“Elections and political parties have no significance when all serious contenders for public office are fascist and the electorate is thoroughly misled about the true nature of the candidates. One cannot say all the people who vote are unaware … Those who are aware and still do nothing constructive are among the most pathetic victims of the totalitarian process.” – George Jackson
Nearly 60 years ago, the Democratic National Convention highlighted rifts over the brutal Vietnam War. Today is much different. The perpetual warfare of the U.S. and support for the Israeli occupation are virtually unopposed across party lines. As protests rage at this year’s convention, disturbing realizations abound. This time has awakened many people around the world to the plight of not only the Palestinian people but other struggles, too, like the counterrevolution in Sudan as well as genocidal violence in Tigray and Congo. However, while that awakening is good, something alarming has been further revealed. The U.S. has shifted so far right that the ultraconservative rationale thought by many to be exclusive to the Republicans has become increasingly normalized among liberals.
One reason fascist currents are flowing in the U.S. is many liberal voters seem oblivious or apathetic to the fact that they aid its growth. The desperation of their base so emboldens the Democratic Party that they’re explicitly stating that they don’t even have to set a policy agenda for the 2024 election. As domestic and international crises grow inevitably worse, constituents are anchored to a disempowering political process, a significant limitation of representative democracy. Generations of “lesser evilism” have augmented a cycle that is wholly capitulated to the far-right while making liberals who claim to oppose them grow increasingly compliant. At this point, even making demands of their candidates has become controversial for liberal voters indentured to electoral procedure. Two of the clearest ways to document the descent into popular fascism is by observing the decades-long policy shift on immigration and policing at the local and national levels and how the timing of elections coincides with the suppression of popular uprisings and movements.
As a global movement built in opposition to Israeli occupation bolstered by a robust student movement, voters have had to contend with the fact the escalated bombardment of Gaza has been armed and facilitated by a Democratic administration. While some people struggle to make sense of bipartisan support for genocide, what has unfolded in terms of domestic immigration policy makes where we’re at much clearer.
The ongoing debate over immigration reform has come a long way since former President Ronald Reagan signed his “amnesty” bill in 1986. The legislation granted status to those who had entered the country before 1982. There’s still a twisted irony in the fact this was done by the architect of modern conservatism that set the Republican Party on its current trajectory. Today, it would be nearly impossible to find a Democrat who would advocate for such a measure. At every turn following that period, immigration reform would always be an exchange. No matter the aim of positive incremental changes, there had to be a concession regarding the U.S.-Mexico border, and it happened in concert with the scapegoating of migrants, immigrants, and refugees.
U.S. border legislation has been laced with xenophobia, anti-communism, and the terroristic foreign policy the Reagan administration unleashed in countries like El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Grenada. The economic destabilization, overthrown elections, and slaughter that the U.S. facilitated across the Americas then and all the years that followed only worsened the displacement fueling the so-called “immigration crisis.” Yet, while the Democrats have worked hard to portray themselves as advocates for vulnerable populations, their party has only perpetuated increased deadly militarization mislabeled as “security.”
By the time the Clinton administration entered the picture, problems grew exponentially. Among this president’s horrible actions, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act stands out because it laid the foundation for the mass deportation apparatus that exists now. In 1996, he built off of Reagan’s legacy; as recounted in Harsha Walia’s “Border and Rule,” “The Clinton years normalized the most severe consequences of border militarization and mass detention.” The division between “criminal” and “illegal” immigrants versus “productive” and “legal,” as Walia recalls, “became the cornerstone of the Democratic Party’s immigration platform for the next two decades.” That same year, Clinton passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Walia notes, “These acts expanded the category of aggravated felony convictions and widened the net for detention and deportation of legal permanent residents with minor convictions stemming from stop-and-frisk policing and the war on drugs.”
It’s important to note that the legacy of Reagan that Clinton built on was not just related to immigration but policing and the criminalization of Black communities within the U.S. He helped move the country further right, despite being a head of state for a party that positions itself in opposition to such a shift. Now we’re situated to see what the worst of all this means.
In 2008, when the first Black president, Barack Obama, ran on a message of “hope” and “change,” he took advantage of the post-9/11 immigration policy inherited from George W. Bush. Under his watch, the newly created U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) went above and beyond, deporting millions of people in a mass expulsion that rivaled all presidents before him. When his then-vice president, Joe Biden, became president years later, he followed in the footsteps of his predecessors, too. The country had seen one of its most overtly anti-immigrant and white nationalist presidents with the election of Donald Trump. Biden then continued to extend his border wall projects, his blocking of asylum-seekers, and his increases in deportation and offered him a chance to “work together” leading up to the 2024 election. Vice President Kamala Harris echoed his actions, telling asylum-seekers “don’t come.”
What’s crucial to understand here is that as the Democratic Party took right-wing immigration policy to heights that Reagan may have never imagined, they took their base with them. An Axios poll found that half of respondents were in favor of mass deportations, with Democrat respondents at 42% themselves. Now, as Harris replaces Biden as the democratic candidate for president, her campaign released “tough-on-immigration” messaging boasting to be more conservative on the border than Trump.
Following the George Floyd uprisings, we experienced something similar. The prospect of a Democratic presidency was used to quell dissent and subdue people into voting as the only legitimate solution to systemic injustice and state violence. This was an exportation of responsibility. This happened just for Biden to urge more funding for the police and instruct cities to spend COVID-19 relief funds on police departments. The candidacy of Harris, a former prosecutor and attorney general for the state of California, stands to help shift the liberal voter base even further right on policing, immigration, and foreign policy. What’s worse is that many would-be voters have committed to fighting those who are critical of the prospective Harris presidency rather than make demands of their candidate.
This indicates another level of conservatism and jingoism; liberal constituents, steeped in fear and reaction, are treating a candidate as if they should not be questioned. That’s why it’s unsurprising that Harris silenced pro-Palestine protesters in Michigan by saying, “If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking.” Embedded in this response was a tone that communicates the Democrats have realized they’ve brought their supporters to a place of subservience and self-perceived powerlessness.
Liberal attitudes malign protesters because the appearance of anything resembling a demand is a position they’ve forsaken in the name of party politics. Those who are self-determined to fight for more embody a needed direct democracy. Constituents disgusted by that embodiment have resolved to believe that such radical responsibility is unrealistic and that their most pragmatic option is negotiating their perpetual immobilization via representation. This is partly why politicians are treated like celebrities and celebrities are treated like politicians. Political theater outweighs any semblance of obligation in a one-party state with the illusion of choice.
The Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta once said elections “indicate the state of public opinion, which would have imposed itself by more efficacious means, and with more far reaching results, if it had not been offered the outlet of elections.” What many liberal voters fear is indeed real. Even if many of them don’t realize they are conservatives, that’s not to say their fear of more virulent expressions of the right wing is unfounded, as well as a desire for more public resources. As for segments of leftists, they’ll have to deal with the fact that this is not all just a psyop, bots, or federal infiltration. While that’s almost always undoubtedly an issue, plenty of these voters are “the people” so many homogenize and preach about politicizing. If we cannot contend with the truth of who many are and create innovative radical alternatives, programs, and ideas showing people the potential of who they can be, then we have also succumbed.
