Given the Democrat's unwavering support for the genocide in Gaza, there is an understandable moral calling among some progressives to abandon Harris at the box office, to punish them for their complicity in the gravest of all crimes.
Even though Trump will continue the same abhorrent policies in Gaza with even more brazen enthusiasm, this is a red line that cannot be crossed by all people of conscience. Do they deserve this on a moral and spiritual level? Yes absolutely. But is this a wise strategy, if our goal is an arms embargo and ceasefire? I'm not convinced it is.
The logic goes that by allowing Democrats to lose, we can send an unequivocal message: genocide is a red line. By losing the election, this will force them to shift their stance on Israel or risk losing forever. I listened to an interview with the lead organizer behind the Abandon Harris campaign and I respect his moral clarity on those grounds, but if 2016 taught us anything, it’s that this strategy sadly isn't likely to have the impact we'd hope it would.
History Shows This Strategy Fails
After Hillary Clinton’s loss, instead of reflecting on the true reasons for their defeat—namely, that they alienated huge numbers of voters by sidelining Bernie Sanders and running a conservative campaign that ignored the misery caused by neoliberalism — the Democratic establishment blamed everything but themselves. Russian interference, James Comey’s FBI letter, sexism, Bernie voters — these became the convenient scapegoats, while the party refused to acknowledge its failure to energize working-class and progressive voters. Instead of moving left, they pivoted even further to the right, which is likely what will happen if we try to "punish" them again in 2024.
First, I believe they will absolutely deny that the reason they lost was over their Israeli policy.
Second, what did we gain from Hillary Clinton's loss? Four years of Donald Trump, a Muslim Ban, an increase in drone warfare, a Supreme Court packed with far-right justices for decades, reproductive rights being gutted in over 20 states and an attempted coup.
The Democratic Party didn’t become more progressive after their 2016 loss—they became more entrenched in centrist politics, doubling down on the very neoliberal strategies that had failed them, while once again coordinating to defeat Bernie Sanders the weekend before Super Tuesday. Joe Biden, a conservative by European standards, became the party’s nominee in 2020. Instead of recognizing the hunger for bold, progressive change represented by Sanders, they pivoted right, preferring to risk Trump win again over allowing a true progressive to lead the party.
The idea that we can punish the Democrats into adopting more progressive foreign policy at the ballot box misunderstands the signal that losing sends within the party. They pivot right, not left, retreating to the center, where they attempt to court centrist, undecided swing-voters, where elections are now decided.
Democrats aren't Punished by Losing; Our Movements Are
The harsh truth is, they can live with Trump winning. Their wealth insulates them from the harm Trump causes, and they are saved from the trouble of having to govern, while comfortably cosplaying as "the resistance." Meanwhile, empire still wins and will continue arming Israel whether Trump or Harris gets elected, rendering third party votes effectively harmless.
Without mass civil resistance to both parties before and after elections, the status quo will march on. The only question we should be asking ourselves, if we want an arms embargo, is who is more likely to bend under sustained pressure: Harris or Trump?
Does registering our dissent at the ballot box matter more than making it easier to achieve our goals for the next four years? I just don't think so.
A statement released by Palestinian, Arab, Muslim and progressive leaders in Arizona agrees:
What about a third party? Many in our communities believe this is our best option. Unfortunately, there is not a single third party member of Congress or even state legislator in America. In our electoral system, no third party candidate can win this election. But voting for them could make Trump president.
The polls show the presidential election is extremely close and that it will be decided by 7 swing states, including Arizona. While voting 3rd party may be strategic in non-swing states as a protest of the current US Israel/Palestine policy or as a step to qualifying the Green Party for public funding in future elections by winning at least 5% of the national vote, doing it in Arizona or other swing states in such a close election could bring disaster.
Some argue that if Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim voters and our allies vote for a 3rd party candidate and intentionally throw the election to Trump, taking credit for defeating Harris, it will prove our power to decide a close election and “punish Democrats” for complicity in genocide. Unfortunately, this is not how power, politics, or change works in our country. When Ralph Nader helped throw the election to Bush in 2000, he was rejected by millions for whom he was once a hero, banished ever since to the political margins. When Jill Stein helped throw the election to Trump in 2016, she remained relegated to the political fringe, becoming less powerful not more. If our communities ally with the Green Party to defeat Harris, we risk marginalizing ourselves as they did by alienating the tens of millions of voters who support the cause of Palestinian freedom and are fighting to defeat Trump by electing her.
Instead, by helping to elect Kamala Harris, we can say, “Despite it all, we gave you another chance and helped put you in office to defend democracy and uphold our highest American values. Now uphold them: end the genocide and secure Palestinian self-determination. We will fight every day to hold you to it.” If Harris and Democrats win, we will wage that fight with more allies among the American people, Congress, and the White House than ever before. If they don’t deliver, we will have a mandate and mass support to hold them accountable through every nonviolent tool of democracy, including protests, resignations, civil disobedience, primary election challenges, and even potential mass noncooperation. It’s a difficult path, but the one that offers the most hope.
The first step –– and our best choice in this horrible situation –– is defeating Trump by electing Harris. We urge you to join us.
Sadly, until we can get Ranked Choice Voting and build the power of our movements, punishing the Democrats at the ballot box really only harms the people affected by Trump’s agenda and our own movements efforts to get a ceasefire. The only way to punish the democrats is with fierce, organized opposition at all times, but especially when they are in power.
