My Reno trip to canvass against Trump

I spent three days last week in Reno, Nevada under the auspices of Seed the Vote, volunteering as a canvasser for the Harris-Walz campaign. Having canvassed in many campaigns over many years my expectations were low. I imagined I’d mostly knock on the doors of empty houses and apartments. That expectation was fulfilled.

Since our lists were of low-propensity voters, I also guessed when I did find people home I’d encounter large gaps where political knowledge should be. This too proved true.  My personal goal was modest:  stop 2024 in the United States from becoming 1933 in Germany (see my earlier Jumping Off Place article).  I am less enthusiastic about the people I’m urging everyone to vote for than the historical function they will perform if elected: stopping the ascent of fascism.

Over seventy-two hours I had about ten actual conversations, including a couple potentially meaningful ones, and one honest-to-god conversion moment.  I’m reporting here on three of the more interesting interactions, which occurred on the first day while trudging in ninety-degree desert heat from place to place in a working class suburb.

Conversation One:  John, the nice Trumper*

You remember during the first years of the Trump administration when pundits and shellshocked naifs urged us all to reach out to uncles and nieces and former friends on the other side and “just talk” and then we’d find out how much we all really had in common? I found one in a trailer park rental complex, a tall, gaunt white seventy-nine-year-old named John.

When I told him I was a volunteer for the Harris campaign he asked if we could “just talk”, and told me he’s going to vote for Trump no matter what, but he wanted to hear what I had to say, because he doesn’t know what’s happened to this country that people can’t just talk with one another, and is that OK? I agreed to his terms. With each point I made (protection of the American Care Act, which Trump tried to repeal; Trump’s tax cuts for the rich, which meant less money in the federal budget for the needs of everyone else; his declaration that on Day One he’d be a dictator, etc.) John had a ready answer, none of which corresponded with any known reality, and a bottom line—“I trust him to do the right thing.”

When I left he said we’d given each other something to think about and politely thanked me for the discussion. This reception sharply contrasted with ones I received from other Trump supporters, the most civil of which was another old white guy who told me to leave so that he wouldn’t have to insult me. (On the opposite extreme, one of my canvassing partners was told through a smart doorbell to “get the fuck off my property and take your sacks of shit with you.”)

Conversation Two:  The anarchists

In front of many homes in this neighborhood motorcycle, bicycle and car parts decorated the dusty yard; this was no exception.  When I told Aurora, a thirty something Latina, I was there to ask for her vote for Harris she stepped out from behind the screen door onto the wooden porch and engaged. She said she couldn’t vote for Harris because she hadn’t distinguished her policy from Biden’s on Palestine, where United States bombs have been involved in an ongoing genocide. I surprised her by agreeing with the need for a ceasefire and withdrawing US military aid to Israel until that happens. But, I said, Trump would be no better on the issue and probably worse. Just as she was expanding her voting prohibition from Harris to all Democrats a voice said, “Behind you.”

A man about the same age as Aurora walked up with a machine part in his hand. We introduced ourselves and continued the conversation. Trevor repeated what Aurora had said, adding that he could no longer vote for Democrats after the way the party had treated Bernie; they’re as corrupt as the Republicans. I said while that’s true of the neoliberal half of the Democratic Party, the other half is made up of labor, women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights and environmental groups and sometimes it’s possible to get some progressive things done; meanwhile that’s completely impossible with the Republicans.

I said that what we’ve been talking about is only part of the picture; every US president is imperialist-in-chief internationally and it’s a mistake to think they can easily be persuaded to act differently. But there’s also the national side of the job, which involves important functions like appointments—to the courts and lesser-known agencies like the National Labor Relations Board, which can have an enormous impact on the working class, our rights, and daily life in the country. They listened but seemed unmoved.

I pulled out my trump card (sorry); under a Democratic administration there’s at least the room to move to protest destructive policies like Israel and Gaza. If Trump gets into office along with a Republican Congress, it’s going to be a police state this time around; things could look like Nazi Germany and much harder to mount any resistance. Aurora and Trevor nodded, like they had thought about this before, but didn’t comment on it.

