experience matters more and the politics of belief becomes prioritized. Empiricism, science and climate change get tarnished as being the domain of the elites - emotions and feelings are prioritized over facts. This politics of belief is dangerous, as the consensus around Trump supporting anti-vaxxers causing infectious diseases becomes clearer. It is part of the reason why, in spite of over a quarter of a million deaths, many Americans felt that Trump was not at fault for this, and even if he was, such considerations become trumped by the economy, as exit polls demonstrate, with the economy seen as the most important electoral issue. It is unsurprising given how enmeshed the implausible American Dream is within US history, politics and culture. As Trump rebounded from the virus, so too then would America.
Nevertheless, Trump’s propositional pretend economic populism are rehashed failed Reaganomics. The assumption that tax cuts lead to greater growth and revenue is fallacious and has been debunked. Tax cuts for the rich and corporations, coupled with social spending cuts and union busting meant the majority of the public was not able to drive growth through spending on much else other than sustenance and shelter. As real wages froze, the rise of credit ballooned which ultimately led to the casino lending exemplified by the subprime mortgage crisis that helped cause the global financial crisis. In the 40 years since its inception, Reaganomics and tax cuts for the rich have been devastating. As workers have less money, growth rates slow, leading to wealth accumulating more quickly from profits rather than labour, with most wealth going to the top 10% and 1%, increasing a desire for extreme politics due to a failing status quo where essential needs like healthcare become a privilege rather than a right.
Tax cuts for the rich have caused a ludicrous situation where billionaires pay less than the working class for the first time, with the richest 400 families in US paying an average tax of 23% while the bottom half of households paid a rate of 24.2%. And the top 1% of Americans have a combined net worth of $34.2 trillion (30.4% of all household wealth in the US), while the bottom 50% of the population holds just $2.1 trillion combined (or 1.9% of all wealth). The cutting of taxes for the richest works to transfer wealth and power upwards, making America more unequal, increasing desperation and legitimate resentment.
Demographic destiny will not deliver a Democratic majority by itself. And it is precisely the sort of lazy complacency that led to Trump’s rise in the first place. In spite of Trump’s racism, he made gains with minority voters, which are increasing as a share of the US population. The Democrats must learn to make a positive case for why voting Democrat is in interests of different groups of minorities by appealing to as broad a base of voters as possible and having policies that would improve their material conditions. The status quo is broken; heralding a return to it will not entice the undecided.
Trumpism looms large
The Trump era may be over, but all the reasons for his existence live on as strong as ever. America is even more unequal than it was in 2016. The anger from racial injustice and a broken criminal justice system is stronger than before, as exemplified by the waves of protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd demonstrate, coupled with a feeling that the Democrats are unwilling or unable to deliver adequate solutions. The manufacturing jobs that Trump promised to reshore failed to materialize. Compounding this is a Republican controlled Senate. Biden’s campaign of saying little except that he was not Trump failed to inspire or help Democrats in down ballot Senate races. Mitch McConnell, Republican leader in the Senate, is a specialist in killing Democratic plans. And with the Democrats likely to be without a Senate majority, he will block any legislative reform. For six out of Obama’s eight years in office, McConnell blocked almost every White House initiative. The likelihood now is that McConnell would be even more obstructive. And even if the Democrats win Senate seats in Georgia and gain a majority, it will not be enough to stop Republicans using filibusters to obstruct measures from being brought to a vote. Bipartisanship alone represents a continuation of big business above all else, fuelling inequality and racialized divisions.
Trump added 10 million more votes in this election and recorded the second most votes in a US election ever. The Trumpist right are strengthened and bigger than ever. Adding fuel to this fire is a great depression, which will energize their opposition to even the most milquetoast reforms. If Trump was able to get elected when the economy (GDP, not living standards) was experiencing an upturn, think of how the reactionaries will use an economic depression to push for their extremism. It is progressives who backed a Green New Deal, who will be required to defend a president in Biden, who himself does not want to be in the same camp as those progressives against the interests of big business.
