We’re already well into 2023, and many politicians, including the current president Joe Biden, have declared their intention to run in the upcoming 2024 presidential election. The American people will have endured four years of economic decline and imperialist warmongering carried out by their government. In other words, by 2024 many will be eager for the opportunity to select a less incompetent president, or at least someone they consider the “lesser of two evils.” Even if average Americans had as much influence over government policy as our economic elites, would electing any of the candidates currently running actually result in a positive outcome?
Apart from Joe Biden, Marianne Williamson and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have also declared their candidacy as Democratic candidates for the upcoming presidential election. While Williamson previously sought the Democratic nomination in 2020, her campaign failed to gain significant traction and has not garnered much attention this time around either. On the other hand, RFK Jr. has received considerable media coverage since announcing his presidential run earlier this year. Fortunately for Biden, this time around the aging president won’t have to contend with debating other Democratic candidates. Symone Sanders, the former spokesperson for Kamala Harris, recently revealed that there simply won’t be a Democratic party primary for the 2024 election.
Instead of debating RFK Jr. on the substance of his positions, the liberal mainstream media have smeared him as an “anti-vaxxer” and “conspiracy theorist” for his criticisms of Anthony Fauci and the COVID-19 vaccine. Long before publishing “The Real Anthony Fauci” in 2021, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. established Children’s Health Defense and became an advocate for individuals who have experienced vaccine injuries. He also founded Waterkeeper Alliance, where he served as an environmental lawyer and advocate. Kennedy’s alignment with the Democratic Party extends beyond environmental concerns; he has consistently supported Hillary Clinton and even helped promote the Russiagate conspiracy theory as an explanation for her election loss. One might assume that this would earn him some modicum of support from the Democratic Party. But it turned out that his highlighting the crimes of their Lord and Savior Dr. Fauci, thereby sowing distrust in The Science, was one step too far.
Even more unforgivable than RFK Jr’s attacks on The Science were Donald Trump’s attacks on Faith in Our Democracy. Trump was arrested in early April for allegedly falsifying business documents related to payments that he made “to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.” In addition to these charges, Trump was ordered this past Wednesday to pay $5 million in damages to E. Jean Carroll after being held liable for defamation and sexual abuse. If this judgement wasn’t politically motivated, and the US criminal justice system does indeed fight even for those women abused by wealthy, powerful politicians, then where is the justice for Biden’s victim, Tara Reade? The corporate media when unable to ignore Reade has gone on the attack, slandering and even doxxing her.
According to a recent NBC News survey conducted approximately two weeks after Trump’s arrest, nearly 70% of Republican voters still maintain their support for the former president. Trump’s loyal and substantial base likely sees his arrest as yet another instance where both the Democratic Political Apparatus and the Republican neocons are using him as a convenient scapegoat. While neoconservatism has lost favor among Republicans over the past decade, a few neoconservatives within the party, like Asa Hutchinson, are attempting to regain the influence they had during the Bush era. Hutchinson, a former administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the first undersecretary for border and transportation security, recently authored an op-ed published on CNN. In his piece, he combines his criticisms of Trump with an advertisement for his own presidential campaign. Hutchinson contends that Trump “has eroded the foundations of our democracy” by challenging the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and encouraging the events of January 6, 2021. Throughout the op-ed, Hutchinson pays homage to neoconservative policies and values, such as Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength” doctrine and the notion that the United States remains a beacon of freedom that both the American people and the so-called “international community” can rely on for leadership.
Given the significant support Donald Trump enjoys among Republican voters, it’s not surprising that other contenders for the Republican presidential nomination are not reviving the same “Never Trump” rhetoric akin to the Lincoln Project. Nikki Haley, who previously served as ambassador to the United Nations under Trump, holds the belief that her former boss is unfit for the presidency, but not for the typical reasons espoused by Democrats or neoconservatives. Rather, Haley attributes her concerns to Trump’s advanced age, as she herself is a quarter-century younger. To address this, Haley proposed mandatory mental competency tests for politicians aged 75 and above. A YouGov poll revealed that 60% of registered voters express concerns about Biden’s age, while 45% have similar concerns about Trump’s age. The other two Republican presidential candidates, Larry Elder and Vivek Ramaswamy, would be exempt from Haley’s proposed mental competency tests. Elder, at 71 years old, just barely meets the age threshold, while Ramaswamy, the lone Millennial candidate among Democrats and Republicans, may enjoy an advantage among voters who place particular importance on a candidate’s age as a determinant of fitness for the presidency.