Choosing Our Opponent Does Not Equal Endorsement
This strategy of “choosing your opponent” in no way excuses the Democrats for their complicity in propping up Israel during its genocidal assault on Gaza, which has now expanded into regional war. The Democratic Party’s failures are real, and they must be held accountable. But punishing them by sitting out the election or voting third-party in swing states only makes another Trump presidency more likely—a scenario in which the far-right seizes even more power, progressive movements are further marginalized, and an arms embargo becomes even less likely, if not impossible.
Under Trump, not only will we lose any leverage we have with the Democratic Party, but we’ll also face even greater threats to civil rights, environmental protections, and Trump's promise to "finish the job" in Gaza.
Can we afford to try this failed strategy again?
For all of Hillary’s deep flaws and warmongering tendencies, had she won, we wouldn't have three far right judges on the Supreme Court for life plus 200 new appointments in lower courts who are working feverishly to roll back rights we won decades ago, which we now have to fight to get back.
No Matter What
Ultimately, we must continue to fight for justice no matter who wins, but punishing the Democrats at the ballot box won't truly harm the establishment and will materially just weaken our own leverage to get an arms embargo, a Green New Deal, the restoration of abortion rights and everything else. The only way to push them is with organized activism. This means every Democratic voter must put country before party and vocally resist Biden and Harris' unquestioning support for the far right extremist party in control of Israel, which is violating US and international law.
Reject Black Pill Cynicism
Some folks may say that pushing Harris more easily than Trump is a pipe dream, but even a 1% chance to reach a ceasefire or arms embargo is better than 0%, and saying we have 0% either way is a bridge to cynicism and certainty I cannot cross.
We should know from history that we will have far less leverage over Trump should he win and our protests will face even harsher crackdowns. Remember Trump wanted to fire live rounds at protestors but his aides rebuked him. Trump called us “vermin” and promised to root us out of the country. With his intentions to only keep "yes men" around him in the future, the guardrails will be off for a 2nd term. Yes, if you hadn't heard, Trump plans to fire thousands of civil servants in government and replace them with Christian Nationalists loyal to Trump via Schedule F, an unprecedented maneuver that will grant Trump enormous executive power.
To be perfectly clear, I am not advocating we vote *for* Harris. I am suggesting we vote for the political conditions that will most serve our movements, and that means defeating Trump. There is literally zero opposition to Netanyahu coming from any Republican in power while there is growing dissent among Democrats in the senate and congress.
That difference matters. We have more potential to make gains with a neoliberal in the White House rather than a fascist demagogue. We simply cannot afford to cede the battlefield to Trumpism.
**Post-Script Objection:
"A vote for Harris is a vote for genocide. If that's not a red line for you..."
So this is one way to look at it but there are other legitimate ways to see the purpose of voting.
Another one is "harm reduction," based on valuing material outcomes over casting a mostly symbolic protest vote.
Another view is: “you vote to choose your opponent.” This is how I see it. I'd prefer to fight neoliberals over fascists.
I think we need to get past this idea that voting can only be a mechanism of endorsement. It's certainly how we were all taught to see it, as far back as civics class in grade school, but this is a passive way of viewing voting. "Choose your opponent" implies activism and organized rebellion.
From this stance, voting is a small part of a much larger struggle, and thus, doesn't garner so much emotional handwringing. You're going to fight no matter who is in power. You're going to oppose the crimes of your government regardless of the empire's captain. Voting is simply a tool to choose the terrain of struggle.
When talking about integrity - between who we vote for and whether we engage in activism - activism will always matter more. I don't really care what signal my vote sends to elites. They honestly do not care, and they will not be scared by 1-3% of people voting third-party again, sadly. I'd love to see a spontaneous third-party uprising as much as anyone, but decades have passed with this same song and dance and it's become part of the status quo as much as the duopoly at this point. I hate to admit it. Without ranked choice voting in place in every state, the only thing that will scare the ruling class is people getting engaged the other 364 days of the year.
Part of that year-round activism should also include fighting for Ranked Choice Voting, building the power of third parties at the local level, and so much more. But who we choose for president every 4 years? I'm voting for the terrain that best helps our movements.
"Voting is a chess move, not a valentine. And here's the joy of being politically engaged all year round every year; you get to work with a whole lot of chess pieces and players and strategies and long-term visions, so you don't agonize over whether this little hop with a pawn we call voting defines you. You get to define yourself by what you're passionately committed to, by who you align with, by your dreams and your visions, you get to move a lot of pieces a lot of times, you get heroic allies, and you play to win above, beyond, around elections. But you vote, because you know it matters too."
- Rebecca Solnit
"Voting for Stein is a vote to end the genocide!"
Can someone tell me how voting for Stein in swing-states will *functionally* help end the genocide? Stein said it would be a “shot across the bow,” but that’s a purely symbolic gesture.
Again, without Ranked Choice Voting, seeking to defeat Harris in a bid to punish one half of the duopoly only serves to punish our own movements while the other half of the duopoly carries on unaffected. This is the functional outcome in a rigged system that ensures third-party votes merely empower one half of the duopoly over the other. The only thing that will threaten both parties is if we build power at the local level first and get RCV in all 50 states.
In the meantime, Netanyahu and his right-wing party wants Trump to win, because it will obviously make our efforts to get an arms embargo far harder. Vote your conscience by all means but my conscience compels me to use my vote as effectively as possible to support our movements. I’m not interested in using it to send a message to elites they will ignore.
Whether you agree or disagree with all this, thank you for reading. I appreciate you, regardless of how you vote!
Tim Hjersted is the director and co-founder of Films For Action, an online library for people who want to change the world. He lives in Lawrence, KS.
1 Hillary did win the popular vote but lost the rigged Electoral College, which disproportionally grants more electoral power to low-population Red states.
2. A final caveat: This discussion applies mostly to swing-states. Check your local conditions for details.