Elections in the USA, a democracy in which the people have no voice

You certainly know who Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are – but chances are you’ve never read or heard any reference to names like Jill Stein, Chase Oliver, Claudia De La Cruz and Cornel West. All of them are competing, next Tuesday (5), in the 60th presidential election in the United States.

In theory, any of these candidates could succeed Joe Biden from January 20, 2025 – the date of the inauguration of the next North American president. But it’s just in theory same. In practice, Kamala and Trump are the only ones with a chance of reaching the White House.

As has happened since 1852, two parties – the Democrats and the Republicans – dominate American politics, taking turns in power. In 2016, when Republican Trump beat Democrat Hillary Clinton, the two parties together had 94.3% of the valid votes. Four years later, when Biden, from the Democratic Party, defeated Trump, hegemony was even greater: 98.3%.

Celebrated as the oldest and most traditional democracy on the planet, the United States promotes national elections in which the people have practically no voice. Since 1992, when the independent candidate Ros Perot achieved 18.9% of the votes, alternative candidacies to polarization have presented insignificant electoral performances.

In this year’s presidential race, the low vote is expected by all supporting actors – who, however, are positioned more advanced than Kamala and Trump on several issues, especially foreign policy. In common, doctor Jill Stein (Green Party), activist Chase Oliver (Libertarian Party), community leader Claudia De La Cruz (Party for Socialism and Liberation) and philosopher Cornel West (independent) defend the end of genocide in Gaza.

Point differences

The rivalry between Democrats and Republicans leads to an inevitable historical question: after all, which of the two parties was, is and will be better for the United States and the world?

Before providing any answer, it is worth remembering the British historian Eric Hobsbawm, who noted an essential contrast between the Soviet Union and the United States. According to Hobsbawm, figures such as Vladimir Lenin and Stalin were decisive in transforming history and defining the social, political, economic and cultural direction of Russia. To each of these leaders, we owe much of what, for better or worse, we understand about the socialist experience in the 20th century.

In the United States, however, who was the last president who actually changed the system? Hobsbawm suggests Abraham Lincoln, whose government, in the distant 1860s, marked an era with initiatives such as the abolition of slavery, the Land Law (Homestead Act), the expansion of the March to the West and the focus on industrialization.

But there is a consensus that, with one or the other, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, the United States has never stopped being an essentially capitalist and imperialist nation, with its controversial two-party democracy. Speeches and proposals aside, neither Kamala nor Trump will, if elected, change the nature of the Empire, although certain progressive sectors naively sympathize with the “Kamala wave”.

The ideological and political differences between the two parties are specific – for example, on issues such as civil rights, gun ownership, abortion and drug legalization. These distinctions became a little more pronounced with the rise of Trump, who pushed the Republican Party to the far right, in line with the international neoconservative movement.

And the communists?

The difficulties in opposing the biggest parties in the establishmentadded to the billion-dollar budgets of a presidential campaign, create a vicious circle. Could it be that the other associations do not launch competitive candidacies because they do not have strength or political relevance? Or do they remain small, without national expression, because they are unable to make more popular electoral projects viable?

Consider the century-old Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), founded in 1919, in the wake of the Russian Revolution. Twice, the party even launched a presidential ticket with the philosopher and activist Angela Davis, one of its most popular activists, as vice-president. The result was poor: 0.05% of valid votes in 1980 and 0.04% in 1984 – both elections were won by Republican Ronald Reagan.

Today, the priority of the communists – who decided not to run for president – ​​is to defeat Trump and his “fascist project”. Among other measures, the CPUSA’s electoral agenda, called “Platform 2024”, calls for taxation of the richest, universal and free healthcare, amnesty for student debts and the resumption of racial quotas.

In the chapter dedicated to workers’ rights, the party defends the strengthening of unions and collective negotiations, the repeal of anti-union laws and the increase in the minimum hourly wage (frozen since 2019). It is an issue on which the CPUSA has more affinities with the Democratic Party.

Unilateralism

However, throughout the campaign, there was no greater rapprochement with Kamala Harris, who did not make concrete and bold gestures towards the working class. Furthermore, the communists defend an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and the end of the blockade of Cuba – flags that are not on the agenda of any of the presidential candidates running this year’s presidential race.

When Biden withdrew from re-election and opened a vacancy for Kamala’s candidacy, the Communist Party did not issue a receipt. “There are no big differences. It’s the same ideology, the same genocide in Gaza, the same proxy war against Russian interests, the same pressure against China,” he told Brazil in fact Danny Shaw, head of the CPUSA. “It is the failed model of unilateralism. They want hegemony wherever it may be, they are afraid of the multipolar world.”

In Brazil, President Lula (PT) supports the Democratic Party candidate. “Kamala Harris, winning the elections, is much safer for us to strengthen democracy in the United States,” Lula declared this Friday (1) on French broadcaster TF1+. “We saw what President Trump was like, that attack on the Capitol – something that was unthinkable to happen in the United States, because they presented themselves to the world as a model of democracy. And that model collapsed.”

Kamala’s campaign closing speech took this route. “This election is more than a choice between two parties and two different candidates. It’s a choice about whether the country is rooted in freedom for every American or ruled by chaos and division,” said the presidential candidate.

An authoritarian and unpredictable rival like Trump – who, this year, intensified attacks on immigrants – gives rise to denouncing the risks to American democracy. But it is worth remembering: it was under a Democratic government, that of Biden, that the United States became deeply involved in the war in Ukraine and in the conflicts in the Middle East. Whoever is the next holder of the White House, there will be no reason to party or celebrate.