In so-called revolutionary circles, particularly in anarchist and radical circles, it is not uncommon to simply denounce the “electoral circus” on the occasion of each election, especially in Western countries with a democratic tradition. A kind of political indifferentism is then expressed with regard to the moment and the political stakes that campaigns can, on certain occasions, represent for the bourgeoisie itself and for the proletariat. To argue that the proletariat no longer has any interest in taking part in elections and that, on the contrary, participation represents a trap for the proletariat, in no way detracts from the need to grasp the political significance of these moments. Last July’s elections in Great Britain and France, which saw new parliamentary majorities and new governments, the regional elections in East Germany and the current presidential campaign in the United States, are not only moments of democratic mystification for proletarians, particularly through the polarization for or against “populism”. They have also made it possible, or will make it possible, to settle debates specific to each national bourgeoisie, particularly in the choice of imperialist strategies, the orientation of the national productive apparatus, the “tactics” for imposing sacrifices on the proletariat, and in the choice of the political personnel, or even the person, best able to implement these policies.

The following article on the US presidential campaign attempts to present the issues behind the Democrat-Republican opposition today, between the candidacy of Kamala Harris and that of Trump. It highlights how the use of the racist and populist Trump will once again help to foster massive voter turnout, as was the case in 2020, with the ideological and political campaign on the occasion of the protests and riots that followed the murder of G. Floyd. Next, we return to the political situation of “governmental instability” that seems to be opening up in France, and which was provoked by President Macron’s dissolution of parliament last June.

The attempted assassination of Donald Trump may not have been a political attack, but it certainly had political implications. The shooting initially allowed the former president to simultaneously present himself as a force for “unity” and as a martyr of left-wing persecution. It has also perhaps emboldened him to select J.D. Vance as his running mate. For American politics this is a curious choice as Vance is not from a “swing-state” [1] nor does he appeal to demographics that the Republican party are trying to court such as Latinos or suburban women. It appeared that Trump did not think he could lose, and therefore selected the candidate who would be best positioned to carry the torch of “MAGAism.” Combining evocations of economic populism with social conservatism, Vance united the new voters Trump is bringing to the Republican Party with traditional evangelical voters and young conservatives who are increasingly interested in the cultural war. [2]

Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the race in favor of his Vice-President, Kamala Harris, has upended the specter of a Trump landslide. While it would be too far to suggest that Kamala is the favorite, the fact that this election is in a dead-heat while most Americans feel poorly about the economy indicates that the Democratic wing of American Capital still has the capacity to maintain political power. [3] From the quick embrace by both important Democratic leaders, including its most leftist leaders, [4] and the liberal media to the dismissal of dissent regarding the slaughter of Palestinians, the Democratic Party has never been more unified. Bidenomics still marches on with its evocations of unions and promises to ensure that America has the “most lethal force in the world.” Unsurprisingly many former Republicans are rallying around Harris’ imperialist vision. Several have called for Condoleezza Rice to endorse Harris after her essay for Foreign Affairs on the supposed dangers of Trump’s “isolationism”. [5] Meanwhile Dick Cheney, one of the masterminds behind the American invasion of Iraq, endorsed Harris to “defend the Constitution.” [6] The Democratic Party is no longer the party of “hope and change,“ but of normalcy in the face of disgruntled Trump supporters. [7]

The picture of Donald Trump’s foreign policy is becoming slightly clearer with the selection of J.D. Vance. Vance has strongly denounced American support for Ukraine and denounced NATO “freeloaders” in his speech at the Republican National Convention. Trump’s “peace through strength” approach may not entirely be good news for Russian foreign policy. By incentivizing NATO members to pay more for their defense, Trump’s threats may only further militarize the West as a whole. It may perhaps secure a Russian victory in Ukraine but beyond this conflict a Trump presidency cannot overturn US imperial interests. Trump’s threat to Taiwan to pay more can also have the same effect. While Kamala’s insipid speeches may try to militarize the world through the traditional American imperial evocations of democracy and diplomacy, Trump’s ramblings about building an Iron Dome for the United States during the debate and obsession with strength point to an alternative imperial ideological apparatus. [8] This is not to say that Trump did not have an effect on foreign policy, indeed his insistence on the self-sufficiency of America’s military industrial complex seems to have been the germ that setup Bidenomics, but that a Trump reelection will not break the current trajectory of American imperialism even if it is currently headed by a Democratic president.

“History repeats itself. First as a tragedy, second as a farce.” Marx’s statement perfectly epitomizes the state of the American election. Both Trump and Kamala Harris have already been in office, but most promise the electorate that a second term will allow them to deliver the peace and prosperity that they had initially failed to supply. This would almost be amusing if it were not for the human cost. For example, it is hard to imagine the situation in Gaza getting better under the current circumstances. Benjamin Netanyahu is strongly incentivized to continue the war as a means of maintaining his hold on the country, and neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have much incentive to decry the IDF’s destructive campaign. It is worth considering that in spite of these barbaric outcomes, American workers will still participate in this election in greater numbers due to these events. The attempted assassination of Donald Trump brought a great deal of attention to this election and Harris’ nomination has energized the Democratic Party.

While one would have been correct to initially suspect a low turnout for this election following Biden’s lackluster performance at the presidential debate, this can no longer be assumed. The use of the Trumpian populist threat, anti-Trumpism, the “defense of democracy against the autocrat”, already allows us to assert that, barring a fortuitous event, in particular a sudden explosion of significant workers’ struggles, voter turnout will be massive. The bourgeoisie will have won a victory over the proletariat. It is highly probable that democratic mystification will be strengthened on this occasion.