Then Trevor said, “This is off to the side from what we’re talking about, but what do you think about no parties? Parties are how we have these problems.” Putting on my labor history hat, I said, “That’s what the Industrial Workers of the World wanted over a hundred years ago. Society would be run by workers’ committees, elected in each workplace. Their representatives would go to assemblies where decisions would be made.” He nodded.  I said, “But unless you can tell me how we do that before November fifth….” He laughed.

Then he said that he knew of things that were going on that might “take Trump out” before Election Day. I asked what he meant. He said he couldn’t talk about it, but when that happened he hoped Kennedy could get back into the race and win. At this point I decided the conversation had achieved all its potential. We parted on friendly if inconclusive terms.

When I reported on this event with one of my canvassing partners she said, “Hunh, that’s different. Usually they kill the Kennedy and then someone else gets elected.”

Conversation Three: The truck driver

There’s no telling beforehand what issue might resonate with someone. Social Security typically works best for older people. But not always.  At first, the twenty-seven year old man who came out to the porch after my canvassing partner Ralph and I knocked told us he had no intention to vote; politics didn’t matter; it’s all the same no matter who’s elected.

I said, “I assume you work for a living?” He said yes. What do you do? I’m a truck driver. You pay into Social Security? He nodded. I said, I’m retired, and I’m on Social Security. You’ve heard that they say Social Security might run out of money at some point down the road? He nodded again. I’m guessing you’d like to collect that money back that you’ve been putting into it?  I had his attention.

I spoke about how Social Security is funded:  payroll taxes. Workers pay in on their wages, and employers pay in a matching amount. But only up to $170,000 a year; anything over that is no longer subject to Social Security taxes. This is what puts Social Security in danger down the road: the many ways rich people have to get around paying their fair share of taxes, including this one. All we have to do is raise the cap so that rich people continue to pay in after $170,000 on all the money they make and Social Security will continue to be here for you, I said.

So who is better on this, and does it make a difference? We know that Trump won’t do that. In his first term he didn’t raise, he cut taxes for the rich. Kamala Harris wants to return taxes on the rich and corporations to higher levels. If you want to keep Social Security vote for Harris. So what do you think?, asked my partner Ralph. Juan smiled slightly: “You convinced me,” he said, and I could tell he meant it.

An encouraging sign

The three days in the hot sun were exhausting, but we were well-supported by our Seed the Vote organizers, who met with us each morning, gave us our lists, supplied us with water, phone batteries and snacks, and met again at the end of the day to debrief. One recurrent story gave some anecdotal hope for a victory margin in one cohort against Trump—and that’s what it was, less a vote for Harris and more an anti-Trump vote.

We heard this from people on the second day. One, a flight attendant in a more middle class suburb, told me she and her husband had been lifelong Republicans. But the craziness of MAGA plus persuasion from their two daughters, who had gone off to universities and come home politically transformed, put them over the edge. Now she was going to canvass for Harris, despite “some disagreements” that we didn’t get into.

The other, a retired architect in a very upscale neighborhood, spoke with my wife about his disenchantment with the Republican Party under Trump. He was an educated and cultured man, and couldn’t stand the lies and the vulgarities. He was going to vote the straight Democratic ticket.  The seven people in our pod of canvassers had a number of similar stories from anti-MAGA ex-Republicans.

I haven’t seen any polling numbers among the old country club Republican ruling class set. Historically, ascendent fascism initially repels, and then reels in this demographic. It seems, however, from these encounters, and the growing number of Cheney types opposed to Trump, that the historic pattern might be abrogated here. We can hope.

.

*All the names are changed.

…

Share this:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Email

The most obvious example of this was the victory of Barrack Obama in 2008 as President.  It is not that the victory was without historic significance.  Rather, the historic significance dwarfed discussions about program and action, particularly in the first year of his Administration.

I have known Cornel West since 1972 when we met during my first year at Harvard.  I have followed him over the years and felt, at points, that I could call him a friend.  That said, his campaign for the Presidency raises some very serious questions regarding both his judgement and what seems to pass for strategy, not only for West, but for many others on the Left and in the progressive movements.  My views are focused on his decision to run and the campaign that he  allegedly is conducting,  rather than on personal allegations raised about him, most visibly in Forbes.