It is positive that the nativist populist right is losing its most powerful figure. And it is a strongly encouraging sign that Biden will rejoin the 2015 Paris Agreement, deescalate tensions with China, likely rejoin the Iran Nuclear Deal and reverse sanctions on a poverty stricken Iran. Biden will also end the disgraceful Muslim-countries ban, and could reinstate funding for Palestinian refugees. It also matters that neo-Nazis will not feel emboldened with a Biden presidency. However, rejoining the Paris Agreement whilst necessary is insufficient without substantial climate change reform to decarbonize the economy, which is tough with a Republican controlled Senate that embodies Freud’s Death Drive, with self-destructive policies that expedite the extinction of the human race. Yet, there is more that Biden can and should do to address climate change, such as convening global leaders to proactively build international consensus, reversing Trump’s energy rollbacks, tying in climate change to a coronavirus relief package, signing executive orders to cut emissions, creating new financial regulations, prioritizing environmental justice, revising fossil fuel production rules and restoring wildlife areas.
Biden’s more expansive climate plans are unlikely to pass the Senate, as enshrining a carbon neutrality date in to law will unlikely be possible through an executive order. Additionally, other significant issues such as reforming the electoral college system, strengthening voting rights, reforming Senate representation to be more representative of states with larger populations, universal public healthcare or appointing a supreme court justice, or justices, all look out of the question too.
As Grasmci wrote, “The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear”. Just as Trump leaves, the reasons for his ascent endure, and cannot be resolved by his departure alone.
Conclusion: material concerns must be prioritized
Ultimately, America’s divisions run deeper than left and right, as they involve a bifurcation of reality. Waleed Shahid was right to note that 235,000 people dying has no effect on half the country when they live in an isolated universe shielded from national public opinion. It is troubling that Trumpism grows, with 50% of Republican voters believing in the baseless QAnon theory. It is strengthened still when Marjorie Taylor Greene, the newly elected Republican House Representative for Georgia’s 14th district, also believes in this far right conspiracy theory.
Baseless conspiracy theories fester when living standards decline and desperation leads to a pursuit of extreme answers. The need, therefore, has never been greater for the Democrats to appeal to working people’s material interests through social democratic reform. This, instead, would work to improve lives and livelihoods, restoring the belief that Democrats want what is best for workers. The appeal of nativist populists is eroded when they cannot speak to falling living standards or a political elite taking the public for granted. And even if the 50% of those who voted Trump are steadfast in believing baseless conspiracies, a significant chunk of the other half are certainly persuadable through economic materialism. Referring to them as a “deplorables”, will not win them over. If, as expected, the Senate is as obstructive as it looks likely to be, Biden must be courageous and legislate as radically as executive orders permit on climate change, economic reform and criminal justice reform.
It is, in large part, black Americans in cities like Detroit, Atlanta, Milwaukee and Philadelphia that helped propel Biden into the White House. And it is Black Americans, on the whole, who will benefit most from economic justice, criminal justice and environmental justice reform, though the benefits of such reforms would be felt much more widely. The fights for all three are intertwined. A coronavirus relief package must therefore address economic and environmental reform together. Biden must, with as much pressure from the left as possible, renege on his words that ‘nothing will fundamentally change’ under a presidency led by him. Taking these voters for granted helped Trump to power, as they failed to turn out in sufficient numbers in 2016, due to 3.5 million being targeted by disenfranchising and suppression tactics.
The pressure from the left in potentially primarying and dislodging Chuck Schumer, the Democrat leader of the Senate, is already reaping rhetorical gains. He is now, contrary to his inherent conservatism, sounding all the right notes: promising an FDR-like first 100 days in office for Biden, where the focus will be on climate change, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, an infrastructure bill employing people with prison records and student debt cancellation. These policies would go some way to improving economic, environmental and criminal justice. They would also lessen the appeal of baseless conspiracy theories and nativist populists like Trump.
It is therefore the job of the left, Bernie Sanders, 'The Squad', Justice Democrats and the Democratic grassroots more broadly, to pressurize establishment Democrats to ensure as much of these words become actions through as many executive orders as possible. Without the left pushing Biden, the establishment counter-forces will propel him to be as close to Mitch McConnell’s conservatism as possible. It is time for progressives to set the agenda and narrative again. Failing to do so will increase the chances of a Republican win in 2024, with a politics more dangerous than anything we have seen before, as class, race and environmental injustices worsen still. The need for Democrats to get serious about materialism could not be more urgent.
No comments:
Post a Comment