Following the second election of Donald Trump it is necessary to step back and look at the state of electoral politics in the United States. For the second time, the Democratic party has once again lost to Donald Trump, the spearhead of the modern American fascist movement. In the immediate aftermath we have seen liberal politicians and pundits jump to explain how such a thing could possibly have happened. How, after all of the energy generated by Biden dropping out, Democrats once again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The liberal establishment has adopted their typical tactic of blaming everyone but themselves: Muslims, students, transgender people, immigrants, etc., and refusing to learn any real lessons. Why would they? Top leadership and analysts keep their jobs and a lost election is an excellent fundraising opportunity. Liberals across the board have displayed a perfect illustration of the Black Panther adage "Scratch a Liberal and a Fascist Bleeds" wishing death and suffering on Palestinians and deportation on immigrants whom they blame for their electoral loss. In the time since the election we have seen liberal pundits blame Harris' supposed "soft" border policy and of course support for trans rights. A proper analysis of the rhetoric and material conditions surrounding the election, however, makes it clear the reasons for Harris' loss.

In a nutshell, Harris lost because she was an unpopular candidate with unpopular policies coming from an unpopular administration. I'll start with a refutation of the already listed liberal arguments. First, the Democrats gambit of trying to take a harder position on the border than Republicans. Insistence by Democrats of their dedication to strong borders served only to further legitimize the position that a strong border is good and to convince impressionable voters that further militarization of the border is necessary. This leads them straight to the party historically associated with border security, the Republican Party. You cannot be harder on the border than the Hard-On-The-Border Party. The other effect of this rhetoric was to drive progressive voters away from the Democratic Party. Second, the argument that the Democrats supposedly socially progressive positions on trans rights alienated voters. Besides the fact that this framing pushes the narrative that trans rights are a fringe issue, no they didn't, and no it didn't. The Democrats did not push for trans rights during this election. Republicans certainly went on the offensive, continuing their rhetoric against the inclusion of trans people in society and the availability of trans healthcare but Democrats put up virtually no defense whatsoever. They are ready and willing to throw trans people and any other minority population under the bus to keep political relevancy. Trans rights were not a deciding factor in this election either. Exit polls have not shown that Democrats supposed support for trans people had any negative effect on the outcome.

What exit polls did show, however, was concern about the economy and a desire for change. Unsurprisingly, Democrats' insistence that "the economy is getting better, normal people are just out of touch" was ineffective on people struggling to feed their families. They opted to embody the status quo in a country for which the status quo has been getting worse and people know it. Voting numbers show that a comparable number of people voted for Trump this year as did in 2020. The deciding factor came from a mass exodus of voters from the Democratic ticket. People know that the status quo isn't working for them and Trump at least promises something different. Now that we've analyzed this last election let's take a brief look at some past elections to see how we might be able to move forward.

The first and last time in my living memory that any significant number of progressives were excited about a president was Obama. Now, I'm not going to praise Obama or his policies, he was an establishment Democrat, the "Deporter-In-Chief," and pioneer of the "double-tap" drone strike, but the promise of "Change" and "Hope" during his campaign were enough to get him to 53% of the popular vote in 2004 and maintained his rosy reputation among liberals. We are of course still contending with the subsequent right wing backlash to the Obama presidency to this day. Despite his absence from politics he has remained a perpetual bogeyman of Trump rallies and Fox News segments. The election of a black man energized white supremacist organizing across the country and shattered the liberal zeitgeist of the early 2000s that we were living in a post-racial world. Next, the Bernie Sanders presidential campaigns of 2016 and 2020 activated an impressive contingent of progressive electoral energy which was promptly snuffed out by Democratic party insiders despite Bernie's widely popular policies. The Democratic Party has made clear their refusal to put forth an even superficial display of change from the status quo and a willingness to continue their march to the right in step with the other party of capital, to sacrifice human rights at home and abroad to maintain their position within the political establishment.

Now, about that moving forward I mentioned earlier. There's absolutely no point in trying to push the Democratic Party left. The blood, sweat, and tears of well meaning progressives over the past two decades have failed to even keep the party in place as it has steadfastly followed the Republicans to the right. Is there any point in engaging in electoralism at all then? Yes, I think there is. I certainly don't think that leftists should drop all other organizing to get someone into the White House, Capitalism will never let us vote it out of existence and systems of dual power are absolutely necessary for any revolution to be successful. I do think though that there is worthwhile utility in pursuing truly leftist electoral politics under the present material conditions. We have a sizable contingent of progressive individuals who have been chewed up and spit out by the Democratic Party over the past decade who should be reoriented towards a party politics that actually advocates for the working class. We also have an evidently large portion of the American general public who are feeling the contradictions sharpening, though the don't know to use those words, and are hungry for real change. I'm advocating for a party which can be a home for both of these groups, a Labor Party.

There are of course a myriad of revolutionary leftist political parties and non-party organizations that exist across the United States. I don't feel that this Labor Party should supplant these parties or that it should seek to merge these parties together. As I said, the revolution will not be accomplished through electoral means alone and I don't feel that this party should be a revolutionary one. I am an advocate of revolution but that puts me in a vanishingly small minority in this country. Americans have a notably underdeveloped class consciousness cultivated through decades of red scares and nationalistic propaganda. In my opinion the present lack of class consciousness does not make for sufficient material conditions to bring about revolution. The recent assassination of United Healthcare's CEO has brought about a showing of class consciousness we haven't seen in a long time. We need a party which will capitalize on that energy not try and snuff it out. American unions are showing an renewed desire to coordinate their efforts. The UAW has aligned contracts with The Big Three to end on May Day 2028 and have called on unions across the country to follow suit. The American Federation of Teachers is in support of this effort and numerous locals within the AFL-CIO have expressed support as well. This is the best chance at a general strike we've seen in decades. A renewed alliance of party and labor would be an enormous asset for improving the material conditions for workers in this country and for disrupting the imperial apparatus abroad.

This Labor Party should focus on local politics. The MAGA movement, in addition to their obvious gains at the highest levels of government, have had serious success in local elections and in other local decision making bodies such as school boards. This is an arena which has been largely ignored by Democrats in favor of state and federal races but that should be emphasized. Local politics should be driven by local party members and local unions. This has to be built from the bottom up with support, but not overbearing control, from regional, state, and federal organization. This Labor Party needs a firm basis in true class analysis and a willingness for ideological discussion within the party. This Labor Party should be a means of building class consciousness within the mass of people, building unions back up, and improving the material conditions for working people. Those of us in unions should agitate within them for support for a Labor Party and those outside of unions should seek to unionize. Declaring a Labor Party alone is as useful as declaring a general strike alone. A convention to establish such a Labor Party will go nowhere without the buy-in of major unions from the beginning. We have four years until contracts are up, let's make it happen.