Vice President Kamala Harris arrives to deliver remarks at the Georgia State University Convocation Center in Atlanta, Georgia, July 30, 2024. ‘Leftist leaders hope to prevent a wholesale abandonment of the transformative vision that has energised millions of voters, particularly young people,’ the writer says. – Picture: Kasey Rollins / Harris for President
By Peter Bloom
In the wake of President Joe Biden’s decision to step aside, the Democratic Party finds itself at a crucial crossroads. As Vice President Kamala Harris emerges as the presumptive nominee for the 2024 presidential election, a complex debate is unfolding within progressive circles.
While the threat posed by Republican nominee Donald Trump’s potential return to power looms large, some prominent progressives, including Senator Bernie Sanders, are hesitating to offer their immediate and unconditional endorsement of Harris. This reluctance has sparked criticism from certain quarters, but a closer examination reveals that this measured approach may be both strategically sound and necessary for the long-term health of the progressive movement.
By resisting calls for unconditional loyalty to party nominees, progressives are advocating for a more dynamic, responsive political system where ideas and policies are vigorously debated, even within party lines.
The stakes of the 2024 election cannot be overstated. Trump’s potential return to the White House is widely viewed as an existential threat to liberal democracy. His previous term was marked by attempts to undermine democratic institutions, a disregard for the rule of law, and the emboldening of far-right extremism.
The prospect of a second Trump term, potentially unconstrained by re-election concerns, sends shivers down the spines of many Americans, regardless of their position on the political spectrum.
Given these high stakes, the impulse to rally behind any Democratic nominee might seem natural. However, such unconditional support could prove counter-productive and potentially damaging to the long-term promotion of a genuine progressive agenda.
To understand this perspective, it’s essential to examine the delicate balance of power within the Democratic Party and the role that progressive pressure has played in recent years.
The Biden administration’s most celebrated achievements — from ambitious climate initiatives to student debt relief to massive infrastructure investment — owe much to the persistent pressure exerted by progressive forces both inside and outside the government.
The creation of a strong progressive voting bloc, coupled with grassroots movements and the strategic positioning of left-wing officials in key roles, has been instrumental in pushing the Democratic agenda leftward. These victories were not gifts bestowed by a benevolent party establishment, but hard-won concessions extracted through sustained activism and political manoeuvring.
The obvious fear among progressives is that without this constant pressure, the Democratic Party will inevitably gravitate back toward its corporate-friendly, centrist tendencies. Historically, the Democratic Party has maintained close ties with corporate interests and the military-industrial complex.
While the party has made strides in recent years to address issues like income inequality and universal healthcare, these efforts often fall far short of the transformative changes needed to address systemic problems.
The influence of wealthy donors and corporate lobbyists remains a significant concern for progressives. As Sanders has long pointed out, the replacement of Biden as the nominee could potentially open the floodgates for even greater donor influence over the party’s agenda.
This fear is not unfounded, as evidenced by growing pressures from certain donors to replace Lina Khan, the current head of the Federal Trade Commission, who has been a leading figure in challenging big tech monopolies.
Vice President Harris’ political evolution provides a case study in the tensions between progressive ideals and mainstream Democratic politics. As a presidential candidate in 2020, Harris embraced several progressive positions, including banning fracking and significant police reform.
However, as she transitions into her role as the presumptive nominee, there are signs of a shift toward more centrist stances. Harris has begun to distance herself from some of her previous progressive positions in order to “bolster a more moderate image”. This rightward drift is seen by many as an attempt to court moderate voters and assuage the concerns of corporate donors.
Interestingly, the only area where Harris seems to be maintaining a somewhat progressive stance is on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Here, she has called for a more balanced approach, aligning with growing pressure from Democratic voters who support Palestinian rights and are demanding a ceasefire.
This shift in the party’s stance on Israel-Palestine provides a telling example of how progressive pressure can influence party positions. Harris’s more nuanced approach, where while reconfirming US support for Israel she has also openly critiqued the number of civilian casualties, stands in contrast to the traditionally staunch pro-Israel stance of the Democratic establishment.
