What Do The Election Results Mean For The American Left?

Guest post by Jason Brownlee

Image from AP: Rebecca Blackwell

Americans are celebrating Biden’s win but this is looking like a pretty terrible election for the American Left, especially for any hopes that Democrats could advance an agenda tackling historic inequality or the climate crisis.

Overall, this was the narrowest of rejections of Trump specifically, but pretty much an endorsement of Republican politics and an implicit repudiation of the Democrats’ non-class appeals. Most importantly, a massive increase in turnout was almost as likely to benefit Trump as Biden. So far Trump has gotten 6 million more votes than he did last time (which adds up to 70 million some votes, more than Obama ever got).  

An extensive poll from AP captures what the polling projections did such a bad job of: Trump improved his vote share among pretty much all demographic groups (LGBTQ, Blacks, Latinos, women, etc.).

Image from the AP poll linked to above.

In addition, Nate Silver (whose prognostication business may never recover from the polling errors that projected a Democratic sweep of Congress) has a fine piece analyzing the actual vote patterns that have come in, i.e., not predicting but looking at actual votes. The map at the bottom, with arrows, shows where Trump did better than last time, including among Mexican-Americans in south Texas.

Image from the Silver article linked to above.

Long story short, Dems have long been selling the story that Americans, through demographic changes, will inexorably deliver their party national power. No such thing is happening, Instead, in a very Kang-vs-Kodos way Americans were left to choose between two anti-socialist parties. They rejected Kang this time, but they have endorsed his minions.

The Question of Trump and Authoritarianism

My scholarship these days is engaging the people warning of authoritarianism. Turkey is very much at the center of that debate and I appreciated Zeynep’s analysis. That literature, not necessarily Zeynep, has a tendency to be – unintentionally but ironically – pretty anti-democratic in the way it handles mass opinion and working class voters. See for example the political psychology studies on how millions of Americans who support Trump “are authoritarians.” 

As academics whose vocation is to cultivate critical thinking I generally get uncomfortable when large numbers of people become deferential to political leaders. But it’s also inappropriate, and elitist, to dismiss voters for Trump, Erdogan, Orban, Bolsonaro etc. as stooges and stormtroopers. After all, we tend not to do that for supporters of leftist populists.   

Turkey, like Venezuela, has crossed the line into heavy amounts of state coercion. But elsewhere – India, Poland, US, Brazil – one needs to reckon with the basically free choice of mass constituencies to repeatedly vest state power in nativist, patriarchal (etc.) politicians. That challenge is very much present right now, not just in 2024 under Trump again or a Trump 2.0 figure.

And what I think that means is we need more serious political economy work explaining how the abandonment of material left policies by parties like the Democratic Party contributes to a rise in support for the so-called rightwing populists. Calling the other side “authoritarian” is a mystification, not an explanation.

Final thing: the “f word” has come up on Progressive Podcast Australia a few times. A few weeks ago Vox asked me and some other scholars whether Trump should be called a fascist: ‘Is Trump a fascist? 8 experts weigh in’.

What Do You Mean By “Identity Politics”?

By Nick Pendergrast

I was recently reading the book The New Americans: A Guide to Immigration since 1965 in my academic work and I believe that the chapter ‘Ethnic and Racial Identity’ by Herbert J Gans makes some important contributions to current debates about identity politics.

Let’s start off with a definition of the term. Gans defines identity politics as:

‘…political activity devoted primarily to expressing and defending activists’ ethnic or racial identity’ (p. 102).

This seems like a reasonable definition to me and Gans also makes the point that a broad range of activity is lumped under the label of “identity politics”, even though it may not actually fit the above definition:

‘To what extent ethnic and racial groups become involved in politics to express their identity and to what extent they attempt to obtain the same decision-making influence, jobs, and related resources as other politically active groups is an important question’ (p. 102).

