Hovering on the Brink of Fascism: What Happened in the November 5th 2024 USA Elections?
Introduction
By now readers here are well aware that Donald Trump and his re-fashioned MAGA (Make America Great Again) Republican Party – won the November 2024 USA elections. Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party were soundly defeated. All other minor parties including the largest of the independent parties – the Green Party – made no electoral impact, although they may well have all influenced some individual workers. Trump and the Republicans also won the majority in the two houses of the bicameral Government.
Before the elections, we stated that the 2024 Presidential elections in the USA offered only two real choices to the working class and people of the USA. (See: “The USA 2024 Presidential Elections – Should socialists advocate election boycott?“ MLRG.online October 2024) We argued that both of these main choices – the Democratic Party and the Republican Party – represented the ruling capitalist class.
However, we also argued that a Harris Democratic Party victory held better chances for the working class to organise revolution. Following the line of V.I.Lenin’s arguments in ‘Ultra-leftism’ – we advised that abstentionist policies were incorrect. We reiterated the “support like a rope supports a hanged man” arguments of Lenin to the British Labour Party.
There was certainly disagreement on the Marxist-Leninist left on the potential benefit of a Harris victory over Trump. For example, the American Party of Labor wrote:
“We endorse no bourgeois candidates and support no arguments for lesser evil electoralism. . . It has been established that voting on the national level has little to no effect on addressing the issues faced by the working classes.“
Eris Rosenburg, “Election 2024: Fascism is at the gates”; Red Phoenix November 5, 2024.
Yet later the reality of Trump’s victory prompted that same organisation – the ‘American Party of Labor ‘(APL) – to respond that there had been “another step” towards “open barbarism” as follows:
“Trump’s re-election is yet another step towards open barbarism and the institutionalization of a reactionary form of politics representative of the general decline of the American capitalist system. Trump’s victory opens a new period of potential violence against minorities, women, all marginalized peoples, and the working class at large, necessitating the organization of immediate resistance.”
Secretariat “Trump wins; we fight on, harder than ever! “ APL November 9, 2024
We certainly agree with that. Moreover the proposed reaction of the APL – remains to form a Marxist-Leninist party as urgently as possible. We agree whole heartedly with that also.
Beyond the Marxist-Leninist left, swathes of the broader Marxist left are also rightly alarmed. Here we give only one example, although many have voiced similar alarms. John R – the ‘Oakland Socialist’ also argued that the working class would benefit from a Harris victory. He concludes that what happened in the elections was a ‘defeat’ for the working class:
“make no mistake, this is a defeat and a serious one.”
U.S. voters usher in full-fledged authoritarianism and bigotry
“Oakland Socialist”; November 6, 2024
We agree with that assessment. The ‘Oakland Socialist’ goes on to call for a “start”:
“by organizing among ourselves, starting with figuring out what the hell just happened, why, and where things might go from here.” Oakland Socialist”; November 6, 2024
We also agree with that.
Future discussions over abstentionism in bourgeois elections – may or may not return. That partly depends on the path that Trump and his dangerous crew will chart. Hopefully, the left will have the ‘luxury of bourgeois democratic elections’ – to be able to return to this topic, before the next 4 years pass. If so – it should hopefully be in a more united, and stronger position than the broad left was in November 2024. But for now, more pressing and ominous questions are definitely raised and more will arise.
Despite the loud proclamations of the Trump campaign of a ‘total victory’, this is not the case – as we shall see. However, Trump did win by a large margin in the states. He also won – but not by a huge margin – the popular electoral vote itself.
The main report is focused upon two main aims and one as yet unanswered question.
First, this short report tries to analyse what happened in the vote.
Second, we try to examine what Trump’s proposed cabinet holds for the working class of the USA, and indeed for the toiling peoples of the world.
Finally, we begin to address the question that hangs over the working class of the USA. Is the incoming Trump government already to take a fascist form of government? Or at what point might it become that? We cannot answer the substantive question at this point. That requires urgent thought by the broad Left, and the Marxist-Leninist forces within that Left.
There are two short appendices. To understand how such a discrepancy may arise, we include Appendix One. This helps explain for non-USA readers, some of the USA Constitutional underpinnings of American elections. Appendix Two concerns the definition of fascism.
(References Notes : Web-links are given for all references available, which were accessed between 20 November and 30 November 2024. However exceptions are made for the New York Times (NYT) which require subscription. In addition web-references for the Financial Times (FT) are given – although they are fickle, and may or may not work for non-subscribers).
1. What happened in the 2024 USA Elections?
The state vote and the popular vote
What happened in the elections that will be shortly certified by the Electoral College, and who won the popular vote? As Appendix One outlines these are not synonymous.
Quite simply – Donald Trump and his re-branded Republican Party won the elections. The number of the state votes they obtained was 312 to Kamala Harris’s 226, and will certainly be certified by the Electoral College set to meet in December. A majority of more than 270 was required to win. As the BBC commented:
“The map of the US states … shows huge swathes of the country coloured red for Republicans including much of the south, mid and north west regions. Kamala Harris picked up states in the northeast, the west coast, as well as Colorado, New Mexico, Illinois and Minnesota, all coloured in blue. Donald Trump passed the critical threshold of 270 electoral college votes … making him the next US president.”
BBC 25 November 2024
Yet the popular vote was much narrower than the Trumpists like to acknowledge. The margin between Trump’s share of the popular vote and that of Harris was actually less – than that obtained by Biden in his electoral victory over Trump in 2020:
“On Nov. 9, Trump had 74,312,688 votes compared to 70,383,093 votes for Harris – a lead of about 4,684,000 million votes, according to the Associated Press. The outstanding votes in the remaining states make it unlikely for Harris to overtake Trump in the popular vote even if she were to win all of the remaining votes . . .
President Joe Biden won the popular vote (in 2020 – Ed) by about seven million votes, amassing the most-ever votes by a presidential candidate. “
Peter Aitken, “Who Has The Popular Vote 2024? Trump vs. Harris Election Results“: November 6, 2024 Newsweek
The narrow Trump victory appears to have been at least in part because Democratic voters did not come to the election. There was not a huge tidal wave of pro-Trump voters – as noted his lead was narrower than the lead Biden had obtained in 2020. However, that should not discount the encroachment that Trump’s Republican Party made into the voter base of the Democrats.
Trump’s overall strategy was multi-pronged. Clearly, a vast advertising spending (and indeed an open bribery enabled by Elon Musk) formed one prong. But another prong was to steal the Democratic ‘base’ of workers. As New York Times columnists have put it:
“Mr. Trump’s campaign had aimed to put together a new political coalition anchored not just by blue-collar white voters but working-class Black and Latino voters, as well. By Wednesday morning, there were some early signs the campaign had succeeded. The 2024 election is the second time Mr. Trump has defeated a woman trying to break through the nation’s highest gender barrier — the presidency — after he prevailed over Hillary Clinton eight years ago. His history of sexual misconduct, along with his three appointees to the Supreme Court and their role in ending the constitutional right to an abortion in 2022, transformed the race into a referendum on gender and women’s rights.”
Shane Goldmacher and Lisa Lerer; “Donald Trump Returns to Power, Ushering in New Era of Uncertainty”; NYT November 6th 2024.
