_edited.png)
Joshua Foster explores the factors which contributed to Kamala Harris' defeat and explores the lessons which other countries could learn from the 2024 US election results.
Kamala Harris’ defeat isn’t just about one candidate’s campaign; it’s a reflection of a broken political system that’s stopped listening to its people. For many on the left, her loss was all too predictable. Harris’ campaign—and much of the Democratic establishment—stuck to a bland, corporate-friendly centrism that simply doesn’t cut it for Americans facing daily crises.
From sidestepping demands for universal healthcare to ignoring calls for justice in Palestine, Harris’ approach was too cautious, too compromised, and too out of touch. Here’s why, from a socialist perspective, she was never really in the running.
Identity Over Substance
Yes, Kamala Harris is a “first”—the first woman, the first South Asian and first Black Vice President. But for many, her identity alone wasn’t enough. Representation without real change can feel hollow, especially to working-class people of colour facing crushing healthcare bills, housing crises, and poverty wages.
Harris promised to be a leader for change but avoided the bold policies needed to deliver it. Her reforms were light touches on deep problems, leaving many feeling that while her identity was historic, her impact on people’s lives would be anything but.
Weak Healthcare Vision
Healthcare in America is a mess. Millions can’t afford it, and those who can are often buried under mountains of medical debt. Yet instead of pushing for universal healthcare, Harris offered a “public option” that left voters cold. It felt like a half-hearted patch on a system that’s failing spectacularly.
Socialists see healthcare as a human right, not a privilege for the few. Harris’ reluctance to back Medicare for All sent a clear message: she wasn’t ready to stand up to the healthcare industry or deliver the life-changing policy millions were crying out for.
Turning a Blind Eye to Palestinian Suffering
Harris’ silence on Palestine was another dealbreaker. While the world increasingly recognises the brutal conditions Palestinians face and the continuing horrors of genocide they have been put through, Harris’ stuck to the party line, backing billions in U.S. military aid for Israel’s oppressive regime.
For a left that values global justice, her refusal to stand against Israel’s actions was a major let-down. It signalled that, once again, the Democratic Party’s loyalty lies with powerful lobbies over the lives of the oppressed. For young Americans growing up with a global perspective, this was yet another sell-out.
Weak on Climate Action
The climate crisis is here, and it’s an emergency for young people everywhere. While Harris made some noises about climate change, her commitment to bold action never seemed solid. Her support for the Green New Deal waned, and her campaign fell back on market-friendly adjustments that felt woefully inadequate.
For the left, her climate stance seemed to lack the necessary urgency. The planet is on fire, yet Harris’ climate policies felt like tinkering around the edges. Voters wanted fossil fuel companies held accountable and serious green jobs. Harris offered lukewarm compromises.
A Troubled Record on Justice
Harris’ past as a prosecutor became a major sticking point, especially at a time when the Black Lives Matter movement continues to demand real change. In California, Harris championed policies that punished struggling families, resisted police accountability, and slowed down sentencing reform.
The left wants real justice reform, not just rhetoric. Harris' record made her seem like a part of the very system activists are fighting against. For those who see America’s criminal justice system as structurally oppressive, Harris simply didn’t seem like the ally they needed.
A Failure to Inspire
In the end, Harris struggled to inspire and mobilise the coalition she needed: young people, working-class communities, Black and Latino voters, and progressives. Her campaign’s message was more about opposing the Republicans than championing a bold vision for the future.
For the left, Harris’ loss is yet another reminder that the Democratic Party is losing touch with its base. If it keeps sidelining progressive voices and grassroots movements, it risks further alienating the very people it needs to turn out in future elections.
The Path Forward
Kamala Harris’ defeat isn’t just a rejection of one candidate; it’s a call for something new. Her loss shows that identity can’t substitute for real, progressive policies. For many, the Democratic Party’s brand of safe, centrist politics feels increasingly out of touch in a world in crisis.
If the party is to succeed, it needs to offer an agenda that champions universal healthcare, real economic reform, bold climate action, and justice for all. America’s left—and progressive movements globally—want leadership that fights for people, not profits. Harris’ campaign didn’t deliver that, and her loss reflects a growing impatience for a politics that truly serves the people.
These lessons must be learned by Keir Starmer and the UK Labour Party to avoid the havoc Reform seek to wreak in 2029. When liberals ignore the left, the right stands victorious.
Comments