“Elections and political parties have no meaning when all serious candidates for public office are fascists and the electorate is thoroughly misled about the true nature of the candidates. It cannot be said that all voters are unaware of this… Those who are aware of this and yet do nothing constructive are among the most pathetic victims of the totalitarian process.” – George Jackson
Nearly 60 years ago, the Democratic National Convention highlighted the divisions surrounding the brutal Vietnam War. Today, the situation is very different. The U.S.’s continued war-making and support for Israel’s occupation face virtually unchallenged bipartisan opposition. As violent protests rage at this year’s convention, disturbing realizations are being voiced. This period has awakened many around the world not only to the plight of the Palestinian people, but also to other conflicts, such as the counterrevolution in Sudan and the genocidal violence in Tigray and Congo. While this awakening is good, it has also revealed something disturbing. The U.S. has moved so far to the right that the ultra-conservative reasoning that many thought was exclusive to Republicans has increasingly become the norm among liberals.
One reason fascist currents have proliferated in the U.S. is that many liberal voters seem oblivious to, or indifferent to, the fact that they are facilitating their growth. The desperation of its base so emboldens the Democratic Party that it explicitly states that it does not even need to set a policy agenda for the 2024 election. As domestic and international crises inevitably deepen, voters are locked into a disempowering political process, a significant limitation on representative democracy. Generations of “lesser evils” have reinforced a cycle that completely capitulates to the far right while liberals who claim to oppose them become ever more compliant. At this point, it has even become controversial for liberal voters who submit to the electoral process to make demands of their candidates. Two of the clearest ways to document the descent into popular fascism are to observe decades of policy changes on immigration and policing at the local and national levels. And how the timing of the elections coincides with the suppression of popular uprisings and movements.
As a global movement against the Israeli occupation, supported by a strong student movement, voters have had to come to terms with the fact that the escalating bombing of Gaza was armed and supported by a democratic government. While some people do not understand the bipartisan support for genocide, developments in immigration policy in the United States make clear where we stand.
The ongoing debate over immigration reform has come a long way since former President Ronald Reagan signed the “Amnesty Act” in 1986. The law granted residency status to those who had entered the country before 1982. It is still a twisted irony that this was done by the architect of modern conservatism who set the Republican Party on its current course. Today, it would be almost impossible to find a Democrat who would support such a measure. Since that time, immigration reform has always been a trade-off. Regardless of the goal of positive, incremental change, there had to be some concession on the U.S.-Mexico border, and this has been consistent with the scapegoating of migrants, immigrants, and refugees.
U.S. border legislation is riddled with xenophobia, anti-communism, and the terrorist foreign policy that the Reagan administration unleashed in countries like El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Grenada. The economic destabilization, electoral fraud, and carnage that the U.S. enabled across the Americas then and in the years that followed only exacerbated the displacement that fueled the so-called “immigration crisis.” And while Democrats have tried their best to portray themselves as advocates for vulnerable populations, their party has only perpetuated an increasing deadly militarization falsely labeled “security.”
When the Clinton administration came into play, the problems grew exponentially. Among the terrible policies of this president, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act stands out because it laid the foundation for the mass deportation apparatus that exists today. In 1996, he built on Reagan’s legacy; as described in Harsha Walia’s Border and Rule, “The Clinton years normalized the worst consequences of border militarization and mass incarceration.” The distinction between “criminal” and “illegal” immigrants and “productive” and “legal” immigrants, Walia recalls, “became the cornerstone of the Democratic Party’s immigration agenda for the next two decades.” That same year, Clinton passed the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Walia notes, “These laws broadened the scope of serious felony convictions and widened the net for detaining and deporting legal permanent residents with minor convictions due to police stop-and-frisk policies and the war on drugs.”
It is important to note that the Reagan legacy that Clinton built upon was not only related to immigration, but also to the policing and criminalization of black communities in the US. He helped move the country further to the right, despite being the head of a party opposed to such change. Now we will see what the worst of all means.
When Barack Obama campaigned in 2008 on a message of “hope” and “change,” he capitalized on immigration policies inherited by George W. Bush after 9/11. Under his leadership, the newly created U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) went beyond what was expected, deporting millions of people in a mass expulsion effort that rivaled any president before him. Years later, when his then-Vice President Joe Biden became president, he too followed in the footsteps of his predecessors. With the election of Donald Trump, the country had seen one of its most blatantly anti-immigrant and white nationalist presidents. Biden then continued his border wall projects, blocked asylum seekers and increased deportations, and offered the opportunity to “cooperate” in the run-up to the 2024 election. Vice President Kamala Harris echoed his actions, urging asylum seekers “not to come.”
Crucially, the Democratic Party swept its base along with it as it pushed its right-wing immigration policies to levels Reagan perhaps never imagined. Half of respondents favored mass deportations, according to an Axios poll, with 42% of Democrats in favor of the policy. Now, as Harris replaces Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee, her campaign team has pushed a “tough” message on immigration, boasting that it is more conservative than Trump on the border.
We saw something similar after the George Floyd uprisings. The prospect of a Democratic presidency was used to suppress dissent and get people to vote as the only legitimate solution to systemic injustice and state violence. This was an export of responsibility. This was done only so Biden could demand more money for the police and order cities to spend COVID-19 relief funds on police departments. The candidacy of Harris, a former prosecutor and attorney general of the state of California, is likely to help shift the liberal voter base. even further They are right on policing, immigration and foreign policy. Worse still, many potential voters have chosen to fight those who criticize Harris’ future presidency rather than make demands of their candidate.
This suggests another level of conservatism and jingoism; liberal voters, mired in fear and reaction, treat a candidate as if they are not to be questioned. That is why it is not surprising that Harris silenced pro-Palestinian protesters in Michigan by saying, “If you want Donald Trump to win, say so. Otherwise, I will speak.” Embedded in this response was a tone that conveyed that Democrats have realized that they have brought their supporters to a place of subservience and self-perceived powerlessness.
Liberal attitudes denigrate protesters for foregoing the semblance of a demand in the name of party politics. Those who fight for more on their own terms embody the necessary direct democracy. Voters disgusted by this embodiment believe that such radical responsibility is unrealistic and that their most pragmatic option is to negotiate their eternal immobility through representation. This is partly why politicians are treated like celebrities and celebrities like politicians. In a one-party state with the illusion of choice, political theater outweighs any semblance of obligation.
Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta once said that elections “indicate the state of public opinion, which would have prevailed by more effective means and with more far-reaching results if it had not been offered the opportunity of voting.” What many liberal voters fear is indeed real. Even if many of them do not realize that they are conservatives, that does not mean that their fear of more virulent expressions from the right is unfounded, nor is their desire for more public resources. And parts of the left must come to terms with the fact that this is not all just a psychological operation, bots, or federal infiltration. While this is undoubtedly almost always a problem, many of these voters are “the people” that so many unify and preach about politicization. If we do not come to terms with the truth of the who are many and create innovative radical alternatives, programs and ideas that show people the potential of who they can be, then we too are inferior.