Other observers make similar points:
“Exit polls suggest that Harris lost 16 points with “voters of color” with no degree compared with Biden, with particularly sharp losses among Latinos. The abortion emphasis didn’t pan out either – Biden led among those who believed that abortion should be “legal in most cases” by 38 points. Harris appears to have tied Trump with those voters.”
Bhaskar Sunkara; “USA Elections 2024; The Democrats lost because they ran a weak and out of touch campaign” in November 8, 2024; Guardian
There seems little doubt that to a significant extent, this did happen. The data given below substantiates this. But, we should also note that incumbent governments have usually lost in the most recent general elections. Table 1 below tabulates this.
Table 1: Accessed via Tom Hartmann Report, “Can Dems Counter Trump’s Oligarchy with Bold Change?“ Nov 11 2024
This is not surprising and reflects the international crisis of the capitalist crisis. We have previously discussed aspects of this, in relation to the re-structuring of the old capitalist parties in the West (Restructuring the Capitalist Parties of the European Community”; MLRG.online June 22, 2024)
At least two major voting shifts took place in the USA election
First – The Democratic Party was unable to mobilise “their” voters to actually vote. And second – they also lost a section of voters to the Republicans.
Figure 1 shows calculations from polls made between 1960-2024. The graph demonstrates that the poorest section of society (red line) dropped in the extent to which they voted Democrat. The y-axis is the margin Democratic to Republican, and the x-axis is year.
Figure 1: 1960 to 2024 electoral margins of Democratic-Republican votes in USA election by income groups.; From Eva Xiao, Clara Murray, Jonathan Vincent, John Burn-Murdoch, and Joel Sus; “Poorer voters flocked to Trump — and other data points from the election”; ‘Financial Times’ London November 9, 2024
Figure 2 below, displays another set of calculations over a shorter time period, 2020 to 2024. These show a marked swing in those earning under USD$ 50,000 per year – towards the Republicans. An opposite direction of shift – towards the Democratic Party was seen in those earning over USD$100,000 per year.
Figure 2: 2020 compared to 2024 demographics by income per year (Y-axis) and electoral shifts to either Republican (red arrows) or Democratic Party (blue arrows); Eva Xiao, Clara Murray, Jonathan Vincent, John Burn-Murdoch, and Joel Sus; “Poorer voters flocked to Trump — and other data points from the election”; ‘Financial Times’ London November 9 2024
What explains these voting shifts?
The profound disillusionment with the false promises of the Democratic Party is impossible to ignore. Contrary to all the hype of a ‘better life’ and the Biden-Harris claims of having improved the economy – the real face of the economy was seen differently by the working class.
The voters’ own views of the economy are gauged to some extent, by some exit poll data. The limitations of such data are acknowledged – however they do provide an insight. The question that was posed to voters interviewed was how “poor” was the economy in their viewpoint”? The results obtained in various states, were matched to data of prices in the same sites-states. Figure 3 shows these line up reasonably well.
Figure 3:
Tej Parikh; ”This was an election on the US economy. And for many Americans, the economy sucks”; FT; November 8 2024
However, the graph appears to show the perceptions appear to be far worse than the depicted ‘official price’ rises.
But there is little doubt that people ‘feel’ worse off than before. In another survey in a different population source the same essentially is seen (Figure 4). This essentially similar result, suggests that the results are true findings.
Figure 4 shows a fall in people’s perceptions of their ‘financial situation’ as compared to a year previously – for “all income groups” as seen below. The author Tej Parikh titled the graph shown below (Figure 4):
Figure 4: Perceptions Tej Parikh, ”This was an election on the US economy. And for many Americans, the economy sucks”; FT; November 8 2024
Naturally, the really upper levels of class-divided USA do not respond to such questionnaires – nor can one believe what they would say in any case! They are not included in Figure 4. However, we will shortly examine their wealth data below.
But before we do that, let us drill down into one unmistakable cause of the ‘poor perception’ that working people have about the economy – inflation. A better ‘micro-look’ shows that inflation in reality truly had a major impact on the living standards of the working class:
“Inflation has been far worse during the Biden administration, up 20.1% over the first 45 months of Biden’s term compared to 7.1% during Trump’s first 45 months, according to the government’s consumer price index. That equates to annualized inflation rates of 5.4% under Biden and 1.9% under Trump. Year-over-year inflation peaked under Biden at a four-decade high of 9% in 2022 before falling to just over 3% – which Biden has blamed on COVID-19’s lingering impact and the Russia-Ukraine war, supported at least in part by the global nature of the inflation outbreak.” Derek Saul, How The Economy Really Fared Under Biden/Harris And Trump—From Jobs To Inflation”; Forbes, November 1, 2024.
That inflation has led to rises in food prices, which outstripped a much slower rise in wages Figure 5:
Figure 5: shows rising USA food prices outstripping USA wages; from Tom Perkins, “Your food is more expensive – are US corporate profits to blame?” July 26 2024, Guardian.
Figure 6: Percent change from a recent quarter to the corresponding quarter two years prior; from Tom Perkins, “Your food is more expensive – are US corporate profits to blame?” July 26 2024, Guardian.
An Intensified Impoverishment of the Working Class
We showed several strands of data above, that cumulatively argue strongly that there has been a real ‘felt’ impact on working people. To drive this home, we examine now the direct economic effects on lives in the USA – in terms of paying their bills, and costs of rent in relation to wages. These are summarised by data on the rising inequity of wealth in the USA – or the gini coefficient.
First the delinquency rates of paying of bills, has gone up by data of quarterly returns year-by-year over recent times. We presume that the bulk of these figures are simply domestic bills. Figure 7 shows these rates in some “key states” of the USA:
Figure 7: Failure to pay off debts, from 1st Quarter 2021 to 2nd quarter 2024 (x-axis):
Tej Parikh; ” This was an election on the US economy. And for many Americans, the economy sucks”; FT; November 8 2024;
As this has continued, the Gini Coefficient (which measures the ratio of highest income to lowest) measuring inequity – has been rising in the USA (Figures 8, 9). Figure 8 shows the data from the Federal data at St.Louis from 1962 to 2022. Figure 9 shows more data going up to 2023.
Figure 8: From USA St Louis Federal Data
Figure 9: Household income distribution according to the Gini Index of income inequality in the United States from 1990 to 2023 Statista
Finally, Figure 10 below, shows the rise of rents markedly rising in contrast to median household income falling (Data from the US Treasury).
Figure 10: Written for USA Department of the Treasury; Laura Feiveson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Microeconomics, Arik Levinson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Climate and Energy Economics, Sydney Schreiner Wertz, Economist; “Real Housing Price, Rent and Wage Indexes”; June 24, 2024
What about that top layer – the billionaires in the USA?
Finally, some data confirming what all working people and socialists know at some level. The rich get richer.
The ruling class of the USA is a tiny fraction of the population, But their wealth has rocketed upwards in the last 4 years alone. Figure 11 below compares 2020 reported ‘net worth” of the top 10 US billionaires, to that of 2024.
Figure 11: Chuck Collins and Omar Ocampo, “Total U.S. Billionaire Wealth: Up 88 Percent over Four Years”; March 18, 2024; Inequality.org
The most up-to-date net-worth listing by Forbes of the world’s top 20 wealthiest billionaires is shown in Table 2. It can be seen that of these 20 figures, 15 are based in the USA (Table 2).
Table 2: Bloomberg Billionaires Index; 29 November 2024
Table 2 also shows that the current most wealthy individual worldwide is Elon Musk. We return to him in the next section.
