There can be no denying that the dangers posed by a potential second Donald Trump presidency are stark and very real. The “art of the deal” billionaire turned politician is dangerously erratic, overtly racist, and deeply authoritarian. Moreover, the MAGA (Make America Great Again) base that he has drawn around himself is extremely reactionary and includes openly fascistic elements.
However, whatever electoral choices individuals make, it is highly problematic for unions, social movements, and those on the Left to pull out the vote for Kamala Harris. She is, after all, the sitting Vice President in an administration that is arming and actively enabling the genocide that is unfolding in Gaza. It may be to her advantage to appear concerned about Palestinian lives, but as The New Arab has put it: “[T]here is nothing more revealing of Harris’ deceptive rhetoric than her talk of supporting a ceasefire deal and displaying a broken heart over the suffering of civilians in Gaza, while simultaneously sending more lethal weapons to Israel.”
Also Read | Project 2025: The ‘secret’ agenda of Trump 2.0
Israel is now using some of those very weapons in Lebanon and, in doing so, is taking the situation to the very edge of a catastrophic regional conflagration. Even as this horror unfolds, Harris is giving no indication that she intends to set any limit on Israel’s rampages. As her administration sends more troops into the region, she is utterly complicit in an appalling escalation that might well lead to direct US involvement in the conflict.
US imperial interests
Writing in Tempest Magazine, Ashley Smith argues that Harris’ role as Vice President and her present electoral campaign are entirely in line with the imperial interests of the US. During her debate with Trump, “[s]he promised to make ‘our’ military the ‘most lethal fighting force in the world’’’ and to win the contest with China for global dominance. “She also vowed to implement a Republican ‘border security bill’ to repress migrants, adopt law and order policies to ‘crack down on violent crime’, and greenlight more fracking, just like [Joe] Biden did with his Inflation Reduction Act.”
Smith also suggests that “[u]p until the rise of Trump, the Democrats had been the ruling class’s B Team” but adds that this has changed because decisive sections of the US establishment have lost confidence in the Republicans with Trump at the helm. His dangerous and unpredictable track record has convinced many in the corridors of power that, for the present at least, the Democrats are a more reliable “A Team” than their rivals.
Harris’ decidedly right-wing turn on the campaign trail is no aberration. Writing in Counterpunch, in 2016, Richard Moser noted that when running for office, “the Democrats position themselves to the right of the labour and social movements, and it could well be argued, of the majority of Democratic voters”.
During the presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, in Philadelphia on September 10. | Photo Credit: BRIAN SNYDER/REUTERS
In the US electoral system, the results in most States during a presidential contest are a foregone conclusion and everything rests on the outcomes that are obtained in a small number of “swing States”. These are the places where Democrats hope to convince potential Republican voters to come over to their side, and it is, therefore, in their interest to play to that relatively small grouping of “moderate” conservatives in order to settle the matter. Harris is following this course, bolstering her support among the ruling establishment, while assuming that unions and social movements will continue, as in the past, to grumble quietly while “holding their noses” and working for a Democratic victory.
One may argue that Trump would be even more dreadful than Harris, but there is no doubt that the latter candidate stretches the notion of supporting the lesser evil to its breaking point. The old saying “out of the frying pan, into the fire” comes to mind as Leftist activists convince themselves, and as many others as they can, that supporting an enabler of genocide is the price that must be paid for keeping Trump out of the White House.
Highlights
- The upcoming US presidential race presents a challenging choice between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, with both candidates posing significant concerns for progressive voters and social movements.
- Harris’s controversial stance: Despite being portrayed as the “lesser evil,” Harris is criticised for her role in the Biden administration’s support of Israel’s actions in Gaza, which some characterize as enabling genocide.
- The strategy of supporting the “lesser evil” candidate can have implications. This approach undermines social movements and fails to address fundamental issues in American politics and foreign policy.
Subordinating social movements
When social movements stand down in order to try and elect the least worst of their enemies, the results are likely to be deeply unfortunate. The commentators David McNally and Charles Post have pointed to the effort to demobilise the sweeping Black Lives Matter protests that were unfolding in the run-up to the presidential contest between Trump and Biden in 2020. They concluded that at that time, following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, “the largest and most diverse anti-racist protest movement in US history was surging powerfully forward”, weakening the confidence of Trump’s reactionary social base in the process.
In solidarity with the movement on the streets, “professional basketball players in six cities had just walked off the job to protest police violence against Black lives”, and the support actions were spreading among other professional athletes.
However, the Democratic establishment, largely through the efforts of former US President Barack Obama, worked to head off the anti-racist strike action, contain social mobilisation, and discredit the “Defund the Police” demand that was resonating powerfully at that time. The most dynamic US social upheaval against racism and police violence in decades was subordinated to the perceived electoral needs of the Democrats.
Also Read | Joe Biden: America’s man of the middle steps down
Although the events unfolding in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon are so appalling that Palestine solidarity action will be hard to subdue, there is no doubt that such a mobilisation is decidedly inconvenient for the present Democratic presidential candidate. The Biden-Harris administration is supplying most of the weapons that are allowing the killings to proceed, and no serious movement on the streets can ignore this obvious reality. Democratic electoral fortunes and the need to challenge a genocidal rampage simply cannot be reconciled in such a situation.
Right turn in US
Lesser evilism has a long and very particular history in the US, but it is an international political phenomenon, and it is running into trouble in this period. The capturing of the Republican Party by hard-right forces is part of a general trend in which mainstream conservative parties are embracing more radical ideas, often facing pressure from even more right-wing formations vying for a place in the political mainstream.
The right-wing populist leaders that are thrown up in this situation play to a support base caught up in a mood of reactionary rage that the volatile and uncertain social conditions of this period have produced. They present themselves as the opponents of smug elites and offer fake solutions that can win them a following. For those who personify the worst political instincts, they are a ray of hope.
In the face of this right-wing tide, the tired and discredited parties of the political Centre are a very poor defence indeed. In this or that political contest, they may still fend off the challenge from the Right, but things are not going their way. In France, for instance, President Emmanuel Macron’s total inability to offer a compelling alternative to a brand of made-over fascism is a case in point. It took an initiative by the political Left to drive back the threat of Marine Le Pen.
Also Read | Kamala Harris: A calculated choice
The belated but entirely unavoidable dumping of Joe Biden by the Democratic Party establishment and the very dubious breath of fresh air that Harris brings to the presidential race may be enough to keep Trump out of the White House. It may also be argued that this would be a preferred result, but it is hardly an open pathway to a just society. But these considerations are by no means the end of the matter.
The Trumps of the world point the way towards a regressive and bleak future. The progressive alternative to that outcome is to be found on the Left. For their part, the forces of the political Centre present only a failed and discredited status quo that has no future. For the Left, and the movements it is active in, to periodically suspend operations to try and get the least dreadful option elected is a profound mistake.
The Democratic Party, which has long functioned as a tool to divert and demobilise popular struggles and social resistance, is a clear example of the folly of backing the lesser evil. It would be far wiser to leave Harris to her attempt to convince enough wavering swing State Republicans to vote for her, while preparing for an inevitable struggle against whichever of the two candidates takes their seat in the Oval Office.
John Clarke is an anti-poverty organiser and political activist based in Toronto, Canada.
