Kamala Harris addresses supporters at a campaign rally. Photo: EFE
By Atilio Boron – November 10, 2024
The resounding defeat of Kamala Harris in the recent US presidential election certifies, for the umpteenth time, that when a society has been won over by a generalized tension, lukewarm, moderate, and evasive proposals such as those put forward by the Democratic candidate are a sure way to promote a crushing electoral setback. The social ill-humor produced by economic or political frustrations, by the fear perversely instilled by the ruling class, or by the hatred directed against stigmatized social categories—immigrants of Latino origin in the US case—makes the citizenship attracted to those who better tune into their anger and frustration. Trump appeared before the eyes of millions as someone willing to put an end to that state of affairs. Conclusion: when social circumstances are marked by immoderation, moderation becomes a sin. The Democratic candidate committed this sin.
Harris certainly ran at a disadvantage. She entered the campaign very late, a product of the unexpected collapse of President Joe Biden’s candidacy after the fateful debate with Donald Trump. To make matters worse, her administration as vice president had a grayish tone that did little or nothing to build a presidential and attractive image in the eyes of public opinion. A society bombarded by the continuous catastrophist preaching of the ultra-right, its worst tribal instincts whipped up by the insane conspiracy theories of Trump and his spokesmen who spoke about a country “invaded” by undesirable foreigners, could hardly lend its support to someone who was seen as co-responsible for such an unfortunate situation, given her status as vice-president of the United States.
The Democrats and their supporters in the academic establishment and in the corrupt media ecosystem were confident that since “the macro numbers” were positive, the population would reward their rulers by ratifying the continuity of the Democratic leadership. But as we know very well in Argentina, the fact that certain “macro numbers” look very favorable has little or nothing to do with the concrete living conditions prevailing in a society. This is especially true in the United States, the country with the worst income distribution among developed capitalist nations and characterized by a persistent increase in inequality. For example, the CEO, who in 1965 earned 20 times what an average worker in their company earned, in 2018, had managed to make their income 278 times higher than that of their employees, and the figure continued to rise after the pandemic. Middle-class households that, in 1970, captured 62% of the national income, by 2018, had seen their share plummet to 43%. With these figures in sight, Bernie Sanders, re-elected senator from Vermont, said that there was nothing surprising about this defeat because the Democratic Party abandoned the working class, and the working class abandoned that party and largely went on to make up Trump’s plebeian hosts.
The Democrats’ suicidal run to the right facilitated the mogul’s landslide victory. On several key issues, it was very difficult to discern what the difference was between him and his opponent. Harris and the New York tycoon were competing to see who would most emphatically support the genocide perpetrated by the Zionist regime in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria. Harris was even more warlike than Trump when it came to talking about the situation in Ukraine. Both considered China an enemy of the United States. Their differences on the immigration issue were reduced to a few nuances and neither made the slightest allusion to the phenomenal concentration of wealth experienced in recent years, much less suggested tax reforms capable of mitigating it. The differences between both candidates were discernible in a sensitive issue such as abortion—sensitive for a sector of the female electorate, not for all—where, while Harris appeared to be very assertive, Trump showed his great skills in evading any questions on the subject.
2024 Election Postmortem – A Third Party Perspective on the Rightward Lurch of the US Body Politic
In conclusion: Trump arrives at the White House endowed with almost omnipotent powers. He won the presidency in the electoral colleges, where he harvested 295 votes against 226 for Harris, and in the popular vote, where he won just over 72 million votes, 50.9% of the total (and almost five million more than his opponent). He also has a majority in the Senate, almost a majority in the House of Representatives, and six of the nine votes of the Supreme Court, which has already set to work to close the 34 pending cases against the president-elect.
What does this result mean for Latin American countries? In principle, it was assumed that Harris would follow in the footsteps of Barack Obama and would have a more dialogue-oriented and respectful attitude towards the countries of the region. But Obama’s record is complex: resumption of diplomatic relations with Cuba but also an infamous executive order declaring Venezuela an “exceptional and imminent threat” to the national security of the United States. Trump made no secret of his contempt for the countries of the region, insulting them as he has done in an even more accentuated way in this campaign and fulfilling his mandate without having visited even one country in the area. He went to Argentina in 2018 for the G20 meeting and to Puerto Rico when Hurricane Maria hit in 2017. But shortly before the end of his term, he ordered the inclusion of Cuba among the countries promoting terrorism, a decision that was a tremendous blow to Cuba in the economic and financial field. He also complained about the stupidity (in his words) of the Democrats because, when he was about to seize Venezuelan oil, they let Venezuela escape. “Now we have to pay Maduro,” lamented Trump. In other words, nothing good can be expected from Trump, and neither from Harris, because the policy towards Latin America and the Caribbean is decided by the “deep state” and to a very small degree by the presidents in office.
For Washington, Our America is a region of exclusive and exclusive access for the United States, which must chase away, by all possible means, the evil outsiders—according to General Laura Richardson—such as Russia, China, and Iran. But I think it is very unlikely that Trump will decide to apply the “military card” against Cuba or Venezuela because such a measure could revive the fiasco suffered in Afghanistan or Vietnam, and, in addition, it would have very serious repercussions throughout the international system because it would indirectly affect China and, to a lesser extent, Russia and Iran. It is most likely that Trump will further tighten the blockade against Cuba and increase the paraphernalia of unilateral coercive measures applied against Venezuela. These blockades are carried out in open violation of international legality. That is why today, it is necessary to strengthen solidarity with these countries, privileged targets of imperial ambitions in the geopolitical sphere of the Greater Caribbean. And that is why Brazil’s veto of Venezuela’s entry into BRICS is incomprehensible, just as the fundamental support that Mexico has been providing to the Cuban Revolution is worthy of all praise.
(Resumen Latinoamericano English)
Atilio Borón
Atilio A. Borón is a Harvard Graduate professor of political theory at the University of Buenos Aires and was executive secretary of the Latin American Council of Social Sciences (CLACSO). He has published widely in several languages a variety of books and articles on political theory and philosophy, social theory, and comparative studies on the capitalist development in the periphery. He is an international analyst, writer and journalist and profoundly Latinoamerican.