2. The Trump Cabinet and team being formed
(See also article “The Trump Administration’s March Towards Economic Oblivion – Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Argentinian President Javier Milei” MLRG.online)
The line-up of individuals being put into the Cabinet are guaranteed to bring the USA into an un-trammeled, unregulated, and un-restrained modernised rutheless capitalist society. It is unlikely that any aspect of civil society will be untouched.
Essentially the vast majority of Cabinet appointees are long-time allies of Trump who are known will not challenge him. Or alternatively a small minority have simply made clear their extreme right-wing views accord with those of Trump.
Many of the incoming Trump appointees to both cabinet and his personal advisors have links to the infamous Project 2025:
“Trump ran away from Project 2025 during the campaign because it was so unpopular. He denied he knew anything about it, calling it “ridiculous and abysmal,” and on September 16 the leader of Trump’s transition team, Howard Lutnick, said there were “Absolutely zero. No connection. Zero” ties between the team and Project 2025. Now, though, Trump has done an about-face and has said he will nominate at least five people associated with Project 2025 to his administration.
Those nominees include Russell Vought, one of the project’s key authors, who calls for dramatically increasing the powers of the president; Tom Homan, who as acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) oversaw the separation of children from their parents; John Ratcliffe, whom the Senate refused in 2019 to confirm as Director of National Intelligence because he had no experience in intelligence; Brendan Carr, whom Trump wants to put at the head of the Federal Communications Commission and who is already trying to silence critics by warning he will punish broadcasters who Trump feels have been unfair to him; and Stephen Miller, the fervently anti-immigrant ideologue.
Project 2025 calls for the creation of an extraordinarily strong president who will gut the civil service and replace its nonpartisan officials with those who are loyal to the president. It calls for filling the military and the Department of Justice with those loyal to the president. And then, the project plans that with his new power, the president will impose Christian nationalism on the United States of America, ending immigration, and curtailing rights for LGBTQ+ individuals as well as women and racial and ethnic minorities.”
Heather Cox Richardson, “Letters of an American”; November 24, 2024 Posted Nov 25, 2024
Trump while disavowing knowledge of Project 2025 during the campaign, now openly embraces it. Some of the details of this “Project 2025” are given below:
“Mr. Trump’s cabinet picks and other appointments have reaffirmed the fears of many Democrats and government watchdogs who say Mr. Trump will use Project 2025 as a road map to expand his executive power, replace civil servants with political loyalists and gut government agencies like the Department of Education.
Mr. Trump has picked Russel V. Vought one of the authors of Project 2025, to lead the powerful Office of Management and Budget. In choosing Mr. Vought, Mr. Trump will have someone who views the position as far more expansive than just overseeing the budget.
Mr. Vought wrote in Project 2025 that the person picked for the job should view themselves as an “approximation of the president’s mind,” while establishing a reputation of the keeper of “commander’s intent.”… Earlier this year, Mr. Trump tried to distance himself from his former staffers like Mr. Vought,..
“I have no idea who is behind it,” Mr. Trump said on social media in July, despite his ties to former staffers like Mr. Vought. . .
Mr. Trump has also tapped Stephen Miller to be his deputy chief of staff for policy and Thomas Homan to be a “border czar,” positions that do not require Senate confirmation. Mr. Homan is listed as a contributor to Project 2025. The legal organization Mr. Miller founded during Mr. Trump’s time out of office, America First Legal, was listed at one point as an adviser group to Project 2025. ..
Both officials will be responsible for elements of Mr. Trump’s goals of establishing detention camps and carrying out mass deportations. The Project 2025 blueprint also recommends rescinding restrictions that prevented immigration agents from carrying out arrests in schools and churches.
Mr. Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, wrote a chapter in Project 2025 that called for reining in “Big Tech,” eliminating immunity protections for social media companies and imposing transparency rules on companies like Google, Facebook and YouTube.
“It is hard to imagine another industry in which a greater gap exists between power and accountability,” he wrote.
Other contributors to Project 2025 include Pete Hoekstra, Mr. Trump’s former ambassador to the Netherlands and his current pick to be ambassador to Canada, as well as John Ratcliffe Mr. Trump’s pick to lead the C.I.A.
A former director of national intelligence, Mr. Ratcliffe was cited repeatedly in the document.“
Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Erica L. Green “Trump Disavowed Project 2025 During the Campaign. Not Anymore.”NYT 29 November 2024
The following listing is admittedly depressing to read through. It simply documents the Cabinet. It can easily be skipped for those already familiar with this sorry listing. (In which case the reader might turn to the final section, on question posed as to whether the USA can be considered a fascist state now).
Chief of Staff: Susan Wiles
“Susie Wiles, the political tactician who managed Donald J. Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, will become the first woman to serve as White House chief of staff . . . “
Neil Vigdor; “Who Is Susie Wiles, Trump’s Pick for White House Chief of Staff?“: NYT November 8, 2024.
“A longtime strategist and lobbyist for business interests and political campaigns. …Ms. Wiles, 67, was registered as a lobbyist until early this year. She did not sever ties with Mercury Public Affairs, where she began working in 2022, until after she was named chief of staff on Nov. 7…
One consumer advocacy group, Public Citizen, has warned about Ms. Wiles’s lobbying background and demanded that she recuse herself from policy matters that might affect her former clients.
“By putting a corporate lobbyist in charge of his administration with his first act as president-elect, Trump is hanging a ‘for sale’ sign on the front door of the White House,” Jon Golinger, who investigates corporate influence on elections and government at the organization, said in a statement….
In 2011, Ms. Wiles joined Ballard Partners. After Mr. Trump’s victory in 2016 — a campaign that Ms. Wiles ran in Florida and for which Mr. Ballard was a top financial backer — she helped Ballard Partners open an office in Washington, where there was high demand for the firm’s services because of its ties to Mr. Trump.
She was registered to lobby for about 40 clients during her years at Ballard Partners, ranging from the city of Jacksonville to major companies and foreign interests, including a Nigerian political party and a media company owned by a Venezuelan billionaire who would later be indicted on charges related to money laundering.”
Kate Kelly and Kenneth P. Vogel; “Inside the Lobbying Career of Trump’s New Chief of Staff”; NYT November 22, 2024
“Susie Wiles, the next White House chief of staff, privately told a group of Republican donors on Monday that President-elect Donald J. Trump would move on his first day in office to reinstate several executive orders from Mr. Trump’s first term that President Biden had revoked, …Ms. Wiles was the headliner of the three-day Rockbridge conference. She appeared on Monday before a few hundred donors on a panel alongside some other top Trump campaign aides, including Chris LaCivita, the campaign’s co-manager; Meredith O’Rourke, its fund-raising director; and Tony Fabrizio, the campaign’s top pollster. Other speakers were expected to include Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, according to a copy of the agenda seen by The New York Times.
The Rockbridge Network is led by some partners at the venture capital firm 1789 Capital, which invests in the so-called parallel economy — products and companies popular with conservative audiences. Donald Trump Jr. on Sunday evening told the crowd at Rockbridge that he was joining 1789 Capital as a partner, according to two people with knowledge of his remarks.
The younger Mr. Trump was asked by Chris Buskirk, the leader of Rockbridge and a co-founder of 1789 Capital, if he had plans to join his father’s administration. He told the crowd that he would instead be joining the firm, whose investments include Tucker Carlson’s media company, the people said.”