The fact that Harris has not fully abandoned this more balanced position on Israel-Palestine, even as she moves to the centre on other issues, demonstrates the power of sustained progressive advocacy. It also underscores the importance of maintaining pressure on key issues rather than offering blanket support.
The growing chorus of Democratic voters, particularly young people and progressives, demanding a ceasefire and a re-evaluation of US support for Israeli military actions has clearly had an impact on the party’s rhetoric and policy positions.
The reluctance of some progressives to offer immediate, unconditional endorsement to Harris is not merely about ideological purity. It’s a calculated strategy aimed at shaping the Democratic platform and ensuring that progressive priorities remain at the forefront of the party’s agenda.
By making their support conditional on commitments to key progressive policies, leftist leaders hope to prevent a wholesale abandonment of the transformative vision that has energised millions of voters, particularly young people.
This approach serves several strategic purposes. By withholding immediate endorsement, progressives retain bargaining power to influence the party platform and Harris’s campaign promises.
A vigorous debate within the party can actually serve to engage and motivate progressive voters, rather than suppressing turnout through a perception that their concerns are being ignored. Conditional support encourages specific, measurable policy commitments rather than vague platitudes.
Moreover, by clearly articulating their expectations now, progressives lay the groundwork for holding a potential Harris administration accountable after the election.
While the threat posed by a potential Trump presidency is real and significant, offering unconditional support to any Democratic nominee carries its own set of risks. Without pressure from the left, there’s a danger that the Democratic platform could shift even further to the centre, abandoning key progressive priorities.
Young and progressive voters, who have been crucial to recent Democratic victories, may become disillusioned if they perceive that their concerns are being sidelined. The transition period presents a unique opportunity to push for party reforms and policy commitments, and immediate, unconditional endorsement would squander this chance.
Once full endorsement is given, progressives lose much of their leverage to influence the direction of the campaign and potential administration.
The progressive strategy of conditional support extends beyond mere party politics. It speaks to a broader vision of how democracy should function. By resisting calls for unconditional loyalty to party nominees, progressives are advocating for a more dynamic, responsive political system where ideas and policies are vigorously debated, even within party lines.
This approach challenges the notion that party unity must come at the expense of ideological diversity and policy innovation. Instead, it posits that a healthy democracy requires constant negotiation and renegotiation of the social contract, with citizens and their representatives actively shaping the direction of governance.
As the 2024 election approaches, progressives find themselves walking a tightrope. On one side looms the very real threat of a Trump return to power, with all the democratic backsliding that would entail.
On the other side is the risk of seeing hard-won progressive gains eroded by a Democratic Party that, absent continued pressure, may revert to its more corporate-friendly instincts. Withholding immediate, unconditional endorsement of Kamala Harris is not a rejection of the democratic process or an invitation for Trump to win.
Rather, it’s a sophisticated political strategy aimed at ensuring that the Democratic Party remains responsive to the needs and aspirations of its progressive base. In the end, the progressive movement’s strength lies in its ability to both challenge and support the Democratic Party, pushing it toward a more equitable, sustainable, and just vision for America.
By maintaining this tension, progressives hope to not just win an election, but to fundamentally transform the political landscape for generations to come.
Ultimately, while the strategy of conditional support for Democratic candidates like Kamala Harris serves immediate tactical purposes, it’s crucial to recognise that true transformative change ultimately requires building an independent, mass progressive movement.
This movement can strategically align with pro-corporate parties like the Democrats, when necessary, in the short term, but its long-term goal must be to fundamentally reshape the political landscape.
By organising outside traditional party structures, building grassroots power, and cultivating a clear vision for a more egalitarian, sustainable, and free world, progressives can work toward creating a political force that doesn’t just influence existing parties, but eventually replaces them with something far better.
Peter Bloom is a Professor at the University of Essex in the UK. His books include ‘Authoritarian Capitalism in the Age of Globalisation’ (2016), ‘The CEO Society’, and most recently ‘Guerrilla Democracy: Mobile Power and Revolution in the 21st Century’.
This article was published on Common Dreams