As the Dust Settles

by Thomas Wolanski

Thomas Wolanski explores the post-election reaction of leftist media to Trump’s victory, highlighting their focus on economic missteps, class struggle, and what these analyses reveal about the Democrats’ future strategy.

I’ve had the distinct pleasure of spending the last few days reading a number of articles published by some of the more high-profile names among leftist media (Jacobin, CPUSA, Marxist.ca, etc.) and I will readily admit to having found more than a little enjoyment (or joy, as I suppose Kamala would put it) in the abundance of panic, shock, anger, and denial to be found in their recent publications. Gloating is far from the only reason to read these publications over the next few weeks however. A better understanding of leftist tactics and strategy can be gleaned from comprehending exactly where they feel they went wrong, and in particular what they are most surprised about with regards to the ’24 Trump victory.

Take, for example, the article “The Election We Could Have Had” by Jacobin contributor Ben Burris. Phrases like “working class,” “health care,” and “economically populist” are found here, as the tone of the article takes a somewhat indignant manner in which Kamala’s supposed failures to capitalize on potential winning takes and failure to distance herself from undesirable associations such as the Cheney family are put front and center. In my opinion, Mr. Burris is not, in fact, wrong in his analysis of Kamala’s defeat as being (at least in part) due to her failure to have any sort of a coherent economic policy or even a vague future vision. A recent Pew poll reveals that, in the 2024 election, 93% of Trump voters and 68% of Harris voters stated that the economy was “very important” to their vote. When the average American family is suffering the effects of rampant inflation and struggling to make ends meet, a policy of social justice may seem unimportant.

Another article was titled “A Marxist analysis of the Trump victory” by CPUSA contributor C. J. Atkins. Here we see that two of the talking points made by this author are explicitly economic in nature (“[t]he U.S. is entering a period of intensified class struggle” and “[t]he election may have been lost at the grocery store and the gas station”). Mr. Atkins appears to attribute much of Trump’s victory to the hurt done to the American voters by the effects of the economic downturn experienced over the course of the Biden administration, stating that “[p]eople confront the reality of inflation multiple times a week, every time they go to buy groceries or fill up their tank.”

Lastly, let’s look at the article “Trump victory: A kick in the teeth for the establishment” by Marxist.ca writer Alan Woods. This article continues the thread of economic-focused analyses of Harris’ defeat, pointing out the alienation that the American working class feels from the Democrat party (I hear echoes of Bernie Sanders’ recent scathing analysis of Democrat strategists).

Now let’s be honest — are we truly surprised that Marxist and communist publications are laser-focused on the economic aspects of the election? Certainly not. As an ideology which inherently reduces all events and happenings in the world to the level of economics and analyses the world primarily through a class struggle-based lens, it only makes sense that the minds of the far left would seek to place Harris’ defeat solidly within the context of a supposed failure to appeal to the proletariat. And in all reality, they’re not wrong (see the aforementioned Pew poll for the importance of economics to the average voter this year).

This is what we must pay attention to. While the far left and far right may remain obvious numeric minorities within their respective spheres of influence, the impact their ideas have on the political direction of America is undeniable. The appointment of JD Vance (a self-proclaimed “post-liberal”) as Trump’s running mate is proof of this. The far left and right are nothing if not weather vanes for the direction that the masses on each side will take over the course of the next few decades at any given time, and this is precisely why we must pay attention to what communists are saying at this very moment in their frantic attempts to analyze Harris’ defeat.

Actual Marxism (in its revolutionary sense) is a spent force. A quote comes to mind from Ramiro Ledesma Ramos, in which he says that Marxism’s “subversive drive… has lacked success” beyond the obvious example of the former Soviet Union. Nonetheless, Marxism (or communism if you prefer) still retains a powerful following among the university intellectuals of today’s larger left. The ways in which Marxists analyze their defeat at the ballot box in 2024 are the ways in which the American Democrat party will try to improve its platform in 2028.

We have won a great victory this year; let us prepare ourselves now for the work to come.