Theodore Scheifler; “Trump Plans Series of Executive Orders for Day 1, Susie Wiles Tells Donors”; November 11, 2024; NYT
Office of Management and Budget: Russel T. Vought
We have already met Vought, as leading ‘Project 2025’. Further detail on him is certainly not amiss:
“President-elect Donald J. Trump on Friday picked a key figure in Project 2025 to lead the Office of Management and Budget, elevating a longtime ally who has spent the last four years making plans to rework the American government to enhance presidential power.
The would-be nominee, Russell T. Vought, would oversee the White House budget and help determine whether federal agencies comport with the president’s policies. The role requires Senate confirmation unless Mr. Trump is able to make recess appointments.
The choice of Mr. Vought would bring in a strongly ideological figure who played a pivotal role in Mr. Trump’s first term, when he also served as budget chief. Among other things, Mr. Vought helped come up with the idea of having Mr. Trump use emergency power to circumvent Congress’s decision about how much to spend on a border wall.
Mr. Vought was a leading figure in Project 2025, the effort by conservative organizations to build a governing blueprint for Mr. Trump should he take office once again. . .
In an interview with The New York Times in 2023, Mr. Vought laid out an agenda of eliminating the independence of certain regulatory agencies that operate outside the direct control of the White House, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The independent structure of those agencies has been a central part of how Congress has set up the administrative state since the New Deal. But Mr. Vought sees the modern structure of government as a theft of the president’s rightful powers.
“What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them,” Mr. Vought said at the time, adding of the Federal Reserve: “It’s very hard to square the Fed’s independence with the Constitution. . .
Even before Project 2025 became a campaign issue, Mr. Vought’s think tank was a home for proposals that were too radioactive even among the highly conservative audiences.
In one case, Mr. Vought’s group published a legal framework for Mr. Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy federal troops on domestic soil. Its public white paper on the topic framed the issue in terms of using the military to patrol the southern border against migrants. But the legal arguments would be the same to use troops to crush demonstrations by American protesters, like the racial justice protests that erupted in the summer of 2020 after the murder of George Floyd, which sometimes turned violent.
Mr. Vought’s group listed using the Insurrection Act to stop riots as a “Day 1” idea, meaning one whose legal framework was already well established, and which could be put into effect by a president unilaterally, according to an internal email from early 2023 reviewed by The Times.
“Insurrection — stop riots ** — Day 1, easy,” the email said.
Mr. Vought also offered a professional home and employment to Jeffrey B. Clark, the former high-ranking Justice Department official criminally charged in Georgia in connection with efforts to overturn Mr. Trump’s 2020 election loss in that state.
Mr. Clark wrote a paper, published by Mr. Vought’s group, that advocates eliminating the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department investigative independence from the White House — another idea listed on the group’s internal email. . .
Mr. Vought is among a faction of MAGA supporters who have come to see the Federalist Society as too soft for an era in which, they believe, liberals and Democrats pose an existential threat to the nation.
“The Federalist Society doesn’t know what time it is,” Mr. Vought declared in an interview last year.
Charlie Savage, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan; “Trump Picks Key Figure in Project 2025 for Powerful Budget Role”; November 22 2024 NYT;
Secretary of State: Marco Rubio
“Senator Marco Rubio of Florida… (is) a onetime political rival and foreign policy hawk who has taken a hard-line approach to China that aligns with Mr. Trump’s views…. He has staked out an aggressive foreign policy approach toward China, Iran and Venezuela, countries that Mr. Trump frequently criticized on the campaign trail.
If confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Rubio would become the first Latino to serve as secretary of state. Mr. Trump said in a statement that Mr. Rubio would be “a strong advocate for our nation, a true friend to our allies and a fearless warrior who will never back down to our adversaries.”… Mr. Rubio advised Mr. Trump on foreign policy during his administration, particularly around issues related to Venezuela and Cuba. And he has been one of the most vocal senators on the need for the United States to be more aggressive on China, a view promulgated by Mr. Trump.”
Michael Gold; “Marco Rubio Is Trump’s Pick for Secretary of State”; NYT November 13, 2024.
Attorney General: Pam Bondi
Matt Gaetz, a notorious former Florida congressman, was Trump’s first pick. Under investigation for numerous charges of ethics concerning underage sex by the House of Representatives, he was forced to withdraw under fire.
He has been replaced with Pam Bondi, a former Florida attorney general – and Trump loyalist:
“Ms. Bondi. . a lobbyist and Trump loyalist who served as Florida’s attorney general from 2011 to 2019. She has charted a more conventional and less clamorous course than Mr. Gaetz . . . Ms. Bondi — a Democrat until 2000 — . . . won the attorney general’s race after garnering the support of Sarah Palin. . .
During her eight-year tenure, she tried unsuccessfully to overturn and weaken the Affordable Care Act, opposed expanding legal protections for the L.G.B.T.Q. community and cultivated a national reputation by supporting anti-human-trafficking efforts.
She also drew fire for her fund-raising practices – and for persuading the governor at the time, Rick Scott, to postpone an execution in 2013 because it conflicted with a fund-raiser for her re-election campaign. She later apologized.
. . . In 2013, Ms. Bondi’s office received nearly two dozen complaints about Mr. Trump’s short-lived for-profit university, and her aides said she was considering joining a multistate lawsuit brought on behalf of students who claimed they had been cheated.
Four days later, Ms. Bondi’s political action committee received a $25,000 contribution from a nonprofit funded by Mr. Trump. She never joined the lawsuit. . .
After leaving office in 2019, Ms. Bondi was hired by Ballard Partners, a lobbying firm with close ties to Mr. Trump, and registered as a lobbyist for Qatar. She has also represented Amazon, Uber and General Motors, according to records.
A year later, she joined the team defending Mr. Trump during his first impeachment, where she accused former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., then a private citizen, of engaging in corrupt business practices with his son Hunter. Those charges have never been substantiated . . .
After Mr. Biden won the 2020 presidential election, Ms. Bondi supported Mr. Trump’s fabricated claims of election fraud.
In November 2020, Ms. Bondi deflected when a Fox News host asked her to back up her assertion that “fake ballots” for Mr. Biden were pouring into tabulation centers.
“Pam, did you just say fake ballots?” the host asked.
“There could be. That’s the problem,” replied Ms. Bondi, who later accepted a post with America First Policy, a Trump-aligned group.”
Glenn Thrush “Here’s what to know about Pam Bondi”; NYT, Nov. 21, 2024,
Defence Secretary: Pete Hegseth
“Pete Hegseth, a Fox News host and veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, (will -ed) be Trump’s next defense secretary, elevating a television ally to run the Pentagon and lead 1.3 million active-duty troops.
The choice of Mr. Hegseth was outside the norm of the traditional defense secretary. But he was a dedicated supporter of Mr. Trump during his first term, defending his interactions with the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, embracing his “America First” agenda of trying to withdraw U.S. troops from abroad and energetically taking up the cause of combat veterans accused of war crimes.
In a statement announcing his pick, Mr. Trump praised Mr. Hegseth’s combat experience and support of the military and veterans. “Pete is tough, smart, and a true believer in America First,” Mr. Trump said. “With Pete at the helm, America’s enemies are on notice — our military will be great again, and America will never back down.”
