Trump vs. Harris–What Difference Does It Make?

The recent U.S. election pitted the duopoly’s 2 party tyranny against each other, ultimately leading to Donald Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris. This marks Trump’s historic return to power in a landslide victory, as he aims to continue his policies in line with his previous agenda as he attempts to placate the working class. However, had Harris won, her administration would have likely have continued the legacy of the Obama and Biden administrations. 

Culture Wars And 2-Faced Grifting

The 2024 election saw both parties weaponizing “the culture war” to distract from systemic inequalities under late-stage capitalism, preserving ruling-class hegemony. Harris’ campaign mirrored this dynamic, emphasizing abortion rights and identity politics while ignoring working-class material needs. Her alignment with corporate donors and Bush-era war hawks alienated progressives, as did her inability to distance herself from Biden-era policies. Attempts to manipulate media narratives further eroded trust such as manipulating news coverage to appear more favorable, and symbolic failures, like Beyoncé’s bait and switch concert-less rally appearance, indicative of the hollowness of Harris’ campaign’s promises. Trump’s campaign softened stances on abortion and gender-affirming care to court moderates, only to revert to stricter policies post-election, while the revelation of Vice President-elect J.D. Vance’s drag photo highlighted GOP hypocrisy, exposing their performative outrage and efforts to suppress class unity.

By weaponizing cultural debates, from abortion to transgender rights, both candidates obscured their allegiance to capitalist exploitation and imperialist agendas. This bipartisan focus on identity over systemic change reinforced the need for revolutionary class struggle to dismantle structures of oppression and achieve true liberation.

Missteps and Misdirection: Trump’s Victory and Harris’s Failure

Trump’s victory demonstrated his ability to channel working-class dissatisfaction into right-wing populism by focusing on issues like inflation and immigration while avoiding major missteps. His campaign emphasized economic growth as well as crackdowns on immigration, drugs and human trafficking, effectively resonating with voter concerns. In contrast, Harris struggled with vague rhetoric, flip flops, a lack of distinct policy proposals, and close alignment with Biden’s unpopular agenda, which alienated undecided voters and failed to energize progressive factions, particularly Gen Z, frustrated by her inaction on Palestine, student debt, and climate change.

Harris’s defeat underscored the Democratic Party’s struggles to address internal divisions and connect with the working class. Her frequent word salads, the campaign’s manipulation of media coverage to appear more favorable, and polarizing endorsements, such as from Liz and Dick Cheney, further eroded her appeal. Meanwhile, Trump’s calculated strategy, including outreach to minorities and appearances on platforms like Joe Rogan’s podcast, bolstered his populist image and masked the contradictions in his policies.

Harris’s campaign reflects the failures of neoliberal governance, offering token reforms while reinforcing systemic inequality and signaling continuity with Biden’s pro-corporate and imperialist agenda. Her aggressive courting of the Israel lobby, including a private meeting with Netanyahu after symbolically skipping his congressional address, exposed the gap between her rhetoric and actions, raising doubts about her commitment to balanced Middle East policies. Her remark, “there is not a thing that comes to mind,” when asked how she would differ from Biden, underscored a lack of meaningful change or vision. These missteps deepened disillusionment among minorities and anti-war progressives opposed to neoliberal imperialism, leaving her unable to inspire key constituencies.

Trump Cabinet

Trump’s victory was bolstered by his grip on Republican leadership, but leaked dossiers on figures like J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio, his pick for Secretary of State, exposed internal GOP divisions. Rubio and Vance’s past critiques of Trump’s foreign policy and “Never Trump” stances reflect a party split between MAGA’s hawkish conservatism and populism. Trump’s cabinet choices—Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence, Susie Wiles as Chief of Staff, and Lee Zeldin for EPA—signal loyalty and priorities like immigration enforcement, national security, and federal power reduction. Key picks including Pam Bondi for Attorney General, John Ratcliffe for CIA, Pete Hegseth for Defense, Mike Huckabee as Ambassador to Israel, Elise Stefanik for the UN and Dr Sebastian Gorka for Director of NS Policy are indicative of his bold hardline, pro-Zionist agenda. Kash Patel for the FBI Director, while Gen. Keith Kellogg is set to take on the role of Special Envoy to Russia/Ukraine. Rick Scott is the favorite for Senate Majority Leader. Mike Waltz is the choice for National Security Council (NSC) Advisor, with Alex Wong to be Deputy NSC Advisor. Howard Lutnick is tapped for Commerce Secretary, and Matt Whitaker for U.S. Ambassador to NATO. Additionally, Doug Burgum will hold the dual role of Secretary of the Interior and a newly created position on the National Security Council. Marty Makary is tapped for FDA and RFK Jr. for HHS.

Economic Policy

Economic instability dominated the 2024 election, with rising housing, energy, and food costs leaving many Americans struggling. With 60% of the population living paycheck to paycheck and homeownership increasingly out of reach, economic frustration spanned party lines. Trump’s platform appealed to working-class voters by promising no taxes on tips, eliminating Social Security taxes for retirees, and making his 2017 tax cuts permanent. However, his tax cuts and tariffs offer little tangible relief for the working class, as tariffs risk negating any potential benefits. Biden’s continuation of many Trump-era tariffs failed to improve stagnant economic conditions.

