The narrow margin that once existed has now substantially widened. The Democratic Party has transformed into the last barrier preventing the United States from yielding to autocracy. As of a month ago, their hold appeared tenuous and deteriorating but during the Chicago meeting last week, it appeared as insurmountable as a forceful barrier.
Echoing Trump’s followers’ call to “Build the Wall”, it could be argued that the opposing side has accomplished that, constructing a formidable blockade separating democracy and authoritarianism.
I attended the Democratic National Convention last week, documenting it for the New York Review of Books. The experience was akin to plunging into a sea of ecstasy. The massive United Centre reverberated with an energy reminiscent of its prime days hosting Michael Jordan or U2 concerts.
There were moments where you had to remind yourself of the gravity of the event; it wasn’t merely a spectacular performance or an exciting match. This was a pivotal point in the fight for the resilience of democracy in this century. The juxtaposition of the sheer jubilance radiating from the event and the serious stakes involved felt, at times, rather overwhelming.
This vibrant energy was the manifestation of relief from a potential impending disaster. This same party had been stagnant during the early part of a crucial election year, eerily silent as they anticipated the impending downfall of the American republic.
While Trump was overtly spouting rhetoric vilifying immigrants, and his allies prepared plans to diminish rights of women and labour, assembled detainment camps for ‘illegal’ immigrants, and substitute the civil service personnel with pro-party followers, Democrats seemed reluctant to accept the unequivocal truth. They hesitated to address what Joe Biden latterly admitted: his age disqualified him for presidency.
However, history unfurls itself in unforeseen ways. Without Biden’s initiative for an early debate with Trump in June, and Trump reciprocating that challenge, or if Biden hadn’t suffered a complete meltdown, would the Chicago meeting have had the same atmosphere last week? Perhaps it would’ve been filled with strained smiles and doggedly determined speakers, falsely boasting about Biden’s impending victory in November, while they, and everyone present, knew it was a hollow claim.
While the Democrats have been known for their stagnation, they’ve recently countered this with a reaction that’s equal in strength and direction. Following Biden’s decision to not run again, the past month has demonstrated an exceptional seizing of the moment. The convention I witnessed showcased a powerful exhibition of unity, steered by Kamala Harris’s radiant energy and Tim Walz’s fatherly charisma, all driven by a determined resolve.
This is an intense obsession; the main goal is to defeat Trump, and there will be no room for de-railing or distractions. It was clear from the convention that this mood was not imposed from above, but was widespread.
Though the overall consensus can evoke euphoria, it may not always be pleasant to witness. This because such unity, practically necessitates disregarding the woes of Gaza as merely inconvenient disturbances. Demonstrations reading out the names of deceased children were kept at a safe distance from the venue. Small-scale protests emanating from within the convention were swiftly muted, not by security, but by their own peers.
No representatives advocating for Palestine were given a platform, James Ocasio Cortez and Bernie Sanders, known critics of Israel’s deeds, tampered their objections to fit more closely with the party line, a line that offers only sympathy to Gazans and nothing concrete.
Curiously, the Democrats’ intense unity in this respect made them reflect Republicans more, although not in a way that mirrors Trump’s singular leadership style. Unlike Trump, Harris shared the spotlight with notable figures like Michelle and Barack Obama, and Oprah Winfrey.
However, there was an uncanny imitation of unyielding fidelity in Chicago similar to the Republicans. The Blues were driven by the same tribal impulse as the Reds. The mustering of members frequently appeared literal – a procession of orators boastfully referencing their military service while chants of “USA! USA! USA!” punctuated each evening’s presentation, planned or not.
Yet, victory remains the end goal. A victory that requires a black female at the helm, signalling overcoming long-standing racial and gender bias ingrained deep within American and global history.
Racism along with misogyny occupy a curious position in our modern society. Such attitudes, when expressed overtly, serve to repel rather than rally voters, as evidenced by Trump’s recent attempts to revive his Birther strategy against Harris, initiated originally against Obama, and JD Vance’s remarks that seem to deter undecided voters. But what happens with the more concealed underlying biases? How deeply ingrained are they? In my experiences in Chicago, it remains unclear. The location of such biases is unknown. If it is limited to current Trump supporters, it won’t impact the election outcome. However, if it can prevent a significant number of white blue-collar workers in Michigan or Wisconsin from heeding their unions’ advice to vote for Harris, the electoral consequences could be enormous.
The focus of attention must now be on the prize, the election. This struggle is fierce and will only grow more vicious as Trump’s desperation steadily escalates. His only possible course of action will be to undermine Harris’s legitimacy, not simply personally, but as an embodiment of certain individuals. The insinuation being those who do not fit the prototype of heterosexual, Caucasian, Christian men cannot be true Americans. This, of course, implies that most Americans (who aren’t heterosexual white Christian males) aren’t truly American.
It would be comforting to see space for more inclusivity in the face of such an imminent threat to various individuals’ sense of belonging. However, in a fortress mentality, openings that admit light can also open the gates to potentially catastrophic weaknesses.