Mr. Hegseth is a co-host of “Fox & Friends.” He joined the network as a contributor in 2014 and has been the host of Fox’s New Year’s coverage for years. . . He served in the Army in Afghanistan and Iraq and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. . . In 2019, Mr. Hegseth lobbied heavily on behalf of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, a member of the Navy SEALs who was acquitted of serious war crimes in Iraq. Mr. Trump reversed a demotion ordered as punishment, then fired the Navy secretary, whom Mr. Hegseth had aggressively criticized. . . Mr. Hegseth’s book, the New York Times best-seller “The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free,” was published in June. “Our ‘elites’ are like the feckless drug-addled businessmen at Nakatomi Plaza, looking down on Bruce Willis’s John McClane in ‘Die Hard,’” Mr. Hegseth wrote in the book. . .
But Mr. Hegseth is likely to run into opposition from senior military officials and perhaps lawmakers who have served in the military for his embrace of narratives by troops who ran afoul of military justice rules. A former Pentagon official from Mr. Trump’s first term questioned Mr. Hegseth’s lack of experience — other than serving in the military — and raised concerns about his ability to win Senate confirmation, even with a Republican majority in the chamber.”
Helene Cooper and Maggie Haberman Trump Picks Pete Hegseth, a Veteran and Fox News Host, for Defense Secretary”; NYT 12 November 2024
His Islamophobia is extensively documented by Jason Wilson “Trump Pentagon pick Pete Hegseth’s books foreground anti-Muslim rhetoric“; in the Guardian 28 November 2024
National Security Adviser: Michael Waltz
“Michael Waltz, the designee for national security adviser, was a strong advocate of sending more aid to Ukraine and doing whatever was necessary to push back the Russian invasion, until he voted against the $95 billion in additional aid to Ukraine in the spring.”
David E.Sanger; “Trump’s Cabinet: Many Ideologies Behind the Veil of ‘America First’; NYT November 24, 2024.
Treasury: Scott Bessent
“. . . a hedge fund manager and (previously -ed). . . a major donor to Democrats who co-hosted the event at his home. … was tapped to be Trump’s Treasury secretary. . . . Mr. Bessent would lead a Republican economic agenda of cutting taxes, culling federal regulations and enacting sweeping tariffs. The selection caps an extraordinary career arc for an investor who was once a protégé of the liberal billionaire philanthropist George Soros and who gave money to top Democrats including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Barack Obama. . . As Treasury secretary, Mr. Bessent would work to steer tax cuts through Congress, lead trade negotiations with China and help cull federal regulations that Mr. Trump believes are stifling the economy.”
Alan Rappeport; “How Scott Bessent Went From Democratic Donor to Trump Treasury Secretary Pick”; NYT Nov 23, 2024
Economics: Kevin Hassett
“… (will) be the director of the White House National Economic Council, giving an adviser who served as his top economist during his first term a leading role in steering his economic agenda. As the director of the N.E.C., Mr. Hassett will work closely with the Treasury secretary to push forward Mr. Trump’s economic plans,
focused on cutting taxes, increasing tariffs and expanding energy
production.”
Jonathan Swan, Maggie Haberman, Alan Rappeport and Ana Swanson; “Trump Taps Kevin Hassett to Lead National Economic Council”; NYT Nov. 26, 2024
“Department of Government Efficiency,” aka “The Government Shrinkage Team”: Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy
“. . .whose goals are wildly ambitious, to put it mildly. They want to carve what Mr. Musk says will be “at least” $2 trillion from the annual federal budget, a figure that exceeds the annual cost of salaries for every federal employee. (For the record, the total federal budget in the 2024 fiscal year was $6.75 trillion.)…
Mr. Musk, the world’s richest man and newest denizen of Mar-a-Lago, and Mr. Ramaswamy. They wrote in The Wall Street Journal y that “the entrenched and ever-growing bureaucracy represents an existential threat to our republic.”
The department, or “DOGE” as Mr. Musk calls it in a nod to the cryptocurrency dogecoin, is not actually a department at all, but a group of volunteers. But the two men insist their future department will have a direct pipeline to the White House Office of Management and Budget that will look to cut regulations, cut head counts, and cut budgets.
They promised to focus first on “$500 billion plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended,” including grants to international organizations or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
(For perspective, the $535 million in federal funds to the public broadcasting group, which Mr. Trump’s supporters believe pays for liberally biased programming, would be a 0.026 percent down payment on Mr. Musk’s promised $2 trillion in cuts. Even eliminating the entire defense budget of the United States would not get him halfway to the goal.)”
David E. Sanger; “Trump’s Cabinet: Many Ideologies Behind the Veil of ‘America First’; NYT November 24, 2024.
“Mr. Trump said its mission would be to help the administration “dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure Federal Agencies.” He gave it until July 2026 to finish its work.
The commission will operate outside the government, but will provide guidance and work with the White House budget office, Mr. Trump said.
It’s not clear who will pay for the commission’s staff, or if they will be paid at all: Mr. Musk said in a recent post on X that the “compensation is zero.”
Madeline Ngo and David A. Fahrenthold; “Musk Wants to Slash $2 Trillion in Federal Spending. Is That Possible?” NYT 16 November 2024
Comments Heather Cox
“Musk, meanwhile, is posturing as if he is the actual president, threatening on Saturday, for example: “Those who break the law will be arrested and that includes mayors.”
“Letters of an American”; November 24, 2024, Posted Nov 25, 2024
To liase wiith that “Committee to Cut” will be:
“Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a standard-bearer for the MAGA wing of congressional Republicans, said on Thursday that she would serve as the chairwoman of a planned House subcommittee meant to partner with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. . .”
Anni Karni; “Trump Transition: Greene of Georgia to Lead New House Panel on Government Efficiency”; NYT; Nov. 21, 2024
Agriculture: Brooke Rollins
“…served as domestic policy adviser in the first Trump administration, then became head of the America First Policy Institute, a sort of Trump government in waiting staffed with other former members of his administration. Ms. Rollins’s organization has called for getting rid of civil-service protection for many federal employees, speeding gas and oil drilling on federal lands, and doing away with red-flag laws meant to keep guns from people who are deemed by a judge to be a danger to themselves or to others.”
David E.Sanger; “Trump’s Cabinet: Many Ideologies Behind the Veil of ‘America First’; NYT November 24, 2024.
Labor Secretary: Lori Chavez-DeRemer
“An Oregon Republican who lost her seat in the House this month, often spoke of her father’s membership in the Teamsters and won the support of about 20 labor unions during her unsuccessful re-election bid. . .
As the G.O.P. moved quickly to solidify around Mr. Trump and promised to kill off government regulation, Ms. Chavez-DeRemer moved the other way. She was one of three Republicans who sponsored a 2023 bill that would have shielded workers seeking to organize union representation from retribution or firing, while giving new powers to the federal government to punish employers who violate workers’ rights.”
David E. Sanger; “Trump’s Cabinet: Many Ideologies Behind the Veil of ‘America First’; NYT November 24, 2024.
As such she is a slight anomaly in the Cabinet. Likely she is there to ‘gull’ and fool honest rank-and-file trade unionists.
Health: Robert Kennedy Jr
There are a host of anti-scientific individuals named to important positions in health. They are very likely to destroy – or at least severely hinder – the health care services.
