As we approach the 2024 presidential election, we are constantly being told that this election is critical to the future of democracy. That may be because a second Trump presidency would most likely be far more dangerous than the first. Indeed, it would be foolish not to take seriously Trump’s statements like “We will eradicate the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs who live like vermin within the borders of our country.” And we already know what he plans to do with the administrative state: tear it down and replace it with MAGA loyalists. As for his energy policies, his options for reducing food and mortgage costs, and his strategy for addressing the climate crisis, they can all be summed up with a simple slogan: “Drill, baby, drill.” Consequently, it is imperative that we defeat Trump in November. But as Bernie Sanders said just last week, “That is not the only task for our progressive movement.”
In fact, there are so many things that need to be done to end the predatory plutocracy, the injustices of the 21st 20th century capitalism, countermilitarism and a reinvention of US democracy. On the first day of the National Democratic Convention, all speakers passionately emphasized that Trump must be defeated to protect democracy and the interests of ordinary people. Joe Biden himself told the crowd that democracy had triumphed under his leadership and now must be preserved.
We can only avoid the power of special interests through solidarity mobilization and citizen participation.
Yet, as one would expect from an established political party, the Harris-Waltz campaign does not offer an alternative vision for the future that would recapture the true essence of democracy. There is plenty of rhetoric about “joy,” “freedom,” and “a better future,” but Harris’ economic plan mirrors many of Biden’s economic initiatives, albeit in an expanded format, such as her ideas for addressing the housing crisis.
Still, this is progress, as Bidenomics undoubtedly represented “some of the most progressive domestic policies to emerge from the White House.” But let’s focus here on the big issue itself, which is democracy. In fact, this is perhaps the most opportune time to ask ourselves this: is the US even a real democracy? There is ample evidence that it is not; in fact, the US was never designed to be democratic, so the obsession of the country’s political leaders, past and present, with portraying the nation as the “world’s greatest democracy” should elicit laughter rather than pride. For many years, the US has been classified as a “flawed democracy” by the Economist Intelligence Unit, while in 2022 the international democracy watchdog House of Freedom The United States ranked 62nd in the world, “behind all major Western European nations… and about on par with Panama, Romania and South Korea.”
And how could it be otherwise? First, the U.S. president is not even elected by a majority vote. According to the Constitution—which is now over 235 years old and terribly out of touch with today’s society—members of the Electoral College elect the president. Leaving aside the question of the history and evolution of the Electoral College, the basic truth about the process of electing the president is that it undermines the will of the people by allowing presidential candidates to win an election without receiving more votes from the majority of voters. In other words, it is possible for a candidate to receive a majority of the vote at the national level but still lose the election because he/she lost the electoral votes.
We saw such results in the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections. In 2000, Al Gore received the most votes, half a million more than George W. Bush, but lost the presidency in the electoral college vote. In 2016, Hillary Clinton also won the popular vote handily, receiving almost 3 million more votes than Donald Trump, but lost the election because Trump received more electoral votes. These results should not be viewed as paradoxes in a perverse political system, but as outright scandals. They speak volumes about the anti-democratic nature of the Electoral College and certainly about the undemocratic nature of the sacred text itself, the Constitution.
The United States has an even bigger democracy problem with the Senate, “an unsalvageable institution” that disproportionately favors small states that are predominantly rural, white, and conservative, and is therefore “racist by proxy.” The “one state, two senators” rule is nothing less than a recipe for minority supremacy.
Moreover, in US elections, the political currency that carries more weight is not votes, but money. The candidate who spends more money usually wins, and running for president is a terribly expensive endeavor, costing billions of dollars. The 2020 election cost $14.4 billion. The 2024 election is expected to be the most expensive ever, expected to reach nearly $16 billion. Added to this is the fact that a handful of wealthy special interests dominate political funding, especially since rulings like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has repealed spending caps as an unconstitutional violation of free speech. Of course, the public is not happy with this state of affairs, because polls have repeatedly shown that the overwhelming majority of citizens believe there should be spending caps on political campaigns. But what the public thinks and wants plays little role in US politics. Numerous empirical studies have shown that US politics is heavily biased in favor of the rich and that political decisions systematically ignore the preferences of the poor and the working and middle classes.
So what should we do? How do we move forward to end plutocracy and unleash the transformative potential of economic democracy? Is the undemocratic nature of the US political system an unchangeable state of affairs?
We must be clear that the two-party system is not going to change anytime soon, but that does not mean that all is lost when it comes to making progress on the social and economic fronts.
Real change is possible, as is a future with alternative possibilities. But change doesn’t happen overnight, and in politics you have to win many different battles to win a war. So we shouldn’t reject reform on ideological grounds, or avoid compromise on deep moral grounds if it means we don’t take a step forward. “Two steps forward, one step back” is a tactic that often pays off in the politics of radical social change.
We must recognize that the two-party system is not going to change anytime soon. But that does not mean that all is lost when it comes to making progress on the social and economic fronts. As experience has shown, serious and committed work at the community level can lead to real impact at the national level. The real fight for progressive power begins in local communities, one neighborhood at a time. Because the only way to evade the power of special interests is to mobilize solidarity and citizen participation.
There is a long history of applying for American citizenship, not just in the United States but around the world. We should study that history closely while looking for ways to deepen democracy through civic action that unites progressives and moderates rather than divides them. As progressives, we need alliances. We should encourage, not discourage, people with political views different from our own from reaching out. And we should all be united in fighting the rise of neo-fascism or proto-fascism manifested in the MAGA movement. We must not allow anger over particular issues and concerns to distract us from our immediate goal of keeping reactionary forces in check. Sometimes we can only win one battle at a time. We should oppose U.S. imperialism and war at every turn, while also being aware that we cannot smash the imperial state in one fell swoop.
We must form a united front in the moral and political struggle for a future with alternative possibilities. Radicalism can coexist with pragmatic progressivism. We certainly have a world to win, but first we must defeat the neo-fascists of today.
