Identity Politics Is Dead—Except For White People

In the wake of a devastating election, in which the majority of white Americans voted for a convicted felon who ran a campaign fueled by racism, xenophobia, and misogyny, many leftists are rushing to blame Kamala Harris and the Democrats for their loss. Senator Bernie Sanders immediately criticized the Democratic Party for abandoning working class people. Others focused on Harris’s support for Israel, or her unfocused campaign, or any number of other ways in which she and her party supposedly failed the American people. At the other end of the spectrum, some argue that Harris lost because she ran a campaign that was too progressive and “woke”—that she was beholden to the “trans lobby,” for instance, even though not a single trans person spoke at her convention and she almost entirely avoided speaking about trans issues. This rush to blame a woman of color and her party—instead of blaming the 76 million or so American voters who embraced Trump's messages of hate and his promises to turn the United States into an authoritarian regime—is racist, misogynist, and an exercise in bad faith.

We understand the point of a protest abstention or third-party vote, particularly from those devastated by the war against Palestine. But we cannot countenance the continuous and vicious criticism of a woman of color during and after an election cycle in which the other option was Donald Trump, a candidate who was rejected as unqualified even by many hard-liners in his own party and by his own vice president. The criticism of Harris has been and continues to be strategically disastrous for coalition-building. With the election now over, column after column from the left opines on what Harris did wrong, calling her mediocre or woefully out of touch. But the primary question we should be asking is not what a competent and dedicated woman of color who grew up in the working class, and who ran a high-energy campaign that quickly raised a huge amount of money did wrong, but rather what Trump did right that made him appeal so sweepingly to American voters. 

With about a million votes still outstanding, some have been quick to argue that low turnout explains why Harris lost. But in swing states the turnout was as high as it was in 2020, a record turnout year. In Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin, Harris received more votes than Biden did in 2020. In Pennsylvania and Michigan (a state where many forecasted a pro-Palestinian protest vote) Harris received more votes than Trump did in 2020. In all of these states, Harris received more votes than Trump did in 2016, and she vastly outperformed Clinton, even if we take into account the growth in the electorate. So, although the national turnout was apparently lower than in 2020, Harris did not lose for that reason. She lost because more people voted for Trump. Third party voters were irrelevant to the outcome of the election. The depressed national turnout likely shows the privilege of voters in non-swing states who thought they could afford to sit this election out. 

Many on the left are claiming that Harris lost because she did not run a sufficiently progressive campaign. Harris rejected a ban on fracking and tried to attract Republicans by campaigning with Liz Cheney. But she also supported an administration that was responsible for “blue collar” policies such as the infrastructure bill; the creation of manufacturing jobs, and the inflation reduction bill. Meanwhile, she lost in swing states where democratic senators such as Elissa Slotkin, Tammy Baldwin, and Jacky Rosen won, suggesting a split ballot. In addition to being white, these senators all hold centrist-to-conservative positions concerning, for example, Israel. This is not an electorate that appears ready for the revolution. It is rather an electorate that for “some reason” does not like the woman of color at the top of the ticket even if her positions are practically identical to (or somewhat more progressive than) the senators they support.

It is of course possible that a more progressive candidate, or a more conservative candidate, or a candidate who talked more about the economy, or a candidate less linked to the Biden administration, or a candidate that had more time would have done better. But the results of this election were a resounding enough victory for Trump that such hypotheticals are wishful at best. In California, a presumed bastion of progressive politics and Harris’s own state, voters rejected Proposition 6 which would have prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude. Proposition 32, which would have increased the minimum wage in that state, also failed. In this context, criticizing Harris while rationalizing Trump’s support as primarily motivated by economic considerations is an exercise in bad faith. Asking leftists to now, once again, reach out to disgruntled blue collar voters—really a code word for white working-class voters—puts an undue burden on the very communities who will be the direct target of Trump’s policies.   

Some have pointed to a general anti-incumbent trend in recent elections around the world, likely fueled by inflation. Perhaps this is a partial explanation of Harris’s loss, but Trump has given the public no evidence that he can fight inflation. His one and only clear economic policy, imposing high tariffs on all imports, will surely accelerate local inflation. Regardless of economic issues, Trump is a recent sitting president and Harris is a current vice president, so it is not clear who should suffer more from incumbency bias or how either could represent “change” or “a new era.” The point remains that voters resoundingly and enthusiastically chose Trump as their leader. 

The truth is that if someone is racist and sexist then they will be inclined to look for reasons not to vote for Harris, and the left did and continues to do an excellent job at providing such reasons. Leftists are more concerned with denouncing Harris than with denouncing the values and priorities of Trump voters.  

We need to regroup and to build a sustainable leftist movement in this country. But in order to do that, we need to directly acknowledge the role that race and gender are playing across the electorate. When confronting the reality of a popular elected leader as racist and sexist as Trump, our plan cannot be just to criticize the woman of color who was at the top of the ticket. 

Featured image is 16a.Rally.MAGA.PennAve.WDC.14November2020, by Elvert Barnes