-OpEd-
HAMBURG — This isn’t one of those articles that hails Donald Trump as a political mastermind just because he happened to hop on the garbage truck at the right time. This is an article about where his opponents stumbled. It’s about Kamala Harris, her supporters, and all those in Europe who looked on favorably, worried that a second Trump term could threaten democracy.
Trump’s longest-serving chief of staff, John Kelly, called the former president a fascist outright, with The New York Times printing Kelly’s warnings in big, bold letters on its front page, urging people to take heed. In Germany, too, activists consistently brand Trump as authoritarian and fascist. But let’s be honest — that’s barking up the wrong tree. It’s a flawed strategy.
[shortcode-Eye-On-Us-Box]
Many assume that reminding voters of the threat Trump poses to democracy will be enough to dissuade them. Harris herself shifted from her joyful mode to attack mode in the final stretch of the campaign, calling Trump a fascist during a CNN forum. He promptly returned the insult, calling her a nazi in kind — a move understandable only if you’re aware of the widespread use of “woke Nazi” as a right-wing slur in the United States.
Harris ultimately got caught up in the power play that she had initially freed herself from when she took over Joe Biden’s candidacy. She overlooked what most of Trump’s opponents overlook: in order to defeat authoritarian forces, you need your own ideas, your own vision for the future, something that makes you stand out. Look at how Donald Tusk won in Poland.
Harris has made the same mistake that many progressives facing authoritarian movements make: those who call Trump a fascist are invigorating his voters, not their own.
Blackmail is not a strategy
It’s one of today’s ironies that Trump — a billionaire and a champion for the ultra-rich — has co-opted the promise etched onto the Statue of Liberty for himself and his party: “Give me your tired, your poor.”
The poorest rallied to him with fervor. This time, he even secured the popular vote. This isn’t like his 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton, where he squeaked by thanks to the outdated Electoral College, despite Clinton’s 3 million vote lead.
This time, he’s got the majority of American voters behind him, and a big reason for that is the Democrats’ lack of strategy. Michelle Obama, a gifted speaker, tried to rally people with slogans like “A vote for him is a vote against us.” Okay, but so what? Blackmail is not a strategy.
Democratic parties issue dire warnings rather than clear goals.
Harris’ initial slogan, “We are not going back,” was a smart opener that gave her an unexpected lead. But in the weeks that followed, the lack of vision became glaring. What was her big presidential goal? What did she stand for? What would she do differently from Biden?
She tried to stop Trump by making “let’s stop Trump” the whole point of her candidacy. She should have reached out to new voters, but she didn’t manage to communicate what she was fighting for, only what she was fighting against: Trump.
This same scenario plays out in most European elections, where democratic parties lose ground to authoritarian movements. They issue dire warnings rather than clear goals. They lose not because of the incredible political acumen of their opponents, but because their campaigns feel lazy and uninspired.
Joy did not fill the void
Instead, the democratic parties retreat into their self-righteousness. They act as if their own interest in retaining power was the interest of the general public. As if being better than your opponent was a political agenda. They’re drifting into irrelevance, failing to debate real political and social issues or even broach the topic of wealth redistribution. They align themselves with the status quo. No genuine drive for solutions. No boldness. No self-confidence.
Harris’ good mood could not fill the void of proposals. Despite the hatred and racism directed at her, she didn’t lose because she’s a woman. She lost because her only promise was, “We are not going back.” Ironically, that’s exactly what many people want: They want to return to the past, because no one is offering them a hopeful vision of the future.
There is no point in seeing Harris as a victim now. She had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and she took it. But it is not enough to keep repeating that Trump is a convict. The anti-democratic movements will not be stopped by demonizing them but by ruthlessly analyzing our own weaknesses.
No new American dream
In recent weeks, it became apparent how naive Trump’s critics are, how little they know about the reasons behind his success.
What was missing in the Democrats’ discourse was a precise description of the grievances of the present and of the possible solutions. Why is Trump’s big, egoistic dream suddenly catching on as the American Dream 2.0?
Democrats cried that his nationalistic egotism was “un-American.” But Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz, were just as “un-American”: They failed to revive the American Dream. “We are not going back” isn’t a dream; it’s a stop sign. Harris and her allies were so focused on halting Trump’s movement that they neglected to build a movement of their own.
We need bigger ideas, clear visions and common goals that more people can enthusiastically get behind and work for. Instead of labeling Trump a fascist, actions should have been taken to address the new digital public sphere. The digitization of news and public discourse — their widespread accessibility — are a cultural shift in debate.
Zuckerberg and Musk know that the future of democracies is being decided on their platforms.
A substantial part of democratic debate happens online. And yet years after Brexit, which exposed the power of social media in shaping democratic majorities, those in power still haven’t taken action. They behave as if the digital media can’t be regulated.
When Elon Musk bought Twitter, he wasn’t after profits; he wanted control of democratic discourse to benefit the super-rich. Where were the defenders of democracy when that happened? Where was the power of the legislators?
I have been using Twitter since the very first days, and the posts there are a more precise seismograph of political sentiment than any poll. Many people have given in to the illusion that if they leave Twitter (now X) they will have solved the problem for themselves. But this is a cheap way of not engaging in problems, while people like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Musk know that the future of democracies is being decided on their platforms.
Less denouncing, more doing
Now is the time to realize that it is not enough to call your opponent a fascist. In this sense, Harris’ defeat might even represent an opportunity; it shows how weak this strategy is.
So many people are having to sell their homes at auction, so many young people in the U.S. are homeless. Stories of the old American dream are becoming a Hollywood-esque cover-up of misery, which is why support from Hollywood’s super privileged movie stars has not helped Harris in the slightest.
It is no coincidence that young people in particular are starting to join right-wing movements. For them, Harris’ election slogan means “business as usual,” and their usual is a system in which they will never be able to afford their own home. That’s not a good reason to vote for a fascist, the good-hearted liberals say. Well, reality proves it is.
Democratic governments have passively accepted too many societal injustices, and even promoted them by closely cooperating with lobbies. Would Harris have brought about change? The brutal reality is that her opponents were probably right to doubt this.
The only people offering a break from the status quo are reactionaries like Trump.
In recent years, progressive forces have rarely led democratic discussions in a constructive and enriching way. They have turned out to be representatives of individual interests rather than democratic fighters for the common good. We’ve seen a lot of finger-pointing and sense of superiority and very little doing.
Tragically, the only people offering a break from the status quo are reactionaries like Trump. This promise is their political capital. As long as democratic forces fail put forth a platform that shows their commitment to changing the wrongs for which they are partly responsible, they have no chance against unscrupulous, tech-savvy right-wing movements.It is not certain whether this time it will only be four years.
And there’s no assurance that democratic institutions and international alliances will weather a second Trump term. The only certainty should be that democracy warnings aren’t enough: progressives need to bring forward their own ideas and build a movement of their own.