Often a really broad range of discussions about reducing racial inequality are dismissed as “identity politics”, which is assumed to be a negative thing, including even by some on the Left. I believe those doing so should question how broadly they apply this term and also their dismissal of “identity politics” generally. As far as I see, such a broad dismissal only serves to marginalise important discussions challenging racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism etc.

I posted some of the above on social media and ended up having a respectful, productive discussion with a friend on some of the critiques of identity politics. Such conversations seem rare online! I’ll get onto online etiquette below but the point was raised in this discussion that identity politics is often “misused” to prevent more nuanced conversation. They mentioned that:

‘For example I was once extolling the virtues of community gardens and was told that they are racist because community gardens can play a role in gentrification, which often benefits white people. Whereas the question could have been better framed along the lines of how, can we encourage community gardens without them being a vehicle for gentrification?’

In response, I argued that I don’t see bringing in issues of race to community gardens as shutting down the discussion. I’ve heard similar critiques from feminists regarding the slow food movement where we should all be making our own food and doing more food preparation at home in that within current gender norms, most of that extra labour will be done by women. I wouldn’t view that as shutting down a discussion on the slow food movement or “misusing” identity politics, but rather adding an important element to the discussion that is often left out.

Certainly we can all work on framing our arguments better, but again, I see those who challenge “identity politics” as often working to reduce the amount of times issues such as race and gender are brought into discussions around issues like food systems and environmental issues. In my opinion, avoiding bringing in these intersections is a negative thing. It seems to me that the problem identified is with activists framing their arguments in less productive ways and the take-home message is more for all of us to think about re-framing our critiques in more productive ways. This is an issue with online etiquette for everyone to consider, rather than a problem with identity politics.

I feel that framing such problems as an issue of identity politics rather than online etiquette can imply that these issues only apply to those who have marginalised identities and therefore their activity (online or otherwise) is more likely to be labelled (and often dismissed) as identity politics. This is not necessarily the intention of those making this critique but I’d argue it could be the effect. It seems to imply that it is People of Colour, women etc who are the ones that don’t engage well online, despite countless examples of those with more privilege going well beyond not framing arguments in the most productive way, and actually engaging in trolling, abuse and threats.

These discussions remind me of some points by academic Alana Lentin on 3CR Tuesday Breakfast. Lentin argued that some in the “White Left” try to make the case that racism is used as a stick to beat “ordinary” (coded language for white) people. She highlights this narrative as promoting the idea that “big, bad minorities” are “beating people over the head” for making a mistake.

On this point, I think there are important conversations to be had about call out versus call in culture, however, it’s also important for those of us who are white to be cautious about making arguments that feed into a “reverse racism” narrative. Such a narrative goes against all historical and structural evidence.

These discussions also remind me of critiques of the movie The Joker from Vegan Warrior Princesses Attack! podcast (which is now Bitchy Shitshow), where the hosts argued that a message from the movie is that more marginalised groups such as women and People of Colour have to be so careful to be nice to white men, despite how dangerous/scary etc we may be acting, and if they don’t, white male rage and violence is righteous and justifiable.

Image from Vegan Warrior Princesses Attack!

This is not to say that those criticising identity politics are advocating for violence by any means, just to say that we should be careful about feeding into a broader cultural backlash against marginalised groups having a greater say, or at least there being a broader discussion about the fact that some people are marginalised. Of course these inequalities unfortunately continue to persist but they are at least increasingly being challenged in more mainstream forums.

AFL players take a knee in support of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Surely this broader discussion is something that people should be celebrating, rather than viewing as an annoyance.

I encourage anyone critiquing identity politics in this really broad way that dismisses just about any attempt to raise issues such as racism as identity politics and views identity politics as a negative thing, to reconsider this view.

For more on these issues, I highly recommend the video ‘Dear Anti-Idpol Leftists…’ by Mexie on Youtube.

This article is the first in a three-part series of posts on identity politics, you can check out the others here:

Article 2: Do You Identify Or Are You Identified?

Article 3: ‘Questioning Trickle Down Identity Politics’.