They are led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Who will run the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS),
“As an anti-vaccine advocate, Mr. Kennedy has plunged into dark and conspiratorial views of government, the press, scientific institutions and especially the drug industry. He has promoted wild and debunked theories, suggesting AIDS could be caused by “poppers,” an inhaled drug popularized by gay men in the 1970s, rather than H.I.V. He backed a documentary asserting that the 2020 pandemic was a “plandemic” — an event orchestrated by the government as part of an effort to undermine American liberties.”
Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Susanne Craig and Rebecca Davis O’Brien;” Kennedy’s Inheritance: How Addiction and Trauma Shaped a Turbulent Life”; NYT; 29 November 2024.
“If he is confirmed, Mr. Kennedy would have sweeping control of a department with 80,000 employees across 13 operating divisions that run more than 100 programs. Its agencies regulate the food and medicine that Americans encounter in their daily lives, decide whether Medicare and Medicaid will pay for drugs and hospital treatments, guard against infectious diseases, and conduct billions of dollars of medical research into diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s.
Many Democrats and public health experts were appalled by Mr. Trump’s selection. Dr. Richard E. Besser, the chief executive of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and a former acting director of the C.D.C., said that having Mr. Kennedy in the health secretary job “would pose incredible risks to the health of the nation,” because Mr. Kennedy’s assault on the nation’s public health apparatus was worsening the mistrust lingering after the coronavirus pandemic. . .
Mr. Kennedy has spread false information about vaccines, including that they cause autism — a theory that has long been debunked. He has publicly contradicted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation that communities fluoridate their water to guard against tooth decay. . . He has embraced raw milk, despite the Food and Drug Administration’s warning that drinking it is risky, particularly amid a bird flu epidemic among dairy cows. And he has promoted hydroxychloroquine, a drug whose emergency authorization as a Covid-19 treatment was revoked by the Food and Drug Administration after a study of 821 people found it lacked effectiveness.”
Sheryl Gay Stolberg; “Trump Picks R.F.K. Jr. to Be Head of Health and Human Services Dept.” NYT November 14, 2024.
Kennedy will be assisted in “re-configuring” the health department by Dr. Mehmet Oz – who has been charged with running the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). This agency:
“oversee several of the country’s largest government programs, providing health coverage to more than 150 million Americans. They regulate health insurance and set policy that guides the prices that doctors, hospitals and drug companies are paid for many medical services. About a quarter of all federal spending runs through the centers. The centers are part of the Department of Health and Human Services, which also includes the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. . .
Dr. Oz, a heart surgeon and the son of Turkish immigrants, does not have experience running a large federal bureaucracy. . .
Dr. Oz has also frequently clashed with other medical experts. In the early days of the pandemic, he promoted the malaria drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to ward off the coronavirus, medicines that were shown to be ineffective in treating the virus. A decade ago, he went before a Senate panel and was chastised for hyping so-called miracle weight loss products without substantial proof that they worked…
Dr. Oz has weighed in on Medicare policy, helping to write a 2020 opinion column in Forbes arguing for a universal health coverage system, in which every American not covered by Medicaid would be enrolled in a private Medicare Advantage plan. The coverage expansion, the column said, would be financed by an “affordable 20 percent payroll tax,” and would eliminate employer health coverage and the government Medicare program…
The agency also oversees insurance marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare… Dr. Oz has supported the law’s goal of expanded health insurance coverage, though he has been critical of its details, characterizing it as a government takeover of the health care system.”
Noah Weil, Margot Sanger-Katz and Dani Blum; “Trump Plans to Nominate Dr. Mehmet Oz to Oversee Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare”; NYT November 19, 2024.
Kennedy and Oz will be joined by fellow “co-thinkers” – Dr. Martin A. Makary taking over charge of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and Dr. Dave Weldon, lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Since Makary opposed COVID shut-downs in favour of herd immunity; and Weldon mistakenly argued that vaccnations were causing autism through the use of thimerosal.
(Christina Jewett; “Dr. Martin Makary Chosen to Head the F.D.A.”; NYT November 22, 2024)
And not to be forgotten is Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, of the “Great Barrington Declaration”:
“A Stanford physician and economist whose authorship of an anti-lockdown treatise during the coronavirus pandemic made him a central figure in a bitter public health debate, to be the director of the National Institutes of Health. . . If confirmed by the Senate, Dr. Bhattacharya would lead the world’s premier medical research agency, with a $48 billion budget and 27 separate institutes and centers, each with its own research agenda, focusing on different diseases like cancer and diabetes. Dr. Bhattacharya, who is not a practicing physician, has called for overhauling the N.I.H. and limiting the power of civil servants who, he believes, played too prominent a role in shaping federal policy during the pandemic…
Dr. Bhattacharya is one of three lead authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, a manifesto issued in 2020 that contended that the virus should be allowed to spread among young healthy people who were “at minimal risk of death” and could thus develop natural immunity, while prevention efforts were targeted to older people and the vulnerable.
Through a connection with a Stanford colleague, Dr. Scott Atlas, who was advising Mr. Trump during his first term, Dr. Bhattacharya presented his views to Alex M. Azar II, Mr. Trump’s health secretary. The condemnation from the public health establishment was swift. Dr. Bhattacharya and his fellow authors were promptly dismissed as cranks whose “fringe” policy prescriptions would lead to millions of unnecessary deaths.
Dr. Bhattacharya also became a go-to witness in court cases challenging federal and state Covid policies. He joined a group of plaintiffs in suing the Biden administration over what he called “Covid censorship,” arguing that the administration violated the First Amendment in working with social media companies to tamp down on Covid misinformation.
He also argued against mask mandates for schoolchildren in Florida and Tennessee. Judges in both states dismissed him as unqualified to make medical pronouncements on the matter.
“His demeanor and tone while testifying suggest that he is advancing a personal agenda,” Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee wrote in 2021. . “
Sheryl Gay Stolberg; “Trump Picks Stanford Doctor Who Opposed Lockdowns to Head N.I.H.” NYT November 26, 2024.
We may over the next foreseeable 1-3 years, be facing a possible new pandemic from bird flu. If so, the anti-scientific views of Kennedy and his newly appointed co-workers, will become – as in the height of the COVID pandemic – frankly dangerous. (Zeynep Tufekci; “A Bird Flu Pandemic Would Be One of the Most Foreseeable Catastrophes in History”; NYT 29 November 2024)
Previously from a very early time-point in the COVID Pandemic, we exposed much of the mythology around COVID, vaccinations, herd immunity and dangerous views. We urged at that time that a scientific attitude to pandemics be adopted (For example, amongst other articles on this – see “How should Marxists view the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2019-2020?” March 14, 2020 and “Older People in Sweden Are Treated As Dispensable During the COVID-19 Pandemic”, December 30, 2020. and “Marxist Leninist Theses: The aftermath of the Corona virus (COVID-19) Health care crisis and short-term demands“; 29 March 2020). Many of these articles have considerations that are likely to become newly relevant.
Education: Linda McMahon:
“a former professional wrestling executive who ran the Small Business Administration for much of his first term (will -ed) lead the Education Department, an agency he has routinely singled out for elimination in his upcoming term. A close friend of Mr. Trump’s and a longtime booster of his political career, Ms. McMahon had been among his early donors leading up to his electoral victory in 2016. . . an executive with no teaching background or professional experience steering education policy, other than an appointment in 2009 to the Connecticut State Board of Education, where she served for just over a year.. .
