The Democratic leadership’s election campaign is losing the support of voters it needs, such as Arab Americans in Michigan, due to its support for Israel, argues John Clarke

As the presidential race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump unfolds, the horror that is unfolding in the Middle East continues to cast its shadow over the Harris campaign. She simply can’t conceal the reality that she represents the party whose current president has made a genocide in Gaza possible. Nor can she escape scrutiny over her own role in this as vice-president within the Biden administration.

The anger and deep disappointment over the role of Biden and Harris in Palestine that exists within sections of the Democratic Party’s political base came to a head this week when a poll conducted for the Arab American Institute revealed major problems for Harris in Michigan, which is considered a ‘must-win’ state in any presidential contest. Michigan is home to an exceptionally large Arab population and voting intentions within it are a major consideration.

According to a report in Rolling Stone, the poll shows a major shift away from support for the Democrats. ‘While Arab Americans voted nearly 60 percent for Joe Biden in 2020, with Donald Trump garnering just 35 percent of their support, the new poll finds Trump winning the Arab American vote 42 to 41 percent over Harris. The picture among likely voters is even worse, with Trump leading 46-42, pointing to a politically perilous enthusiasm gap.’

James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, notes that the Arab community in Michigan has traditionally voted according to priorities set by issues like ‘jobs, the economy, health care’ but Israel’s assault on Gaza has galvanised thinking and the question of Palestine has become a top priority. As a result of this, a collapse in the decisive Arab Democratic vote in Michigan is clearly a distinct possibility.

Lesser of two evils

Though the situation in Michigan is particularly sharp and troubling for the Democrats, the trends that have emerged there are by no means confined to that state. This is hardly surprising since the Biden-Harris administration has proceeded with its open-handed support for Israel’s assault on Gaza in the face of clear evidence that it is alienating Democratic voters and even running against majority opinion in the US. Already by May of this year, Data for Progress found that seven ‘in 10 likely voters — including majorities of Democrats (83%), Independents (65%), and Republicans (56%) — support the U.S. calling for a permanent ceasefire and a de-escalation of violence in Gaza.’

In the face of this backlash, it is palpably clear that Harris, while she may try to soften the blow with expressions of ‘concern’ for Palestinian suffering, has no intention of compromising her clear and unconditional support for Israel. In August, she left no doubt of this when she stated: ‘Let me be clear, I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself.’

As the assault on Gaza has been dragged out and taken on even more hellish dimensions and, as the prospect of regional conflagration intensifies, there is no indication whatsoever that Harris will offer any assurances of even modest measures to restrain Israel’s brutality. Her running mate, Tim Walz, is following exactly the same path. On 7 October, he reiterated his full backing for Israel and took care to stress that ‘Iran is at the heart of this’, referring ominously at the same time to ‘their proxies that bring disruption throughout the region.’

This readiness to show uncompromising support for Israel, even in the face of clear evidence that it is at odds with the views of Democratic voters, is actually part of a very much broader and well-established pattern of behaviour. Jacobin Magazine ran an article earlier this month that made the point that for ‘weeks now, it’s been clear the Harris campaign has decided that it’s going to rerun the Clinton 2016 strategy …’ In essence, this means taking an entirely respectable and conservative approach on the campaign trail and Harris is clearly acting in this fashion.

The Jacobin article sets out the various ways in which Harris has been campaigning on the right and even ‘running to Trump’s right on immigration and foreign policy … calling Iran, absurdly, the country’s most dangerous adversary and suggesting you might launch a pre-emptive strike on it.’ As a result of this approach, the race has tightened in the battleground states, with Harris narrowly leading or even losing to Trump in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Nevada, while severely underperforming with key Democratic voting constituencies.’

Harris’ moves to the right, however, are neither exceptional nor the result of a miscalculation. The Democratic Party is performing exactly as its leadership wishes it to. Writing in Counterpunch in 2016, Richard Moser set out very clearly the normal approach to presidential elections that is taken by the Democrats. Fully aware that the US electoral system ensures that presidential races are almost always decided on the outcomes in a minority of ‘swing states’, the focus is placed on being close enough to the Republican platform to win over a section of their voters in these key sites.

This approach has ensured a very low voter turnout in the US and most assuredly alienates a considerable number of left-leaning voters. However, the Democrats place their hopes on the carefully cultivated view that they are the lesser of two evils. In this way, the ‘Democrats position themselves to the right of the labor and social movements, and it could well be argued, of the majority of Democratic voters.’ They ‘don’t bother with a direct appeal to the social movements or non-voters because that would risk unleashing forces of social change — and because they don’t have to.’

Of course, this electoral strategy is very far from a guaranteed recipe for success. Hillary Clinton lost to Trump in 2016 and Joe Biden only squeaked in when he ran against Trump in 2020. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that a campaign that resonated with the party base and reached out to disaffected non-voters would achieve a great deal more. It has frequently and plausibly been suggested that Bernie Sanders, with his more leftward platform, could have defeated Trump in 2020.

The Democratic Party leadership, however, doesn’t wish to take over the White House on the basis of policies that challenge US capitalism and its global interests. It functions as a respectable and reliable political steward for the capitalist class, even as its more trusted representative now that the Republicans are in the grip of the erratic and dangerous Trump. Fulfilling that role is more important for Democratic leaders than positive electoral outcomes and this consideration applies most decisively to preserving US support for Israel at all costs.

Dangerous ground

The dreadful events that are unfolding in Palestine and that are now being extended to Lebanon represent new and dangerous ground for the Democratic Party and its electoral routines. The anger and deep sense of alienation the Democrats face among Arab American voters in Michigan is symptomatic of much deeper challenges.

The Israeli attack on the ‘Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital complex in Deir al-Balah [that] sent flames sweeping through a packed tent camp’ is only the latest act of criminality in which Harris is implicated. Election Day is not until 5 November and we may only guess what may occur in the remaining weeks. US troops are now stationed in Israel, ready to be part of Israel’s defence when the next anticipated strike on Iran produces an act of retaliation. Some 40,000 US military personnel are deployed in the region and Harris, the sitting vice-president in the administration responsible for this dangerous situation, may have much more to answer for by the time the votes are cast.

The present reckless and unrestrained aggression that Israel is engaged in has produced a great deal of instability at both the regional and international level. The US electoral system, under which the Democrats have been able to preserve enough credibility to function as a lesser evil, is experiencing its own share of difficulties in this regard. The ability of Kamala Harris to convince enough people to ‘hold their noses and vote’ in order to keep the widely despised Donald Trump out of the White House is very much in question.