Explanations for the Election Results
Chicago, November 6, 2024
A plethora of explanations are given for Trump's win and Harris' loss, including not a few which blame U.S. voters for whatever miseries they are sure to encounter under a Trump presidency. What these commentaries and explanations have in common is that none of them do much to explain what is going on in the United States from the point of view of the people of the United States. The people are always left out of the equation, except for purposes of slandering and maligning them by blaming them for everything that ails the society which is, in fact, another way of dismissing them.
For instance, many question why a Black person, or other minorities, or a woman would vote for Trump given he is an open and violent racist, misogynist and more. They do not consider why someone would think voting for Harris was an option, given that she proudly represented the justice system known for racist mass incarceration and the injustice of prosecutors and courts.
Once the people and what they think and how they act is removed from the equation, explaining the vote remains out of the field of vision and competency of those providing explanations. In fact, any attempt to aggregate individual votes of millions of people with many different views into this or that foot which fits the slipper carried by the Prince to find his Cinderella is a self-serving cause which gives rise to nothing.
Nonetheless, experience with elections in the United States shows that generally people do not vote based on the individual candidate but based on their concerns. Decisions which appear counter-intuitive in terms of the individual voted for in fact give expression to people's concerns, such as those against war or to express the rejection of the institutions which incarcerate Blacks and Latinos, produce rotten candidates for election, and so on.
A plausible explanation for the election of Trump is that in the United States, people voted for the causes which drive them in their lives, no matter how counter-intuitive this may appear to be. In this election, many voted against genocide with many sticking to their red line of No Votes for Genocide. For instance, the number of people who refused to vote for Kamala Harris in Dearborn, Michigan -- the largest Arab-American community in the United States -- was 22 per cent in favour of Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party's candidate for president who stood against genocide. In that city, Kamala Harris won 27.8 per cent of the vote and Donald Trump won 46.8 per cent. Some say that if the votes for Stein had not been cast deliberately against the support of the Biden/Harris administration for genocide, the combined vote could have defeated Trump. This is used to blame Stein and Arab-Americans for the Harris loss, rather than recognize it as the stand of many to refuse to conciliate with U.S./Zionist genocide by declaring that Harris is less genocidal than Trump.
Dearborn, Michigan, November 2, 2024 day of action, No Votes for Genocide
So too others did not vote for a candidate but for a cause, such as
by expressing their conviction -- right or wrong -- that Trump is less
likely to invade Iran and more likely to end the war in Ukraine. True
or not is not the issue. In fact, the portrayal of Trump as anti-war is
neither here nor
there because individuals do not set policy. It is the private
interests they represent which prevail at any time, such as their
interest to preserve the Israeli state and alliances -- including the
Abraham Accords with Arab states negotiated under the first Trump
presidency. So
too, the interests Trump represents will express the desire of the
U.S.
rulers to preserve U.S. global hegemony by maintaining a no war/no
peace situation in the U.S./NATO proxy war in Ukraine while
simultaneously ending the war, healing the rifts between the U.S.
and
Europe, and using Russia
against China and China against Russia, India against both, and so
on.
Most importantly, a significant section of the U.S. ruling class
seems to think that a Trump presidency may be more effective in
preserving the Union. It is indeed a stretch of the imagination to
conceive racist, misogynist top military brass taking orders from a
female commander-in-chief they consider neither "manly" nor
"war-like."
It is well-known that candidates of the rich, especially for president, are going to be pro-war, anti-people, racist, anti-worker and more. They represent the U.S. state, which is the most racist, violent, militarist state on planet earth, so candidates cannot be otherwise.
The U.S. working class and people are not confused about which class these candidates represent and what system they represent. They are representatives of a state and ruling elites facing serious existential issues. When candidates are spoken about as independent individuals whose individual policies will govern the country, it is the consciousness inherent in the U.S. experience which is assaulted.
Addressing how working people in the U.S. tend to cast their ballot as they perceive how matters of war and peace, freedom and justice present themselves paints an entirely different picture to the one that portrays half of the American polity as racist, misogynist, lovers of genocide, ignorant etc. It means that in this election, concerns about Gaza and broader war found expression in voting for Trump, voting for Harris, voting for Stein or not voting at all.
Another example is the extent to which people cast their ballots to express their profound anger against the system, by opposing Harris, not Trump. This includes anger against the administration in the states where they were left to fend for themselves following the hurricanes, droughts and other natural disasters, or anger at the system of mass incarceration and lack of justice against racist killer cops and the like.
The anger in the United States against the establishment and what it represents is very great, very profound, as is the case in other countries as well. It is visceral -- relating to deep inward feelings rather than to the intellect. These feelings and emotions, deeply rooted in experience, culture and resistance, create a collective consciousness independent of individual human brains. Furthermore, because this consciousness is molded by human experience and resistance, it can also be informed to set a direction designed to reach a definite favourable destination.
This explanation defies all notions of identifying the vote in the United states as a "Black vote bloc," "Latino vote bloc," and the like as if whole collectives of people irrespective of who they are within life itself stand for whatever the ruling class propaganda machine says they stand for.
For instance, according to this type of "identity politics," it is common to hear it said that white workers are to blame for the election of Trump because they favour the rulers' white supremacy or anti-immigrant actions, or misogyny. Far from it, many are simply saying they want economic security for themselves, their families and communities. So too, half the population of the U.S. is blamed for Trump's election, totally ignoring the anger of the people against an establishment that commits crimes against the people every minute of every day.
An appreciation of the peoples' concerns counters all the propaganda that people who voted for Trump are racist, anti-immigrant, and so forth. Conversely, it counters all notions that all those who voted for Harris are progressive. Or that those who did not vote are indifferent. Or that a vote for Harris would save liberal democracy and the Constitution while a vote for Trump will destroy liberal democracy and the Constitution when both candidates stand for strengthening the police powers of the presidency and depriving people of their civil rights in one way or another.
It is not the peoples, as collectives, who are racist, pro-war and anti-immigrant; it is the U.S. state, its agencies, institutions and presidents.
Facile explanations for the vote also ignore the role that state disinformation plays in the United States to depoliticize everyone, i.e. make sure they do not influence the affairs of the polity in any way. It is to say that the working class and people should not be an organized force for an aim they themselves set.
This election showed that not only did the people vote according to causes dear to their own hearts but that the organized force of youth and voices speaking in their own name against genocide, injustice, mass incarceration, for equality, economic sustainability, in defence of public health care and education, etc. did not fall prey to this particular attempt to disinform them.
This article was published in
Thursday, November 7, 2024
Article Link:
https://cpcml.ca/ITN2024/Articles/TI54472.HTM
Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca