LAST UPDATE | 16 Nov
IN ALL THE hand-wringing and self-flagellation after the US elections, there is a disturbing theme, even from those expressing sympathy with the Democratic Party.
The mistake, the pundits and analysts say, is that the Presidential campaign of Kamala Harris put too much emphasis on political and social rights.
Of course, they do not say this outright. It would be too blatant to call for a limit on activism for women’s rights, the rights of racial and ethnic minorities, protection of the LGBT community, care for the environment and concern for refugees and asylum seekers.
Instead, Fareed Zakaria wrote in the Washington Post of “obsession [which] made Democrats view people too much through their ethnic or racial or gender identity”. He proclaimed a “cancel culture” in the workplace and university campus, with liberal ideologies becoming “deeply illiberal”.
Zakaria’s evidence for this? Some “people” were using the term “Latinx” for Latinos, and a Trump campaign ad that accused Kamala Harris of supporting transgender rights.
Nicole Russell railed in USA Today about “candidates who spout extreme progressive ideas” without naming a single candidate or single idea. Sarah Baxter of Stonybrook University, on the basis of a conversation with her son, pronounced that “wokeness…has poisoned liberals and Democrats for a generation”.
And this is not just an American phenomenon. One commentary in an Irish newspaper managed to deride the terms “progressive” and “woke”, declare an “absolutism” in “elite Democratic politics”, and proclaim that “social liberalism… has become increasingly radical and exclusionary”.
The only example was, once again, trans rights — critiqued not through a consideration of the issue but by reciting the Trump attack ad.
Rather than call out Trumpists for their slogan of “culture wars” to justify attacks on rights, these pundits become accomplices. They turned the phrase against the Democrats and, despite a Harris campaign which tried to run in the centre, announced that the party was “moving too far to the left”.
So against these declarations, let us stake out some political, social and cultural ground.
First, anyone using the word “woke” should begin not with a caricature or pejorative but with its original definition: to be aware of political or social issues, as in “Stay Woke”.
Next, let’s agree a starting point that the quest for civil rights is positive — even essential — for the welfare of a society and those who live in it, and not something to be derided as “extreme” or “radical”.
Having done that, we can discuss how to effectively pursue and ensure those rights, rather than enabling those in power — let’s say the 47th US President and his inner circle — who will try to restrict and undermine those rights.
Analysts have chided the Harris campaign for not connecting with middle- and working-class Americans about their economic concerns, including inflation, the cost of living and under-employment. Even though the campaign set out policies over high prices, child care, housing and health care, it was unable to communicate these effectively.
They did not highlight their legislative achievements, the most significant achievement since the 1960s, or even the drop in prices of petrol and some food items this year.
These are valid criticisms, which have to be heeded amid the ascent of Trumpists to the White House and Republicans to majorities in both houses of Congress.
However some pundits have made the damaging claim that economic matters were not addressed because of the concern with political and social rights.
One example has been the circulation of a post-mortem survey by the pro-Democrat Blueprint, polling 3,262 voters. One statement, “Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class”, returned a +17 score — +25 among those in swing states
A responsible analyst would have called out a horribly constructed poll. The statement could have been “Kamala Harris focused too much on cultural issues” or “Kamala Harris did not focus enough on heping the middle class”. Instead, it forced respondents into a either/or option — with no possibly of replying, “She should have done both” — and led them to condemn campaigns for rights, specifically the protection of transgender rights.
Rather than draw that simple, necessary conclusion, some commentators argued for a reduced emphasis on women’s rights. The Democrats “overegged” the defense of reproductive rights because “centrist women do not regard abortion as virtuous”. Because 1/3 of women think the procedure should not be allowed in most cases, reproductive rights become “an issue of limited political utility” — thus jettisoning the idea that they should be defended as fundamental human rights.
That argument is not even supported by the recent election, with 10 states holding referenda on abortion rights. Seven passed. Another in Florida, overturning a six-week limit, narrowly failed to meet the 60% threshold. Only Nebraska and South Dakota had majorities backing restrictions.
These pundits are giving ground to the Trumpists in an America where almost half of the 50 states have effectively banned abortion. They are calling for lower voices even as Trump supporters post, “Your body, my choice. Forever.” They are asserting, “The Democrats are doing their damnedest to repel people of faith.”
The defence of these rights has become “too elitist”, they say, even as a purported billionaire returns to the White House with the world’s richest man alongside him.
The US Declaration of Independence upholds “inalienable” rights.
“Inalienable”: not subject to being taken away. Not subject to being taken away by a President who will likely attempt to abuse his power. Not subject to being taken away by a Supreme Court which is revoking Constitutional guarantees.
Not subject to being taken away by perverse social media assertions, from men invading women’s bathrooms to “millions” of “terrorists” invading America. And not subject to being taken away by commentators running scared from an electoral defeat.
Yes, the Harris campaign made mistakes. But in her post-election speech, Kamala Harris issued the redemptive, necessary call:
This is not a time to throw up our hands. This is a time to roll up our sleeves. This is a time to organize, to mobilise, and to stay engaged for the sake of freedom and justice and the future that we all know we can build together.
We need to recognise that America has a President-elect and his inner circle who will encourage state legislatures to further restrict women’s rights, not just over abortion but possibly over IVF and contraception.
They will demonise members of the LGBTQ+ community. They may pursue mass deportations of the desperate and helpless. They will threaten to ravage the environment. They will try to undermine the protection of civil rights by the Justice Department.
To stand against this is not “elitist” or “extremist” or “left”. It is being decent.
Be Woke. Stay Woke.
Scott Lucas is a professor of International Politics at the Clinton Institute, UCD and editor-in-chief of EA WorldView.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say