Make No Mistake: Kamala Harris’s Loss Is the Left’s Loss Too
Kamala Harris’s defeat is not a win for the left.
.
In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory over Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election, progressives find themselves grappling with an uncomfortable truth: the United States of America remains, at its core, a nation. Although anger and sadness are natural responses, we must move beyond immediate reactions of despair and hopelessness. Many share these feelings; you are not alone.
Since the results were announced, much of the online left has been engaging in social media . Leftist commentator Hasan Piker immediately resorted to about how big his brain is for predicting a moderate Harris campaign might lose to Trump, while earlier his and Twitch’s streaming numbers like a content pimp. Some and figures like , a Lebanese musician and author, are celebrating the outcome, with Daou about how he and other Jill Stein protest voters were right.
The 2024 election demolished several optimistic liberal myths about electoral politics. Harris not only lost, but lost decisively, , defying many conventional indicators of public support. She by a margin of , leading with small donors, drew , had among party-affiliated voters, and arguably before . None of these measures of public backing mattered. Even currently idealistic hopes of were once again , despite demographic shifts suggesting .
This reaction from the left is par for the course, given the insidious strain of accelerationism that has overtaken the movement in the last twenty years (as documented in ). However, unlike the better arguments presented in that manifesto, many young left-leaning accelerationists hope for the downfall of modern institutions in favor of their preferred outcomes, though these desired futures often remain unclear or contradictory. Regardless, I would contend that Harris did not lose because she ran too moderate a campaign or because of her stance on Gaza. Indeed, this contradiction appears in arguments from many leftists, including those like Peter Daou, who correctly notes that Harris’s defeat was too severe to blame on spoiler voters yet wrongly attributes her loss to Gaza policy. These claims are mutually exclusive; pro-Palestinian activists .
One reality we must confront instead is this: Harris lost, in large part, because the US with ingrained patterns of racism, sexism, and systemic bias against those who aren’t White, straight, or men (along with a strong resistance to acknowledging and addressing these facts).
This conservative character is deeply rooted in US history, and we must reckon with reality; namely, that there has never been a truly good time for marginalized groups in the US. From (1619–1865) through convict leasing (1865–1941), arguably in its brutality, to segregation’s long shadow that persisted well beyond its through , to all the , the idealized American past that many yearn for has never existed.
Although the conservative character of the US played a central role in Harris’s defeat, another crucial factor sealed her fate: the power of — overemphasizing current conditions while ignoring historical context and trends — in shaping voter perceptions, particularly regarding economic and social conditions. This cognitive tendency manifests in several ways that influenced the election outcome, with amplifying immediate concerns over long-term data in areas like crime rates, immigration, and economic indicators.
Despite, for example, significant since the 1960s and peak in the 1990s, voters continuously . Similarly, although immigration has historically benefited the US economy, have created distorted perceptions through fear- and hate-mongering and selective coverage of border problems while ignoring positive stories about immigrant contributions to communities and the economy. These misperceptions are reinforced as surmount national statistics, with individuals judging broader conditions based on their immediate circumstances.
The compounds presentist bias by causing recent events to carry disproportionate weight in voters’ minds. These cognitive distortions are further amplified by , as supporters of the incumbent party tend to view conditions more favorably, while opposition members remain more critical, regardless of objective measures. Voters consistently the causes of economic and social changes, frequently overestimating presidential influence on short-term outcomes, while the leads them to romanticize past conditions and make unfair comparisons to the present; we see this in how people romanticize the pre-COVID economy under Trump, which he from its actual architect, Barack Obama.
This scenario creates a difficult bind for Democrats: they can neither move right enough to outcompete Republicans on conservative values (particularly given that over abortion) without losing their progressive base, nor left enough, without a generational candidate like Obama, to win elections on progressive values alone because the left-leaning voter base simply doesn't exist. Worse still, the challenge is intensifying; in 2019, identified as conservative versus 24% liberal, and by 2024, are identifying as Republican than Democrat. This rightward shift may even be accelerating among younger voters, with twice as likely to identify as more conservative than their parents compared to millennials 20 years ago. Identity politics and presentist bias lost Harris the election, and there was little she could have done, even by condemning Israel’s violence in its totality, to change that fundamental reality.
The consequences of Trump’s victory will be devastating for vulnerable populations worldwide. Those, especially on the left, celebrating Harris’s defeat as a “lesson” for Democrats fundamentally misunderstand what’s at stake. Trump has promised to “” in Gaza, suggesting an even more catastrophic escalation of the ongoing genocide. Life for vulnerable people in the US will deteriorate as Trump’s administration rolls back protections for marginalized communities, from , to , to . Among Trump’s many concerning proposals, to gut education funding and dismantle the federal Department of Education stand out as ominous harbingers of the dark days ahead. In all of these cases, Trump’s victory will embolden conservatives at the state level to further enact their regressive agendas.
Beyond the horrors occurring in Gaza and other domestic concerns, which are certain to worsen in the coming years, Ukrainians . Trump’s return in its ongoing conflict with Russia, as his could pressure allies to reconsider their commitments. Although a complete abandonment of NATO obligations seems unlikely, could impact Ukraine’s situation. As one Ukrainian soldier told Euronews: “The elections of another country are deciding my fate, and I’ve got no right to vote.” This is not a victory for anyone except Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the political right.
Yet even in this harrowing moment, we must maintain what Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade called “”; the ability to “realistically assess one’s environment through a lens of equity and justice while also envisioning the possibility of a better future.” Those of us who believe in positive change and incremental progress understand that activism neither begins nor ends with political leadership. We will continue to do what we have always done: care for and support one another. Many vulnerable people will suffer under what’s coming, that is tragically true. But the fight is not lost, and it is far from over.
Nothing is done and over until it’s done and over. The future remains unwritten, and we must refuse to comply with despair. The path forward requires both clear-eyed acceptance of American political realities and unwavering commitment to protecting vulnerable populations. Thinkers and activists like André Gorz and Mariamme Kaba have shown us how to build sustainable movements for change within existing frameworks; what Gorz called “non-reformist reforms” that meet immediate needs by simultaneously transferring power to marginalized communities and creating stepping stones toward broader transformation, while maintaining solidarity with those most at risk from conservative governance. As Kaba reminds us, ; this truth applies to all progress.
The task ahead is not to celebrate institutional collapse or retreat into political purity, but to engage in the difficult work of building broad coalitions. Success requires generating shared buy-in and creating practical pathways to progress, especially at the . We must get involved, do what we can in our local areas. The fight for justice will continue, not through accelerationist fantasies of imminent collapse, but through persistent, methodical efforts to protect and expand human rights, even in the face of America’s conservative character.
