As early voting has begun in several states in the United States, the Uncommitted National Movement (UNM) announced, on September 19th, in a press conference and a statement published on social media that it would not support Kamala Harris’ campaign, the Democratic Party presidential candidate.
This position comes in the context of an election marked by significant uncertainties and polarization due to the U.S. administration’s unconditional support for Israel’s non-proportional war on Gaza, Palestine since October 7, 2023, on the one hand, and the presence of the former President Donald Trump–known for his authoritarian tendencies as well as populist and racist rhetoric–as the Republican Party presidential candidate nominee, on the other hand.
The UNM made this announcement after Harris failed to respond to its demands that call for:
- Ensuring an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza,
- Imposing an arms embargo on Israel, and
- Ending the long-standing siege on Gaza.
The movement also stressed the importance of not voting for the Republican candidate Donald Trump due to his dangerous pro-war stance on Gaza. It also advised against voting for a third party, which could contribute to Trump’s victory.
Through this statement, the movement also asserted its commitment to pressuring the U.S. administration to achieve its demands. This position presents a significant challenge to the Democratic Party and triggers many questions about its impact on the political landscape on Election Day and beyond, especially in the event of Trump’s win.
The UNM was launched in February of this year by activists within the Democratic Party.
The movement initiated a protest campaign to urge the US administration to halt Israel’s war on Gaza following the events of October 7, 2023.
To this end, and in preparation for the Democratic Party’s presidential primaries, the movement organized, and in a very short period, an unexpectedly successful campaign in the state of Michigan.
The campaign mobilized voters to choose “Uncommitted” instead of “Joe Biden” on the ballot as a form of pressure to demonstrate to the Democratic Party the weight of votes calling for an end to the war on Gaza.
Following this initial success, the movement led other campaigns that achieved remarkable results in states such as Wisconsin, Washington, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon, and Hawaii. As a result of this mobilization, the campaign garnered more than 700,000 votes nationwide and secured 37 delegates at the Democratic National Convention.
The importance of the campaign lies in the fact that in most of these states, the percentage of votes as “Uncommitted” exceeds the margin by which Trump won the 2020 election. Notably, the uncommitted votes were not limited to American Muslims and Arabs; the majority came from other ethnic and social groups within American society, particularly among whites, African Americans, and Latinos.
The position of the Uncommitted Movement represents a significant loss for the Democratic Party that can cost it the upcoming presidential election on November 5th. This is especially true given that the movement consists of a substantial “voting bloc” that many election experts believe could be decisive on election day, particularly in swing states since the race for the White House between the Republican and Democratic parties is extremely close. For example, Muslim voters within the movement are among the most politically engaged religious groups in the U.S. and they often vote based on key issues and not party affiliation. According to a poll and report published on September, 18 of this year by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU), in the 2020 election, Biden narrowly beat Trump (46% to 45%) in three swing states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. This suggests that the strong support Biden received from Muslim voters was crucial for his victory. The situation appears to be similarly tight in the current election as most ongoing polls in the U.S. indicate a close race between the Democratic and Republican campaigns. As a result, swing states are very likely expected to determine the outcome as both candidates have equal chances of winning. Although it is unlikely that these voters will shift their support to Trump. The same ISPU poll shows that the level of Muslim support for Trump is still about the same since 2016, particularly in swing states. Even in case these voters decide to abstain from voting or support a third party–as a protest vote–this could indirectly benefit Trump.
For instance, votes for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, whose campaign has gained noticeable support, especially among Arab and Muslim American voters, could provide an advantage to Trump. Experts explain that in a closely contested two-party election, the presence of a third party often benefits one of the main candidates. This dynamic poses a serious challenge for the Democratic Party as it risks losing critical votes in key swing states.
The position of the current US administration on the war in Gaza certainly presents a difficult choice and challenge for many Democratic Party voters and supporters as well as undecided voters within the general electorate due to their dissatisfaction with both parties, especially among youth.
At the same time, many indicators also suggest that the period following the November 5th election will also be a difficult one as the U.S. democratic system and institutions will face greater challenges than those experienced during Trump’s presidency between 2016 and 2020.
In this context, many political analysts– such as Professor Jack Goldstone, an expert in social movements and revolutions who raised alarms in 2020 of the possibility of events similar to January 6, 2021, when Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol to stop the certification of the election results to prevent the inauguration of Joe Biden as new President–warn that there is a high likelihood that the U.S. could face significant chaos that can escalate to a civil war.
Among the significant indicators of such a possibility are: continued attempts to undermine the democratic process and state institutions, sharp polarization within American society, increasing level of political violence rhetoric, and weakening trust between citizens, state institutions, and political actors.
Continued Attempts to Undermine the Democratic Process and Institutions are still key features of Trump’s rhetoric. Trump has consistently reminded his supporters that “We will win, and we won’t lose the election; and if we do, it’s because of a rigged system and because the Democrats will rig the elections just like they did in 2020 that I won.” This narrative suggests that, in the event of a loss, Trump is willing to challenge the democratic outcome of the elections and undermine the rule of law, just as he attempted to do in 2021. Most importantly, many analysts point out that Trump seems to be more organized and ready to act with the backing of far-right groups.
