About the “Threat to Democracy” Framing
It’s a distraction and it won’t move the needle
Articles abound regarding Trump telling Christians they won’t have to vote anymore after this coming election, because Trump is going to fix all their concerns. Many are interpreting Trump’s comment as a not-so-subtle call for totalitarianism, that Trump has proven once again that he’s a “threat to democracy” (as if what we have in the U.S. should even be called a democracy, but that’s for a whole other discussion).
Trump is accomplishing three things. One, he’s keeping the spotlight on himself. Two, he’s trying to fire up evangelicals (and his base as a whole) to get out and vote. Three, he’s stirring up the “threat to democracy” narrative, either purposely or by accident, which serves as a distraction and doesn’t move the needle.
The “threat to democracy” framing won’t do much, if anything, for Harris. Those who view Trump in that light are already going to vote for his opponent, and it would be a mistake for Harris to make that perceived threat a focus of her campaign. I don’t think most people take it very seriously or follow political news all that closely.
And, for all the comparisons being made to early 1930s Germany, it’s understandable that such framing isn’t taken seriously. Trump is driven by self-interest: making money and avoiding accountability. I don’t think Trump believes he can become dictator for life, and I’m doubtful that he’d even want to be. Nor do I believe this Supreme Court, as renegade and reactionary as it is, would allow for the cancellation of an election.
Also, that framing will be promoted by pols and pundits as an insidious way to defend the status quo, as if all was well pre-Trump and all will be well post-Trump. It wasn’t, and it won’t be.
Please don’t misunderstand me; Christofascists, white nationalists and moneyed interests (with the latter using the former two as a means to an end) are certainly attempting to change the sociopolitical and economic landscape into one that reflects their ideals. As I’ve written before, seeds were planted with the 1971 Powell Memorandum.
Trump is a symptom and an impetus, but not a cause. His profound ignorance notwithstanding, he has enough political- and media-savvy to accelerate right wing extremism. But he’s still just a tool. The Right is playing the long game. This coup of sorts started long before Trump entered politics, and it will continue after Trump is gone.
But the “threat to democracy” framing doesn’t address real, everyday concerns (those bread-and-butter issues) that must be addressed if Trump is to be defeated. It’s not enough to be anti-Trump. People need to know it’s going to get easier (or continue to get easier) to pay the bills, to make ends meet. Especially in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (the so-called “blue wall”).
Because this election is still going to be a nail-biter. It still comes down to just a handful of swing states. There are only two states Trump won in 2020 that Harris could possibly flip, and both are a real stretch. Those states are North Carolina and Florida (Harris should at least force Trump to spend time and money in both places).
Meanwhile, Harris is tasked with defending the aforementioned blue wall, along with Arizona, Georgia, Virginia and Nevada. Biden was on track to lose all of those states, and he absolutely needed to step aside. But it’s far from guaranteed that Harris will win enough of them. Trump only needs 37 more electoral college votes than he got in 2020 (had he handled the pandemic better, he likely would have been re-elected).
Harris, in addition to emphasizing pocketbook issues, should lean heavily into reproductive rights, which most certainly is a motivator (along with women’s rights in general). As are civil rights for persons of color and LGBTQ individuals.
And it’s wise to change the rhetoric regarding Israel-Palestine to be more empathetic toward residents of Gaza. I wrote before Biden dropped out that his replacement (likely to be Harris) needed to take a different tack regarding Israel, even if U.S. policy isn’t going to change. Because, sadly, it won’t. The U.S. will continue to arm Israel and contribute to humanitarian crises — there are powerful forces at play, and, at the end of the day, Harris is still a neoliberal.
We shouldn’t be under any illusion that Harris represents fundamental, systemic change. For that, we need a mass movement. We need there to be an actual, organized Left in the U.S. As of now, there isn’t a single powerful, influential entity in this country that advocates for worker power, an end to wage slavery, or building a humane alternative to capitalism.
The gamut of permissible politics runs from neoliberalism (the relatively soft version pushed by most Dems and the merciless GOP version) to a burgeoning neofascism. Barack Obama praises Reagan, ‘progressive’ Elizabeth Warren calls herself a “capitalist to her bones” and Rachel Maddow (a favorite infotainment personality among liberals) refers to herself as an Eisenhower Republican. So, yeah, leftists have our work cut out for us.
But we do need Harris to win.
Because Harris winning is about preventing catastrophe. Like eliminating the EPA and dismantling the administrative state, which are serious threats. Again, though, they probably aren’t threats the average person cares about or fully grasps. Civil rights, climate change and rising costs (of food, housing, utilities, healthcare, higher education, etc.) relative to income should be the focus. Addressing those concerns is what will get people to vote for Harris.