Are progressives interested in winning, and if so, what?

Since the late 1970s, progressives have been largely fighting a rear-guard defensive battle against the assaults from capital and the increasingly brazen political Right.  The public has observed the morphing of a conservative movement into a rightwing populist movement with fascist or post-fascist tendencies.  Though there have been successful defensive fights and periodic offensive victories by progressives, e.g., on LGBTQ, the tendency has remained one of a strategic defensive.

An ideological reflection of the strategic defensive has been the victory of Reaganism through ridicule and dismissing of collective action in favor of individual action and, indeed, individualism and entrepreneurialism.  Even in progressive circles, the obsession with “brand” and individual achievement has become pronounced.  This has worked its way into non-profit circles, where collective or joint action is rarely championed (or rewarded), whereas the uniqueness of each organization or network is applauded…until it is not. Everyone wants their ten minutes in the Sun, even if it leads nowhere.

In this context, a few things became noteworthy.  Victories, when won, became increasingly victories in form rather than substance.  The victories of “representation,” in the sense of historically marginalized groups appearing to break through the glass ceiling is a case in point.  The most obvious example of this was the victory of Barrack Obama in 2008 as President.  It is not that the victory was without historic significance.  Rather, the historic significance dwarfed discussions about program and action, particularly in the first year of his Administration.

The net result is that progressives have become used to losing.  Losing can be glorious, after all.  One can lose by oneself or with others.  One can lose ‘speaking truth to power.’  One can lose and be remembered for having taken a heroic stand.  Regardless, one loses.

The difficulty with winning, or at least attempting to win, is that it can be messy.  Rarely do the advocates for a particular cause, demand, etc., win alone.  Normally, victory necessitates alliances, and alliances necessitate compromise.  As a result, there is no purity in winning even if one wins exactly what one sought to win.

As such, it is easier and more valiant to lose than to win.  In losing, one can hold onto one’s conscience.  One said what needed to be said.  One need not have made any compromises with those less pure.  Nevertheless, at the end of the day, one lost.

Winning necessitates strategy and organization.  It is never about pronouncements alone.  It involves the cultivation of a base that believes in and is prepared to sacrifice for a particular cause or demand.   Winning, except under very unusual circumstances, necessitates the identification of tactical steps necessary to bring about victory.  This might range from increasing pressure to building even broader alliances.  Victory may come quickly, but normally not.  It may, however, come suddenly, sometimes when one least expects it.

And winning must be secured.  Once something has been won, it must not only be defended, but used as a launch pad for additional struggles and campaigns, all with the end of decisively defeating one’s opponents and liberating one’s base.

Politics of self-expression and frustration

Which brings us to the Cornel West campaign and other third-party bids during the 2024 election cycle.  What is the essence of such ventures?

If one is interested in building a struggle for power, one does not begin by running a Presidential campaign, and certainly not a campaign with no organized base and no possibility of victory.  If, however, one is concerned more with asserting one’s beliefs and expressing one’s frustration and antipathy toward the existing system, one can view a campaign for the Presidency as an on-going platform to both hear oneself talk, but also to try to captivate and entertain an audience.  Such politics become not the politics inherent in a struggle for power, but the politics of self-expression.  The objective becomes expressing one’s views, anger, etc., rather than seeking to achieve anything.  In effect, it becomes the politics of defeat, in that one has no plan, knows one cannot win, and therefore cries out in hopelessness.

The West campaign and other third parties will virulently object.  They will assert they are taking a stand against the two-party system of the capitalist class; a stand against imperialism; against the criminality of the US support for Israeli genocide.  And they will be correct!  They are.  Yet, they have no plan, nor sufficient organization, to transform their assertions into political power.  Thus, they can only rely on magical thinking in the hopes—and this is a best-case scenario—that their plea to the masses will resonate and result in a great wave of revulsion against the system, thrusting them into office…alone.

The moment

Leaving aside, for a moment, that minor parties in the USA have rarely been successful due to the undemocratic nature of the US electoral system, the actions of the Cornel West campaign and other third parties would be comical if less were at stake.  And there have been times when comedians have run for President to make a satirical statement, e.g., Pat Paulsen.

