By Salma Abuelatta
Illustrated by Sylvain Chan
The Democrats have attempted to combat Trump’s populism by appealing to the median voter, by attempting a generalist approach. But their lack of a concrete stance is alienating their voter base- particularly Arab-Americans.
Following Trump’s unexpected landslide victory in the 2024 election, many of us find ourselves asking: why? How did Trump manage not only to win the popular vote, despite the claims of pre-election polls, but to flip every swing state red? Though the answers to those questions are truly vast and complex, a closer look at the Arab-American voter base in Dearborn, Michigan – a swing state – proves to be instructive.
Dearborn is the largest American city with a majority Arab-American population, at 54.5%. In 2020, Dearborn overwhelmingly supported Biden over Trump- with Biden garnering almost triple the number of votes. This year, Trump dominated Dearborn’s polls, receiving up to 19% more votes than Harris.
Trump, even more than Harris, has infamously proclaimed his support for Israel, championing himself as Israel’s “defender and protector”– so why would Arab-Americans vote for him?
The Case for Trump Over Harris
Harris and the Biden Administration have been promoting both a ceasefire and a hostage swap deal. They have insisted on protecting Israel’s right to self-defence, as well as the humanity of Palestinians. They have sent over 50,000 tons of weapons shipments to Israel since October 7th, whilst pledging $674 million in aid to Gaza. Harris has emphasised her support for humanitarian aid to Gaza in Michigan, and highlighted her support for Israel in Pennsylvania. They have tried to “both-sides” the situation- which has only alienated Arab-American voters who feel this has inadvertently benefitted Israel. “We’ve been warning the Democrats for over a year now, and the Democrats continue to downplay what’s going on,” notes activist Adam Abusalah.
Indeed, the Harris campaign has made a number of strategic blunders in Dearborn. They denied a speaking slot to Palestinian Americans at the DNC, they dispatched Israeli apologists to speak in Michigan such as Richie Torres and Bill Clinton, who infamously argued at a rally in Dearborn (weeks before the election) that Israel was “forced” to kill Gazans and “Israelis were in the Holy Land first”.
Most tellingly, Harris scolded a loud pro-Palestinian protestor at a rally for interrupting her, with her reflexive catchphrase: “I am speaking”. Rather than being a feminist, girl-boss moment of a woman reclaiming her voice, “I am speaking” has instead become a symbol of the paternalistic, alienating way that the Democratic Party is treating its Arab-American voters. “(Arab-Americans) didn’t vote for Trump because they believe Trump is the best candidate. No, they voted for Trump because they want to punish the Democrats and Harris,” shares Osama Siblani, publisher of Arab-American News.
Despite his poor track-record of Islamophobia, Trump’s campaign has emphasised a consistent message to Arab-Americans that he aims to end the war fast. Unlike the Democrats who are reluctant to adapt to changing voter priorities, Trump is a calculated populist: he garners his support by identifying sources of discontent and actively tackling it, whether with rural white voters or Dearborn’s Arab community. This is far more persuasive than the Democrats’ unimaginative insistence on the status quo.
The Case for Stein Over Harris
Nevertheless, for some Arab-American voters, Trump and Harris aren’t the only viable candidates. Still, the Democrats rely on the absolutism of the two-party system in their strategy, asserting in a campaign ad that “a vote for Stein is really a vote for Trump.”
But that didn’t work.
Neither party resembled the views of Arab-Americans on Gaza, and that drove many to do what has been traditionally thought unthinkable- to vote expressively rather than strategically, to vote for Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, for the very first time: Harris’s vote lead over Stein by meagre 4% is clear evidence of this. This is also partially due to Stein’s pro-Palestinian stance, being the only candidate to explicitly refer to the conflict in Gaza as a genocide, which stands in sharp contrast to Trump and Harris.
Whilst Stein is still miles behind either Trump or Harris across the U.S., one thing is clear. Harris’ campaign depended too much on the fear of Trump and the limitations of the two-party system to mobilise Arab-American votes, rather than offering a concrete strategy of her own. Even where this election has not seen votes for minor parties or independents, it has seen a drop in turnout from traditionally left-leaning groups, such as Hispanic and Black voters.
Some issues are simply too crucial to assume the support of minorities because they have nowhere else to go. In a desperate appeal to remain as moderate (lacklustre) as possible, the Democrats have failed to act as a voice for their bases of support- and they’re starting to suffer for it.
In sum, it is clear that the Democrats can no longer hide behind the safety of the two-party system to guarantee certain bases of support. They need to do something far more revolutionary – actually represent their supporters rather than relying on being the “lesser of two evils”.