Harris emphasized progressive tax and regulatory policies but shared some positions with Trump, particularly on tax cuts, tariffs and immigration. While Trump’s tax policies and tariffs might provide short-term gains, their long-term effects risk exacerbating inflation. Despite failing to address systemic economic instability, Trump’s messaging resonated with voters seeking relief from rising costs. Harris, on the other hand, failed to convince voters she’d fix the economy, limiting her appeal.

Trump’s economic plans included curbing government spending through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, to audit federal agencies and recommend cuts. Musk’s approach prioritized deregulation and cost-cutting, threatening vital social programs for the working class. Trump also pledged to fire or relocate over 100,000 federal employees, especially in Washington, D.C., replacing them with loyalists to reduce the federal workforce and advance his agenda. Neither candidate addressed the root cause of economic hardship: the capitalist system itself. Both campaigns ignored the exploitation inherent in privately owned means of production, leaving the working class to choose between two agents of bourgeois domination.

The Role of Imperialism In Foreign Policy

Foreign policy emerged as a central issue in the election, with both candidates reinforcing U.S. imperialist tendencies. Harris, closely aligned with Biden’s pro-Israel stance, alienated Arab-American and progressive voters. Her misattribution of Israeli captives’ deaths to Hamas, coupled with her continued support for sanctions on Iran and arms shipments to Ukraine, deepened frustrations. 

Trump’s “Ukraine Peace Plan,” proposing a “frozen conflict” similar to the Korean demilitarized zone, is unrealistic and unacceptable to Russia. Trump’s posturing towards the military-industrial complex persists, as shown by his $500 billion “Lend-Lease” proposal, despite advocating for diplomacy with Russia. Whereas, Biden’s pro-Israel stance and enabling of Gaza genocide alienated young, progressive, and Muslim voters, particularly in swing states like Michigan. Trump’s critiques of Biden’s foreign policy were undermined by his cabinet selections, which signaled a continuation of U.S. hegemony.

Trump engaged in various foreign policy blunders during his first term, including the renewed Russia sanctions, lethal aid to Ukraine, the assassination of Qassem Soleimani and continued sanctions as well as escalatory attacks on Syria, undermining his peace narrative. His rhetoric on peace, particularly regarding Iran, is at odds with such actions, although he recently critiqued sanctions and defended Iran’s sovereignty saying “we can’t rule ourselves,” when asked about regime change, his stance on Iran remains hawkish. His support for Israel, particularly the Iron Dome, (advocating the U.S. should obtain such a system) complicates his non-interventionist claims. Establishment concerns about the U.S.-NATO relations persist, but full withdrawal is unlikely. 

Trump’s return to power could reshape US relations with Russia, China, and Hamas, signaling potential cooperation, while Israel celebrated his reelection. However, his tariff plans risk straining relations with China and U.S. allies, undermining promises of improved cooperation. His ongoing support for Israel, exposes the tension between Trump’s rhetoric and his imperialist commitments.

Different Candidates, Same Outcome 

Despite their contrasting platforms, Trump and Harris ultimately served establishment interests, reflecting the growing influence of oligarchs and the military-industrial complex on domestic and foreign policy. Trump campaigned on deregulation, tax cuts, and border security, while Harris focused on social justice, reproductive rights, and climate policy. Both, however, adopted restrictive immigration stances, with Harris advocating for Trump-era measures like stricter border enforcement and limited asylum options. 

The response to Harris’s loss showcases this shared agenda, as some liberals celebrated Trump’s immigration policies and called for mass deportations of Latinos, while celebrating Israel’s actions in Palestine. Such rhetoric obscures the capitalist system’s abusive measures, which coerce workers into accepting worsening labor conditions. Even financial leaders, like BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, acknowledged the sameness of both candidates, stating, “I’m tired of hearing this is the biggest election in your lifetime. The reality is, over time, it doesn’t matter.” Therefore dismissing the election's relevance as markets remain indifferent to electoral outcomes as long-term capitalist trends persist.

Trump’s immigration and foreign policy rhetoric concealed his administration’s role as a tool of bourgeois power, exploiting divisions within the working class to secure swing-state victories. His dominance in the Rust Belt, rather than marginal support from minority blocs, secured his win and reinforced the two-party system. Harris, lacking a distinct economic vision and aligning with establishment priorities, struggled to inspire progressive voters, and failed to differentiate herself from Biden.

Implications for Revolutionary Struggle

The 2024 election underscored the failure of the bipartisan capitalist system to address the working class’s needs. Harris’s campaign, defined by cultural appeals and establishment endorsements, alienated progressives while reinforcing elite allegiance, symbolized by bait and switch appeals like Beyoncé’s concert-less endorsement.Trump’s victory, fueled by disillusionment with the Democratic status quo, reflected a desire for change but offered no real alternative, as his policies entrenched capitalist exploitation and imperialist dominance.

This dynamic reflects the urgency for a Marxist-Leninist movement such as The American Communist Party (ACP). True liberation requires rejecting the Democratic-Republican binary, dismantling capitalist structures, and building a unified proletarian movement rooted in revolutionary principles to achieve socialist transformation.