But Ms. McMahon is likely to be assigned the fraught task of carrying out what is widely expected to be a thorough and determined dismantling of the department’s core functions. And she would assume the role at a time when school districts across the country are facing budget shortfalls, many students are not making up ground lost during the pandemic in reading and math, and many colleges and universities are shrinking and closing amid a larger loss of faith in the value of higher education.”
Zach Montague and Ana Swanson “Trump Chooses Longtime Ally Linda McMahon to Run Education Dept.”; NYT, 19 November 2024
Special note should also be made of these two ‘respectable’ individuals:
“Tom Homan, author of the family separation policy for arrested immigrants in the first Trump administration, will be “border czar.” Sebastian Gorka, a member of the Hungarian fascist Order of the Vitez, was booted out of the first Trump White House in 2017 because he was considered too extreme. He will be “terrorism adviser” in the second Trump White House.”
Patrick Martin; “Trump’s cabinet: A blueprint for authoritarian rule and social counter-revolution”; 24 November, 2024; World Socialist Website
3. Is the USA already a fascist USA state?
We will argue that the USA is not yet a fascist state. However, the Trump Presidency heralds an extreme right-wing turn, that ultimately facilitates the imposition of an explicit fascist form. At the very least it is preparing such an option. There are currently three major limitations. We briefly outline this below, after first providing a working definition of fascism.
Several definitions of fascism have been given over the years since the 1930s. We believe most Marxist-Leninists and socialists would accept that the core minimum features should include the following:
“1. Fascism is the open terrorist dictatorship of a reactionary ruling class exercised through a fascist political party having a mass base.
2. The ideology of fascism is based on appeals to racist and chauvinist prejudices, combined with demagogic “anti-capitalist” propaganda.
3. Fascism seeks to build its mass base primarily among the petty-bourgeoisie end lumpen-proletariat, but extended as far as is possible into the working class proper and its organisations.”
(“Theses on the anti-fascist united-front” by the Communist League, (Combat Number 1; March 1975; )
If these indeed remain correct – it must be asked if there is now a mass base already, that could serve as the foundation for fascism? We believe that this has not been formed yet. Although the Republican Party has been taken over, it has not been completely purged into a fascist party. Maybe this is not long in coming. But as yet, it has not happened. This is the first reason that calling the Trump Presidency from January on as an openly fascist government – is incorrect. For now.
Secondly, an organised fascist fighting military, has not yet been organised. Although some elements of this – such as ‘the Proud Boys’ – certainly do exist. Moreover the organised assault on the White House after Biden’s electoral victory, launched on January 6th 2021 – also shows this is able to be mustered at relatively short notice. Again it is not as of now, completely ready and tied in openly with the mass party. (“Capitol riots timeline: What happened on 6 January 2021?” BBC 2 August 2023)
Thirdly, we should be clear whether or not a majority of the capitalist class has come to the position of the need for fascism as of now. Going into the election, clearly Musk and Jeff Bezos led a large number of capitalists in giving open support to Trump. Moreover, since the electoral victory an increasing number of capitalists have made the trek to Mar-a-Lago resort home of Trump, to bend the knee – as Mark Zuckerberg of Meta did this last week. Despite the post-hoc fawning of the high tech capitalist sector’s leaders, this process is not yet complete. .As yet, it is not clear whether there is enough substantial concensus on the need to adopt full-blown fascism.
Conclusion We believe the three points above make the case that the working class and the left do not yet confront a fascist state. However as the economic crisis of the capitalist class deepens, this becomes ever more a possibility. Indeed this is exactly what ‘Project 2025’ envisages building. We believe that:
-Only a long series of united actions of the working class can prevent this move towards fascism;
-A united Marxist-Leninist party remains an essential part of resisting and then overcoming the fascist threat; -Only a socialist revolution can ensure a meaningful future for the working class
There follow two Appendices:
Appendix One: contains more details on the structure of the USA governmental bodies as constituted in 1787, and with that how the Electoral College works.
Appendix Two: discusses definitions of fascism of the ECCI and the Communist League (UK).
Appendix One :
Core structures of USA Government and the electoral college
This will briefly review the structure of the bicameral government. The electoral system is indirect – operating through the ‘Electoral College’ established because the ruling class in 1787 “distrusted” voters
The USA bourgeoisie laud the American Constitution as being an un-paralled expression of freedom. But the truth is rather more prosaic and pragmatic. Charles Beard pointed out it reflects the wishes of the capitalists of America to seal their newly successful rule:
“Inasmuch as the primary object of a government, beyond the mere repression of physical violence, is the making of rules which determine the property relations of members of society, the dominant classes whose rights are thus to be determined, must perforce obtain from the government such rights as are consonant with the larger interests necessary to the continuance of their economic process, or they must themselves control the organs of government.”
Charles Beard cited by Howard Zinn, NY 1990; ‘A People’s History of the US’; p. 89
What were the core structures of government as set up by the USA Constitution of 1787?
i) The Bicameral USA Government
Article one of the US Constitution specifies the powers of two chambers comprising the USA government. Two chambers make it a bicameral legislature.
An ‘upper chamber’ is termed the Senate. Each state has two Senators who are elected in general elections every two years. Its powers include treaty approvals; confiming Cabinet members, judges, ambassadors and other federal officials; and holding trials of impeached officials. The Vice-President presides over its 100 members, with 50 states each having 2 senators.
Senate – Wikipedia
The lower chamber is the House of Representatives. These members are also elected.
Each represent a congressional district in each state. The total number of districts per state are allocated according to their population size in the Census. Currently there are 435 voting members. It is presided over by the Speaker who is elected by the members of the House. Its powers include passing federal laws in the form of Bills which include all revenue Bills; impeaching federal officers and electing the President in case of a hung Electoral College. House of Representatives. Wikipedia
ii) What is the USA electoral college?
The new ruling class of the USA following the ejection of the British, certainly wanted no surprises to their final success at achieving state power. The popular revolt against the occupying English colonial government, had unleashed the peoples’ imaginations. But for the ruling class ‘freedom’ had definite limits, and the people were not to be trusted.
Hence the USA electoral system was set up in the 1787 Constitution, in order to oppose proposals for direct elections. The solution of an electoral college was arrived at only after long deliberations:
“The Electoral College had been the product of long agonizing debate in the Constitutional Convention (of 1787 – Ed). Some delegates had proposed direct election by the people. But others wondered, once Washington had served, how the people would know whom to vote for outside of the notables in their own state… Others suggested that Congress… would know… should elect the Congress. But… this would make the President dependent on the Congress.. an alternative Congress of independent electors would have the sole and exclusive responsibility for electing the president every 4 years.”
Gordon S. Wood; “Empire of Liberty – A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815”; New York 2009; p. 209-210.
“At the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton suggested a President and Senate chosen for life. The Convention did not take his suggestion, But neither did it provide for popular elections, except in the case of the House of Representatives, where the qualifications were set by the state legislatures (which required property-holding for voting in almost all the states), and excluded sowmen, Indians, slaves. The constitution provided for the President to be elected by electors chosen by the state legislators, and for the Supreme Court to be appointed by the President.”
Howard Zinn, NY 1990; “A People’s History of the US”; p. 95
To summarise, the Electoral College was an expression of the Constitutional framers’ distrust in the ability of the people to make ‘sound choices’. It set up in effect, an “elite bulwark”:
“Brown University professor of political science Wendy Schiller explained the choice of an electoral college system more than 200 years ago was rooted in a distrust of citizens to make a reasoned choice: “The origins of the electoral college were not supposed to reflect voter opinion at all – it was to be a gate against making a bad choice. It was an elite bulwark against popular opinion.”