In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding actions taken in response to it, the American working class has grown progressively discontented with a declining standard of living. This discontent has led to an increased interest in various political issues, prompting individuals to participate in protests, join unions, or even engage in more political discourse through online memes while confined to their homes. When voters make their decisions at the ballot box next year, they will undoubtedly consider many of these concerns. Whether it pertains to the economy, foreign policy, immigration, or cultural matters, presidential candidates will meticulously shape their messages to resonate with voters’ probable viewpoints on these subjects, just as they have done in previous elections.
Economic conditions have deteriorated to such an extent in recent years that it’s become obvious even to those uninvolved in working class politics. Child labor has been on the rise, with additional states moving to follow Kentucky’s decision this year to legalize it. More states are divesting from public K-12 education under the guise of expanding “school choice.” Drug cartels are exacerbating the drug addiction and overdose crisis. Meanwhile, an ever growing number of Americans find they are unable to afford basic necessities like housing and food. The majority of Americans now live paycheck-to-paycheck, including half of those who earn $100,000 or more per year. Since the economy for workers has been in decline regardless of which half of this corporate duopoly is in power, politicians have plenty of opportunities to blame “the other side.”
Politicians often discuss the economy and foreign policy in a similar manner, employing strategies such as denying their own mistakes or placing blame on the opposing party. Once in power, the “opposition” tends to adopt the very same practices as the previous ruling party. In the past year, Republicans who position themselves as anti-establishment have been more inclined to align with critics of US involvement in the Ukraine conflict, much like certain Democrats supported opponents of the Iraq war during the Bush era. Despite occasional anti-war rhetoric from media personalities and politicians, both parties ultimately tend to support the decisions made by the Pentagon when it comes time to generate public approval for yet another protracted military engagement.
Democratic politicians have faced criticism for promoting harmful and divisive “luxury beliefs” – ideas and opinions which the professional managerial class and the ruling class use to signal their higher status to others with little to no cost to themselves, while taking a toll on the working class – that have resulted in alienating key segments of their traditional voter base. This has provided Republicans an opportunity to gain support by taking an opposing stance in the culture wars. Black Democrats are significantly less likely than Democrats of other racial backgrounds to embrace the concept of changing one’s biological sex. Additionally, the term “Latinx” is widely viewed by Latinos as more offensive than inclusive. More in the LGBT community are speaking out about the rampant abuse of children done increasingly in their name. Women are also pushing back against influential and affluent biological males who are encroach on women’s single-sex spaces and demand that healthcare providers and educators use language which they argue erases women, and sending their shock troops to commit acts of terrorism against anyone who dares oppose them.
The Democratic Party’s promotion of the ideology known as “wokeism” has been as a way for powerful factions of capital to present themselves as more inclusive. However, ironically, this approach is now generating a growing backlash known as “anti-woke” sentiment. Vivek Ramaswamy, a former biotech CEO who currently serves as the executive chairman of an asset management company, has expressed opposition to the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles in corporate investment strategies. It is worth noting that Ramaswamy’s studies at Yale were funded by The Paul & Daisy Soros Fellowships for New Americans, an inconvenient fact that contrasts with his self-proclaimed identity as a proud “anti-woke” capitalist.
In evaluating the candidates, there may be instances where one is perceived as the “lesser evil” compared to the other. RFK Jr at least acknowledges that Ukraine has served as a geopolitical pawn by the US to weaken Russia, already certainly a much more honest and intelligent stance than Joe Biden’s position. However, RFK Jr ultimately adopts a “both sides are bad” approach, overlooking the rise of the fascist junta in Kiev in 2014 and Russia’s subsequent response in 2022 aimed at denazifying and demilitarizing Ukraine. He criticizes Russia’s “brutal invasion” of Ukraine while praising the courage of the Ukrainians who resist Russia. RFK Jr’s proposed solution involves withdrawing both US and Russian troops from Ukraine and deploying UN peacekeepers to the Donbass region. This proposal disregards the fact that the UN is largely still controlled by the collective West, which has an interest in maintaining the deeply corrupt regime in Kiev. As always, American bourgeois democracy presents voters with two choices: either maintaining the status quo or selecting their preferred form of tightly-controlled opposition. We workers are permitted to choose between blue or red-flavored oligarchy.