Current third-party candidacies, including West and Jill Stein, either ignore or deny the dangers inherent in the current moment.  West, for instance, acknowledges the dangers of a Trump victory but asserts, in part due to the Israeli genocide in Gaza, there was no difference between Trump and Biden and, apparently, no difference between Trump and Harris.  Stein’s views carry on from the historic and, unfortunately, dogmatic stand of the Green Party on the need for formal political independence from the two-party system.

None of them are coming to grips with the dangers over the horizon.  There is nothing, for instance, on the Harris side that is comparable to the plans of the MAGA movement such as Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s hatched idea for a rightwing authoritarian overhaul of the US government.  There is nothing comparable on the Harris side to the proposals that the American Legislative Exchange Council’s ongoing work to advance a Constitutional Convention to alter the US Constitution in favor of business and the Christian Right.  Nothing.

One cannot conclude ignorance on the part of any of these campaigns.  One cannot imagine that any of these campaigns believe that progressive politics and policies will survive a second Trump presidency.  Or perhaps they do?  As many of us have heard over the months, there are those who believe that Trump will not be but so bad and, yes, there will be suffering, but we will come through it.

Who is “we”?  Those picked up in military scoops of immigrants and placed in concentration camps?  Those assaulted or killed should Trump utilize the 1807 Insurrection Act against protesters?  Those killed through the use of paramilitary extrajudicial violence by fascist supporters of Trump?  Workers who lose out when the National Labor Relations Board regresses to the anti-worker animus, or when the National Labor Relations Act is eviscerated?  Women, whose bodies increasingly become the terrain of rightwing, male politicians?  Or, is the “we,” those from the professional-managerial strata who believe they can hunker down and wait for the turbulence to subside?

The choice has never been between an enemy and one of us

The politics of self-expression makes three mistakes.  First, it assumes that we can reject the two candidates and, by doing so, a third will ultimately emerge.  Second, that an enlightened leader can emerge without an organized social base and, in the absence of support in Congress, introduce dramatic changes that will bring us closer to utopia.  Third, that the two main candidates will demonstrate the corruption of the current system and will encourage the masses to turn in a revolutionary direction.  Fourth, a Trump victory will allegedly punish the Democrats so that in four years they will pick a better candidate.

What is striking about each of these notions is that there is no historical basis to see any of this happening.  There are, however, plenty of examples where abstention, for instance, has created an opening for a nefarious political force to emerge and win office.  In fact, one can look at Germany in 1932 and see one of the results of a failure to build a broad front to oppose the Nazis because, in that case, the Social Democrats and the Communists so hated each other, they lost sight of what could happen should the Nazis win.

The second and fourth mistakes, though, are the ones that are the most interesting.  The assumption that a third-party candidate, in the absence of organization at the base and any support in Congress could do anything is mind-boggling.  Consider the Obama administration and the difficulties it had in its first two years—when it had majorities but believed it could play adult with Republicans—not to mention what succeeded that after 2010. This thinking evidences the absence of any conception of a fight for power.  It is either magical, or it is yet another example that the politics of self-expression is the politics of defeat.

The fourth mistake is one that is heard frequently.  It is less the politics of self-expression and more the acceptance of the permanence of the system and the inability to conceptualize that a strategy can be constructed that goes beyond pleasing or punishing the existing parties, and instead offers an alternative based on real mass work, organization, and strategy.

Going forward

It is less important to get inside Cornel West’s head, or the heads of the other candidates, than it is to question not only their intent, but why they garner any attention.  The answer is simple.  Frustration with the system; the fact that the lives of the majority of people are miserable; and a belief that regardless of what we do, nothing will change, leads to treating the November 2024 elections as if it is an election in American Idol, that is, entertainment where the result will be completely irrelevant to the daily lives of the viewers.