Given Trump’s authoritarian tendencies, many observers do not rule out the possibility of a coup attempt. While this may not involve military force, it could take other forms that obstruct the functioning of constitutional institutions and the enforcement of the law, throwing the country into chaos similar to what he did in 2021 when he incited the attack on the US Capitol. The concern is that if Trump fails to win the election, he and his supporters might engage in disruptive actions that would challenge the democratic norms, leading to widespread disorder and causing political instability in the U.S.
In the event of a Trump victory in the 2024 election, the situation may not be much different. Trump will feel more empowered to consolidate authoritarian power that would lead the country into further chaos by undermining democratic institutions and the rule of law. It won’t be surprising if Trump issues hasty populist executive orders that erode the principles of diversity and inclusion in the country. For example, he may first target immigrants, just as he did in 2017 with the “Muslim Ban.” Similarly, he could issue an executive order to ban abortion. These would be symbolic acts to show his supporters that he is delivering on his campaign promises and urge them to continue supporting him in all his decisions.
In the next phase, Trump will continue to use the executive constitutional powers to undermine the institutions that uphold the democratic system in the U.S.
He is also expected to rely on the support of Republican lawmakers, especially if the party holds a majority in one or both chambers in Congress, taking into consideration that Trump currently has near-complete control over the Republican Party and a far-right faction that is loyal to him is driving the party’s agenda in Congress.
This could lead to the enactment of disruptive laws and decisions that would cause widespread institutional dysfunction, possibly paralyzing key functions of the government. A similar scenario occurred during his previous term with the infamous “Government Shutdown” in 2018 which lasted 35 days due to a deadlock between Trump and Congress over the federal budget justifying it as a fight against the so-called “deep state.” As a result, more than 800,000 federal employees lost their paychecks, and government services were severely disrupted, both domestically and internationally. Trump’s presidency is also expected to continue with his isolationist foreign policies.
This might include further withdrawals from international agreements and organizations similar to what he did in his first term when he withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the World Health Organization, and The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). All acts would further weaken the U.S. leadership stance on the international stage and strain its relationships with its traditional allies.
In this respect, it is worth mentioning the so-called “Project 2025,” also known as the “2025 Presidential Transition Project,” a political initiative published by the conservative Heritage Foundation in 2023.
Its goal is to promote conservative and right-wing policies aimed at reshaping the U.S. federal government and strengthening the executive power should Trump win the 2024 presidential election. Although Trump denies any direct knowledge or involvement with the project, its measures align with his rhetoric and promises.
Furthermore, numerous reports and leaks suggest that several key figures associated with it are among Trump’s strongest allies and supporters. Many political analysts believe that project has been prepared to be adopted by Trump on the first day of his presidency, should he win, as it outlines a comprehensive roadmap to dismantle what he refers to as the “deep state.”
Experts also point out that the project has an authoritarian approach and is heavily based on “loyalty” that will erode the principle of nonpartisan governance and meritocracy. Project 2025 includes several dangerous measures, such as eliminating the Departments of Education and Homeland Security and placing the FBI directly under the presidential authority.
According to the same project, thousands of government employees and qualified civil servants would be dismissed and replaced by a carefully selected group loyal to Trump and supportive of conservative policies.
There are also significant concerns that civil rights and freedoms could experience a major setback in the event of a second Trump presidency. It is very likely that he could make decisions affecting freedom of expression and the right to protest taking into consideration his stance on the media, racial justice, voting rights, etc … taking into consideration that some of the U.S. Supreme Court members were his appointees during his first term. In his current campaign rallies, Trump does not hesitate to attack all his opponents and critics among individuals and institutions. It is also worth noting that the 2025 Project includes many measures that threaten rights and freedoms. Using his presidential authorities, analysts do not preclude the possibility that Trump could call for the intervention of the National Guard to suppress civil society activities, such as preventing protests and mass rallies that criticize his policies, like the historic national “Women’s March” that took place on January 23, 2017, as the first large civil society protest in response to his general policies after his inauguration as the new president.
Sharp Polarization within American Society: American society has always experienced a degree of polarization, but it has intensified in the last two decades. This polarization is currently reflected by the tight race between the Democratic and Republican campaigns as polls indicate that each party has maintained its voter base since 2020.
The deadlock in Congress, where laws are rarely passed in a bi-partisan way also reflects this polarization as both parties persist to oppose each other, often for political calculations that frequently disregard the public interest. One example was in 2023 when we witnessed how the Republican Kevin McCarthy paid the price when he worked with the Democratic Party to pass the federal budget in Congress to avoid another catastrophic government shutdown. As a consequence, McCarthy was removed from his position as Speaker of the House by members of his party.
Increasing Level of Political Violence Rhetoric, especially promoted by Trump and his Republican supporters, has become evident through the spread of fake news and incitement against Democrats, immigrants, and any opponent. In its October 2023 issue, Time Magazine indicates that more than 33% of Republicans expressed that violence might be the solution to “save” the United States.
