By FLAVIA BIROLI* & LUCIANA TATAGIBA**
A false explanation that operates selectively with information and targets those who contribute to the construction of inclusive democracy projects
The victory of Republican Donald Trump has once again revived the argument in Brazil that the far-right is to blame for its victory on so-called identity politics. For those who resort to this idea, the Democratic Party has disconnected itself from the population by embracing the agendas of black, feminist, LGBT and trans movements. Based on this diagnosis, the left must distance itself from identity struggles if it wants to win the 2026 election.
For us, this is a false explanation that operates selectively with information and targets those who contribute to the construction of inclusive democracy projects. Therefore, we invite you to explore alternative arguments about Donald Trump’s election, Kamala Harris’ failure and the problem of “identities”:
(i) The Democratic Party has not been recognized by the majority as capable of promoting change. This is not due to its closeness to minority struggles, but to its historical alignment with the politics of big capital. Surveys point to dissatisfaction with the cost of housing in the United States and the perception among voters that involvement in conflicts in other parts of the world drains resources that could be used for domestic investment and support for populations affected by climate tragedies.
(ii) A significant portion of the electorate may have rejected Kamala Harris because she is a black woman. The far right did not win because it moved away from identity politics. On the contrary, it used it to politicize its bases in an openly anti-democratic way. Donald Trump’s campaign reinforced the idea that a black woman would not be capable of governing, that an interracial daughter of immigrants would not be trustworthy, that a professional woman who is not a (biological) mother would not understand the needs of the country.
The contingent of young black and Latino men who migrated to Donald Trump in this election makes it clear that the center and the left have done less than necessary to politicize the bases and demonstrate the intrinsic connections between racism, sexism, xenophobia and the precariousness of work and life.
(iii) Neoliberal capitalism has changed production dynamics, with one of its main effects being deindustrialization and the weakening of unions. There is full employment in the United States, inflation has fallen significantly, but routines and incomes are less predictable, there is less free time to care for others and for oneself, and insecurities are heightened by environmental tragedies and armed violence. The far right responds to this with an exclusionary ideal of nation, promising comfort in the reduction of diversity and a return to racial and patriarchal hierarchical orders.
(iv) New information dynamics combine with traditional practices that break with the principle of political equality and fairness in disputes. Elon Musk has shown what large corporations with budgets larger than parties (and nation states) can do, radicalizing the influence of capital in elections. His “Who Wants Money,” a $175 million game in key states that will determine the dispute, would make “colonels” versed in the use of resources and power to guide votes blush.
Yes, the American elections bring important reflections to Brazilian politics and increase fears about 2026. But the worst way to start this conversation is to return to the well-worn specter of identity politics. The problem with the left is definitely not in defending the civil rights of black men and women, homosexuals and trans people. This is a civilizing and strategic agenda for the democratization of the State.
The problem is the lack of a political project for the nation that offers hope for the future and that brings together the middle classes from the bottom. Today, this base is much broader and more diverse than the male worker with formal employment. We need to talk to black women, young people from the outskirts, app workers, riverside residents and evangelicals. And offer them all a democratic future in which they have a voice.
* Flavia Biroli is a professor at the Institute of Political Science at UnB. She is the author, among other books, of Gender and inequalities: limits of democracy in Brazil (Boitempo).
**Luciana Tatagiba is a professor at the Department of Political Science at Unicamp.
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