Those of us who appreciate the stakes in 2024 must use the coming weeks to point out precisely what the possibilities are.  This is not an election between a hero and a demon.  This is an election where a semi-fascist mass movement, MAGA, seeks to upend constitutional democracy in order to introduce rightwing authoritarianism.  And this upending will be paradoxically quick as well as spaced out over time.  That is the way authoritarians operate.  They almost never clamp down on everyone at once, even in military coups.  There are always parts of the population who believe—hope—they are exempt from repression.  At least until there is that knock at the door…

…

Share this:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Email

“Throughout the socialist left – and more broadly in almost every sector of the electorate – people are wrestling with what to do when they enter the voting booth. There is a choice to be made.“

Fighting effectively for social transformation is hard. Socialists and revolutionaries don’t square off against our class enemies on any kind of level playing field. The country’s political structures are formidable barriers to radical change. We don’t have the luxury of determining the terrain on which we fight or the timetable on which battles will be waged. We have to deal with the specific circumstances shaped by forces far more powerful than we are.

So, we make the best assessment of the landscape and balance of forces that we can, choose a course of action, and then throw ourselves into implementing it. When a particular campaign or stage of struggle wraps up, we look at the choices we made, learn from what we got right and what we got wrong in both conception and execution, and make the next set of tough choices. 

In 2024 the tough choices facing U.S. socialists are front and center. An authoritarian MAGA bloc that incorporates openly fascist elements at all levels of its apparatus is bidding for enough power to impose its white Christian nationalist agenda on the country. The most powerful current in the opposition offers an alternative agenda on numerous important issues but is complicit in Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza and has caved to right-wing fear-mongering on immigrant rights. A general election is approaching whose outcome – especially at the presidential level – will be decisive in determining whether MAGA or anti-MAGA holds federal power for the next four years. Throughout the socialist left – and more broadly in almost every sector of the electorate – people are wrestling with what to do when they enter the voting booth. There is a choice to be made. 

Tempest: Ready, Set… Punt 

The Tempest Collective was formed largely by former members of the International Socialist Organization (ISO) soon after the ISO disbanded in 2019. Tempest describes itself as “an organizing and educational project. Our goal is to put forward a revolutionary vision that is clear and understandable, that weighs in on strategic and tactical questions, and that offers concrete guidance about how to put a consistent set of working-class politics ‘from below’ into practice today.”

Tempest has published two articles by Collective members on the 2024 elections this month. Let’s see what “concrete guidance” is offered in those pieces. Author Ashley Smith writes:  

“…we must be crystal clear: The two candidates and parties are not the same and it is an ultra-left mistake to characterize them that way. The greater evil is obviously Trump and the far-right GOP. He, not Harris, is threatening the deportation of 13 million human beings and the criminalization of queer people. Harris and the Democratic Party are lesser evils by comparison. But that does not exonerate them of being evil.”

Smith’s article also asserts:

“In this epoch of political instability, socialists must develop a strategic approach to elections. We are not anarchists; we do not dismiss elections as irrelevant to the class struggle. Electoral politics are one of the battlefields of the class struggle.”

Putting those ideas together, the article says:

“…what should the Left do? First of all, we should not argue with individuals about what they do at the ballot box. That is not the key question and debate to have. Instead, we must argue that activists, social movements, and unions should not spend our time, money, and energy campaigning for Harris as the lesser evil.” (The other Tempest article, by Collective member Natalia Tylim, offers the same punchline: “I want to stress that I’m also not going to spend my time or resources arguing with individuals about how they vote as individuals out of their fear of Trump.”)

Wait a minute. The left, and those paying attention to what left groups and leaders think, is debating electoral strategy. That strategy is not limited to – but certainly is commonly understood to include – a stance on who to vote for or against. An electoral strategy that refuses to take a position on who people should vote for is not a strategy; it’s a refusal to make a tough choice. Or in Tempest’s terms, to offer “concrete guidance” to those you seek to influence.

What we have here is a new twist on an old adage:

When the going gets tough, the tough…. change the subject.

DSA Leadership Redefines the Word “Bold”

The new “Workers Deserve More” program for 2024 recently announced by the national leadership of DSA is similar in essential respects. In a vein similar to Tempest, the program declares:

“We recognize that a second Trump victory would be catastrophic for the international working class. Relying on the Democrats to defeat Republicans isn’t working.” 