Another poll by The New York Times indicates that 450 federal judges received threats last year, a 150% increase compared to 2019; while members of Congress received 8,000 threats, a 50% increase compared to 2018. One example of this rhetoric is the false and dangerous racist claims that Trump made about Haitian immigrants during the presidential debate with Harris on September 10th of this year.
In other rallies, he also declared that he would deport all supporters of Palestine and those calling for #Ceasefire_in_Gaza, claiming that they support Hamas and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). Moreover, Trump continues to implicitly encourage political violence by repeatedly promising a presidential pardon for those involved in the attack on the U.S. Capitol in 2021. He also attacks and criticizes anyone who supports the Democratic campaign or opposes his campaign, including prominent figures from politics, art, and other fields. This rhetoric of violence is further fueled by Trump’s attacks on and questioning of electoral governance institutions and the judiciary, particularly after all such entities affirmed that the 2020 election results were free from any violations that could undermine its credibility. It is also worth mentioning that many legal and political experts assert that both the Department of Justice and Congress made a grave mistake by not preventing Trump from running for office again, especially after it was demonstrated that he incited the 2021 U.S. Capitol attack. The absence of such a measure has allowed him to move forward as a presidential candidate and emboldened him to continue his populist and racist rhetoric, which incites violence and threatens social peace.
Weakening Trust between Citizens, State Institutions, and Elected Officials: the widening gap between the rich and the poor in the United States over the past decades has significantly undermined trust in the government. Numerous studies have revealed that a large segment of the middle class has fallen behind and has felt abandoned by the state and is seeking change. This is due to public policies that favor the wealthy and fail to strengthen citizens’ socio-economic rights in areas such as employment, healthcare, and education.
The issue of “gun violence” is a good example of this broken trust. Despite the tragic repetitive shooting incidents by ordinary citizens that threaten American lives more than anything else, and despite the large mobilization and calls organized by civil society groups like “The March of Our Lives” Movement, Congress remains unable to take any meaningful action to restrict guns access, largely because of the pressure of the gun manufacturing lobbies like the National Rifle Association.
The “Occupy Wall Street” Movement is another example that depicts citizens’ outcry against the economic inequality, disparities, corporate greed, and use of money in politics as well as complete dissatisfaction with entities that are largely granted financial advantages by lawmakers but fail to deliver the promised prosperity to ordinary citizens.
This growing frustration has been skillfully exploited by Trump to gain support for his campaign, adopting the slogan “Make America Great Again” (MAGA). He promises voters that he will bring back investments and the jobs that were outsourced abroad and will impose high tariffs to achieve this goal. Trump further taps into this discontent by speaking about the “deep state,” claiming that his goal as President is to dismantle it because it has pursued policies that do not serve ordinary citizens. Thus, he calls on voters to support him so that he can restore their socio-economic rights. On the other hand, the Biden administration’s stance regarding the war on Gaza, providing unconditional support to Israel with taxpayer money, has also deepened the lack of trust in state institutions and political actors, particularly among youth. The administration’s actions in this regard are seen as a violation of international and U.S. law creating a moral crisis that is expected to cast a shadow over the upcoming presidential elections on November 5th and beyond.
With just a few weeks remaining before Election Day, the day after remains open to several possibilities and questions that are expected to impact the dynamics within the political landscape and most importantly the democratic process in the United States. As such will the war on Gaza have a direct impact on the presidential election results in general, and on the Democratic Party in particular making it an unprecedented event in recent U.S. electoral history as foreign policy issues are often a low priority for American voters? And how will the Democratic Party handle this new variable to regain the trust of the voters it would have lost?
Will increased voter abstention, especially among the youth, create a surprise in this election, given that those demanding a Cease-Fire in Gaza, particularly as the conflict has expanded to Lebanon, are expected to stay away from the ballot boxes, along with the undecided who are not convinced by the political offers of either party and reject the idea of voting for the “lesser evil”? And how will this abstention impact the election outcome?
Will a third-party vote create a surprise this time and lead to the rise of the Green Party as another political entity that could break the binary nature of the U.S. political system and present an alternative to voters who no longer find appeal in the political platforms of Democrats and Republicans?
Furthermore, in the event of Trump’s win, to what extent will the pillars of the democratic system and its institutions withstand his authoritarian tendencies and the rise of his far-right supporters? And will such a scenario serve as a serious wake-up call for political and civil society actors in the U.S. to engage in a constructive dialogue about a range of pressing issues, such as electoral campaign financing, racial justice; electoral system, particularly the Electoral College; and the role of money and lobbies in the electoral process as well as its influence on public policies? And could this event lead to a revival of a “Founding Fathers Moment” aiming to foster a dialogue that would establish a new social contract that ensures social peace in the U.S., safeguard the public interest, and strengthen the country’s democratic institutions to reaffirm their role to serve citizens and protect their rights?
The Author’s views don’t reflect any institutional affiliation.
Hashtags: #USAPresidentiaElections2024 #UncommittedMovement #Undecided Voters #ThreatsToDemocracy #ElectionIntegrity #CeaseFireinGazaNow #ThirdPartyVote #DemocracyInChallenge #KamalaHarris #DonaldTrump #polirazation #politicalviolence #Project 2025 #PopulistDiscourse #Racism #
