While genocide is a clear cause of the democrats' defeat, economic issues are usually mentioned. What lingers behind the significance of the “it’s the economy” narrative?
This claim, which focuses on genocide, is controversial, as numerous other analysts assert that “the economy” was the decisive factor in the elections, based on polls. Nevertheless, we may gain further insight by consulting the views of an expert in the field:
“John Della Volpe is the director of polling at the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics. The Washington Post referred to John as one of the world’s leading authorities on global sentiment, opinion, and influence, especially among young Americans and in the age of digital and social media.”
Della Volpe writes about the U.S. election results:
“…Ms. Harris’s campaign needed to shift about one percentage point of voters across Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin to secure the presidency, but instead struggled in college towns like Ann Arbor, Mich., and other blue places.
… When young Americans voiced deep moral concerns about Gaza and the humanitarian crisis unfolding there, they received carefully calibrated statements rather than genuine engagement with their pain. I believe this issue contributed to lower enthusiasm and turnout in battleground states in 2024 compared to 2020.”
“One percentage point of voters.” Let that sink in! The citation above is from an abridged version of a New York Times opinion piece, now accessible only via a paywall.
Polls are not necessarily objective; they are often part of the mainstream media narrative surrounding elections and their outcomes. What implications does the question of “the economy”
have for the voter? Such a poll is inherently biased. Does it consider that the economy is inextricably linked to the accumulated U.S. multi-trillion military objectives around the globe, and therefore not an abstract soundbite up in the air, thus instead linked to imperialism? No.
The narrative of “it’s the economy,” as detached from its external manifestation of massive military and related expenditures, is so pervasive in popular consciousness that a spontaneous response of “the economy” is understood to refer to that relatively abstract and emasculated view based exclusively on domestic considerations such as inflation.
Given the above, if the issue of genocide played a decisive role in tipping the scales against Kamala Harris, one might wonder why it was not more prominently reflected in polling data. The pervasive narrative in the United States and the West is so omnipresent and airtight against even mentioning “Palestine” or “Gaza” that it becomes insidious. This narrative conflates pro-Palestine sentiments with anti-Zionism and antisemitism, creating an environment where voters might hesitate to provide such answers in surveys that could identify them. The fear of retaliation is a genuine concern in this highly charged atmosphere. However, as the Director of Polling at the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics has shown, in the anonymity of the voting cycle, many individuals who might have supported the Democratic candidate opted either to abstain or to vote for the anti-genocide Green Party, ultimately contributing to Harris’s defeat.
In addition to the conventional polling procedures that align with the prevailing status quo narrative, it is significant to consider a fundamental premise. The extensive, prolonged opposition in the streets and on campuses, including pervasive arrests, police brutality, and attacks against academic careers affecting millions of primarily young but voting-age individuals and Faculty, all occurred for the public to see. Therefore, did this historical series of events not serve as a foundation for punishing the Democrats? Moreover, considering the broader social context of these activists, who have parents, grandparents, friends, and siblings, is essential. The students are grounded in principles, ideas, and values. While they may not yet operate entirely at the theory level, Karl Marx's observation seems valid: "theory … becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.” This “material force” contributed to the Democrat debacle.
As part of the debate surrounding the Democrats’ punishment for the genocide, a rhetorical question has emerged: What would Trump have done on October 7, 2023?
First, even posing this question risks significantly to diminish the gravity of the genocide carried out by Biden and Harris. It diverts attention from the root cause while possibly revealing a lingering bias that views the Democrats as the “lesser of two evils.”
Second, as Trump prepares to take office in January, the pro-Palestine movement’s focus will shift to opposing his administration.
Still uncertain about genocide being the leading cause of the Democratic disaster? From the viewpoint of young voters, consider if Harris had won. Such a victory would likely have been interpreted as a public endorsement of genocide—as reflected in the popular monikers “Genocide Joe” and “Holocaust Harris”—which would have severely undermined the pro-Palestine movement.
Thus, many young voters defied their constraints and rejected the “lesser of two evils” mindset. Their resistance has strengthened the movement, positioning it to confront the challenges the Trump administration poses more effectively. The above-related anecdotal account of a presumptive Trump reaction to October 7 also often includes the notion that Trump represents fascism and that he had to be deterred by a so-called united front against fascism. However, fascism is already here. The most glaring proof is the genocide against the Palestinian people. In doubt? Just look at your TV screen or smartphone. Furthermore, the U.S.-Israeli genocide policy in Palestine is applied simultaneously inside the U.S. itself. Their complete airtight, unfounded assertion that the pro-Palestine movement is anti-Semitic to crush all dissent follows Hitler’s Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels: “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.”
The narrow vision of the “economy” narrative so amenable to the capitalist status quo account, as juxtaposed to the profoundly anti-imperialist genocide version, is also convenient for co-optation by the “left” veneer attributed to the Democratic Party. At the risk of sounding presumptuous, it became clear as soon as Bernie Sanders launched his “political revolution” speech in June 2016, leading up to the Democratic primaries that year. Why? Sanders’ narrative, exemplified by his trademark line “It is about creating an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent” was fundamentally fraudulent. Aside from the non-sequitur of using the Democratic Party as a platform for a “political revolution,” Sanders’ rhetoric about a “fair share of the pie” immediately raised red flags. Coupled with his brief, almost overlooked comment on U.S. foreign policy—lost in the broader focus on the “economy” and the “fair share of the pie”—it was clear something was amiss. The credit for this insight goes to Lenin’s analysis, in which he referred to the German social democrats as “‘social-imperialists,’” that is, socialists in words and imperialists in deeds. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is of the same ilk as Sanders and the rest of the “democratic socialists” wing of the Democratic Party, and thus looking ahead to 2028: “‘Democratic Socialist’ Ocasio-Cortez Considering Presidential Run.”
These figures play the role of sheepdogs to retain people within the confines of the Democratic party rather than organizing in opposition to the imperialist duopoly. Thus, that party is known as the gravedigger of progressive social movements. Therefore, there is rejoicing over the crushing defeat of the Democrats because this new situation potentially allows for more room and time to organize against the political system. On July 9, 2020, the late Glen Ford wrote in Black Agenda Report under the title “Don’t Let the Democratic Party Bury the Movement,” warning that the “Black movement will be asphyxiated by the ubiquitous fingers of the Democratic Party if it does not build independent nexuses of people’s power.”
The joy is felt throughout much of the West's progressive circles because this significant shift in the American political system is also crucial for the world at large, given the continuous American wars of aggression and violent interference in the affairs of other countries.
Arnold August, Montreal, author & journalist presently focused on American political system, Palestine, Venezuela & China www.arnoldaugust.com.
In this week’s segment, we discuss the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe in World War II, and the disinformation that centers on the U.S.'s role and dismisses the pivotal Soviet role in that…
Roger McKenzie is the international editor of the UK-based Morning Star, the only English-language socialist daily newspaper in the world. He joins us from Oxford to discuss his new book, “The…
The late Bruce Dixon was a co-founder and managing editor of Black Agenda Report. In 2018, he provided this commentary entitled, "US Fake History of World War II Underlies Permanent Bipartisan…
Nadiah Alyafai is a member of the US Palestinian Community Network chapter in Chicago and she joins us to discuss why the public must be aware of the Nakba and the continuity of Palestinian…
Black people who are among the rich and famous garner praise and love, and so do those who are in distress. But concerns for the masses of people and their struggles are often missing.