In the preamble, the DSA leadership lays out their view of dilemma US voters face and offer their guidance as to how to proceed:

“In the 2024 elections, working people have few good options. In most races, Americans will have the choice between far-right Republicans and corporate Democrats. In both cases, workers lose, and our politicians will remain controlled by their corporate donors, not the ordinary people who voted for them…. Neither major party is capable of advancing a positive program for the 2024 elections that meets the needs of the majority of Americans. That’s why the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is presenting a bold alternative course of action. In our 2024 program, “Workers Deserve More,” we hope to bring together millions of people throughout the U.S. to fight for a true democracy where working people have control over their own lives, their government, and the economy.”

What follows is a list of 18 demands/programmatic goals (Medicare for All, Tax the Rich, Free Palestine, etc.).

Again, wait a minute. Isn’t something missing? That list of programmatic goals is good. But aren’t similar lists put forward by many progressive and left organizations? And is fighting for them really an “alternative” to taking a stand on who people should vote for in 2024? Doesn’t the DSA text imply that prospects for making headway toward those goals would be immeasurably more difficult under a Trump administration than a Harris one? Isn’t calling it an “alternative” just another way of saying we don’t like the options so we’re taking a pass on making a choice? What is “bold” about that?

And how about some candor about why no recommendation is being made? Pretty much everyone in or anywhere near DSA knows that members of the organization – including members of the national leadership body – are badly divided on who to vote for in 2024. Is there a reason not to come out and say so? Isn’t one of the hallmarks of “democratic socialism” supposed to be that it rejects the practice of a left organization or party projecting an image of monolithic unity to the working-class public when that is not the case? Where is the credibility in an organization saying it hopes to “bring together millions of people across the US to fight for a true democracy” when it won’t offer any guidance on who workers should vote for two months from now or explain one of the reasons it is sitting this one out?

“Revolutionary Phrase-Making”    

It’s no secret that I advocate a vote for Kamala Harris in 2024 to prevent the MAGA authoritarians and fascists from taking control of the federal government. I’ve argued in numerous articles and webinars that advocacy of abstention or a third-party vote is a profound error that underestimates the danger of MAGA, misunderstands the way working-class and revolutionary organizations can build political power, and does nothing to strengthen our immediately urgent or long-term Palestine solidarity efforts. (See here, here, here, and here.) But a certain respect is due to those who advocate abstentionism or third-party voting: they put their politics out there and fight for them. That’s a serious way to do politics.

Respect is also due to most issue-based and constituency-based organizations that do not offer a who-to-vote-for recommendation. Matters regarding the specific issue which is their main focus, the sentiments within their base, and/or internal differences in groups whose main focus is not electoral need to be taken into account. And the main thing is that such groups do not promote themselves as offering a revolutionary vision for the US working class or as building a new party that will lead the working class to socialism. 

Organizations that do self-identify that way and issue pronouncements about the tasks of socialists in today’s class struggle have greater responsibilities. They need to be held to a higher standard. Part of their responsibility is to make tough choices, or in cases when they cannot make a choice, straightforwardly explain why. 

There is an unfortunate history of organizations not doing so and, like Tempest and the DSA national leadership today, substituting “bold” radical pronouncements for biting the bullet and making a difficult choice. There is even a term for this practice – “revolutionary phrasing-making” (or “the revolutionary phrase”) – coined by none other than V.I. Lenin:

“Revolutionary phrase-making…is a disease from which revolutionary parties suffer…when the course of revolutionary events is marked by big, rapid zigzags. By revolutionary phrase making we mean the repetition of revolutionary slogans irrespective of objective circumstances at a given turn in events, in the given state of affairs obtaining at the time. The slogans are superb, alluring, intoxicating, but there are no grounds for them; such is the nature of the revolutionary phrase.”  

“Superb, alluring, intoxicating…” – perfect for battles on twitter or Facebook and the publication of “bold” programs. Unfortunately, outside of actual revolutionary situations, practicing working class politics usually involves making choices between less-than-ideal options. No radical organization or party will get those choices right every time. But organizations with an aversion to choosing, and especially those that encase their taking a pass in clouds of radical rhetoric, are avoiding rather than engaging with objective circumstances and are traveling a dead-end road.

…

Share this:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Email