US election: how does the electoral college voting system work?
The Conversation, November 4, 2024
iii) How the Electoral College operates
The complex system is a surrogate of the voter’s direct vote. It was adopted into Constitution by Article Two. It follows these basic rules:
– There are a total of 538 ‘electoral votes’. Each state has one for each U.S. senator and U.S. representative, plus three for Washington, D.C.,
– The ‘electors’ cannot be Senators or Representatives, but are drawn from a list of trusted members who commit to their party’s choice for President before the General Election. The state party conventions or party central committees pick the electors.
– All but two states have a “winner-takes-all rule” so whichever Presidential candidate gets the highest number of votes obtains all its electoral college votes.
– The electoral college meets in December after the November Presidential elections – held four-yearly. It votes for the President and the vice-president – largely but not necessarily – on the basis of the votes that have been cast by the whole voting population in the general election.
– A simple majority of these state general electoral votes (270 or more) then should assure the electoral college vote. The electoral college, then, is really an endorsement, marking the simple majority choice of the President and Vice-President.
– These votes do not necessarily align with the percent of the vote accruing to the Presidential candidate directly – known as the so-called ‘popular vote’.
– Historically the electors have – largely – followed the general electorate’s wishes (but see below).
Wikipedia and Domenico Montanaro; “Who Are Electors And How Do They Get Picked?; and NPR, December 14, 2020 and;
“A really simple guide to the presidential vote” BBC 7 November 2024
iv) The flaws of the electoral college system within bourgeois democracy
At the start, we outlined how the system was built to hold in check possible candidates who posed a threat to the ruling class. Naturally therefore, a direct democracy vote of the electorate would be superior from the point of view of the working class.
On two occasions since 2000, the popular vote did not align with the electoral college decision. In 2000 and 2016, the Republicans won the White House despite lower popular votes. The person with the most votes didn’t win. Both times — in 2000 and 2016 — it was the Republican candidate who got fewer votes but ended up in the White House. (Mara Liasson, “A Growing Number Of Critics Raise Alarms About The Electoral College”; June 10, 2021; NPR).
In addition, less populated states have relatively higher votes since smaller states have the same number of electoral votes as do more heavily populated states:
“Harvard University political scientist Gautam Mukunda (argues -ed) that each state gets electors based on its representation in the House and Senate, which means small states get extra votes – “The fact that in presidential elections people in Wyoming have [nearly four] times the power of people in California is antithetical at the most basic level to what we say we stand for as a democracy.” Mara Liasson, “A Growing Number Of Critics Raise Alarms About The Electoral College”; June 10, 2021; NPR
Finally, there are a few states in the USA that are so-called swing states or battleground states. These are ones where there is a particular vulnerability to potentially small shifts in votes being able to contest the popular vote. As argued by Jesse Wegman – author of ‘Let the People Pick the President’:
“In 2020, despite the 7 million-vote victory that Joe Biden won in the popular vote … a 45,000 votes switch in the three key battleground states (could have meant – ed) a second term of Donald Trump,” … the entire outcome of the election ride (could have hinged) on 45,000 votes in three random states… a huge, glaring vulnerability.”
Mara Liasson, “A Growing Number Of Critics Raise Alarms About The Electoral College”; June 10, 2021; NPR Ibid
Nonetheless – despite these evident flaws, the system has withstood thus far 700 attempts at reform:
“Since 1800, over 700 proposals to reform or eliminate the system have been introduced in Congress. Proponents of these proposals argued that the electoral college system does not provide for direct democratic election, affords less-populous states an advantage, and allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the most votes. “
Electoral College at Wikipedia accessed 28 November 2024
Appendix Two.
Amendments to the Communist League 1975 and 1976 definitions on fascism
We believe the “Theses on the anti-fascist united-front” by the Communist League, remain largely correct:
“1. Fascism is the open terrorist dictatorship of a reactionary ruling class exercised through a fascist political party having a mass base.
2. The ideology of fascism is based on appeals to racist and chauvinist prejudices, combined with demagogic “anti-capitalist” propaganda.
3. Fascism seeks to build its mass base primarily among the petty- bourgeoisie end lumpen-proletariat, but extended as far as is possible into the working class proper and its organisations.” (Combat Number 1; March 1975)
That largely endorses the ECCI definition, which distinguishes a fascist dictatorship from a military dictatorship representing the interests of the same reactionary class or classes. A fascist dictatorship makes use of an organised social base, particularly among the petty bourgeoisie. That ECCI definition was:
“Fascism is the open, terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital. Fascism tries to secure a mass basis for monopolist capital among the petty bourgeoisie,. . .also trying to penetrate the working class”.
(Theses on Fascism, the War Danger and the Tasks of the Communist Parties; 13th Plenum ECCI; In J.Degras (Ed.): “The Communist International: 1919-1943; Documents”, Volume 3; Oxford, 1965; p.296).”
Cited Communist League “The Nature of Fascism”; 1976 )
However, the Communist League argued in 1976 that this ECCI definition warranted amending, because
(i) Fascism had been established in countries where full finance capitalism had not been fully established such as in Italy, and even more so in Spain and Portugal;
(ii) fascism did not only depend on ‘elements’ of finance capital – but the whole of the monopoly capitalist class.
We agree with these two points.
However, we also disagree with one part of a clause contained in the 1976 CL formulation. In that it included Germany as being one of the countries where “where finance capitalism did not yet exist”. We believe this was an error.
We therefore amend the original 1976 formulation to remove the mention of Germany. With that amendment – we follow this wording in the formulation:
“ the Communist League was forced to note that fascist dictatorships had been installed not only in countries, such as Italy where finance capitalism did not yet exist, but also in certain countries, such as Spain and Portugal, where the capitalist revolution had not yet been completed where political power lay in the hands of large landowners and comprador capitalists, and where the dictatorship was directed as much against the national capitalists and their revolutionary movement as against the working class.
For this reason, the Communist League defined fascism more broadly than had been done by the ECCI, as
“the open terrorist dictatorship of a reactionary ruling class, exercised through a fascist political party having a mass base. . . Fascism seeks to build its mass base primarily among the petty bourgeoisie and lumpen-proletariat, but extended as far as possible into the working class proper and its organisations”.
(Communist League: Theses on the Anti-Fascist United Front, in: “COMbat” March 1975; p.30).
Even, however, when finance capitalist (imperialist) countries alone are considered, this definition differs from that of the ECCI. The latter presents fascism as the dictatorship of “certain elements” of finance capital, namely:
“the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital”.
From the ECCI definition, therefore, it would follow that there are “other elements” of finance capital – “less reactionary, less chauvinist and less imperialist” elements – whose interests are not represented by the fascist dictatorship and who form a social base objectively opposed to fascism.
But the attempt to impose a fascist dictatorship is made – as will be discussed later – when the parliamentary facade of the capitalist state can no longer function in the interests of monopoly capital. At this time, therefore, the replacement of “parliamentary democracy” by a fascist dictatorship is objectively in the interests of monopoly capital. At this time therefore, the replacement of “parliamentary democracy” by a fascist dictatorship is objectively in the interests of the capitalist class as a whole. “
2024 Amendment of “The Nature of Fascism” Communist League; 1976
