I bet you’re loving this hyper cringe lib depiction, aren’t you? Well, if you really like it.
It’s always nice to get back to D.C. What can I say? I love it here. Along with all its silliness. Particularly after a wonderful trip to Minneapolis – colloquially referred to as Walz country. And though I did not get to discuss brake lights and the horrors of spicy food with the Coach, I did get to visit the club where Purple Rain was filmed. So that’s pretty cool. After spending a week discussing the thrills of state qualified allocation plans and the many charms of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit…and only arriving back to Dulles at 1 a.m. (I know, I know), you would think one might want to come home, maybe have a drink, and fall asleep to the same Netflix show for the hundredth time. Lucky for you, I hate myself. So, I decided to do my usual poring over the opinions of my internet buds on what’s been affectionately described as the dopamine slot machine website. A healthy dose of doom scrolling from the other hell site as a chaser felt most appropriate. (I’ll never ever call it that stupid name).Why not write an obnoxiously long comment on a thread, and then in some totally logistically sound and not at all sad attempt to once again slowly wean myself off social media…dust off this dorky old domain name as a convoluted method of harm reduction applied to my social media addiction.
Speaking of harm reduction.
I think I gather the notion of “holding Democrats accountable” by not voting for them is appealing because the implication is they will move closer to our position to win our support in the next election. Is that correct? If not, then I suppose ignore the rest of this. It’s long.
I guess my problem is there doesn’t seem to be much evidence in recent decades that proves Democrats respond to this method in the way it’s implied they would. The situation is presented as though withholding support from Democrats automatically creates better policy outcomes. This seems overwhelmingly incorrect. I would assume most would name 2000 and 2016 as the most glaring examples of Democrats failing to capture the left. The policy outcomes of those elections certainly don’t seem to align with what I understand to be the left’s preferences and priorities.
Democrats should have moved further left to appeal to the folks that didn’t support them enough in 2000, right? Ralph Nader appropriately decried the steadily right leaning list of the party and rallied millions to his cause. Just under 2.9 million to be specific. And no, I’m not here to relitigate Nader’s presence as a spoiler in that election. But I do think it’s useful to examine outcomes. If we take a look at foreign policy for example, I’m going to reductively name the “left” as any group of people in this country who believe in not wantonly murdering people wholesale around the world. While Nader didn’t campaign on foreign policy, I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume where his supporters might fall on the topic.
If we apply the logic I see so readily deployed on the internet, Democrats should have adopted a much more doveish tone, along with overtures to Nader’s platform. Except they didn’t. Nothing about the Democratic Party moved leftward after losing to Bush. Not in earnest. We nominated a war hero who ran an “anti-war” campaign after voting to invade Iraq. The electorate cared so little about that rightward shift that we lost another election anyway. Nader’s influence and reputation would decline in subsequent years. He ran again, and again – each time obtaining a fraction of his support in the so-called “spoiler” campaign. He often correctly decried the warmongering ways of the Democratic party.
And yet.
Obama also ran as an “anti-war” candidate. Extremely politically convenient with an intensely unpopular war and a president so underwater in favorability it almost seemed a foregone conclusion the election would be a historic blowout by comparison to recent years. We also projected every idealistic hope and dream imaginable onto a candidate who by all accounts sincerely believes in our better angels, and who used his once in a generation political talent (and yes, the historic nature of his candidacy) to that effect. The result was a governing and political ethos that almost always went for the pragmatic conciliatory approach, much to the dismay of leftist advocates, many of whom struggled to inject left ideas into the public consciousness during a presidency that was essentially hobbled within two years. While there were some key victories, Democrats largely remained steadfastly committed to the so called Third Way and entanglements abroad. And while many of us who projected rainbows and butterflies onto Barack Obama could be forgiven for our disappointment and disillusionment, it seems more important to once again acknowledge the ineffectiveness of the strategy in 2000. What sort of lessons did Democrats learn from that election? From 2004? Governing from the left does not seem to be among them.
I might have joked about hating myself earlier, but I don’t hate myself enough to relitigate 2016. This thing is already too long. Basically just a stream of consciousness at this point. But I hope we can all agree that while Democrats stylistically adopted a progressive display, the party certainly didn’t materially move leftward post Trump. An insurgent Sanders campaign reignited a progressive fervor that remains impactful to this day. But a general (and understandable) lack of enthusiasm for Clinton got us where we are.
If anything, the Democrats response to these losses has been to move further to the right — on crime, on immigration, and on foreign policy. You have to ask yourself – what was gained from withholding support in the 00’s? A few trillion-dollar wars and a bunch of dead Palestinians. Setting aside all of Clinton’s flaws for a moment, Democrats have never believed the left in this country is potent enough to beat them. And for now, it would appear they’re right. In a general election they will almost always attempt to appeal to “moderates” despite our protests. We can hate that. And we can want to punish them by not voting for them. But, again, where does that get us? Worse policy outcomes. More harm. That doesn’t seem like the goal to me.
Despite what I’ve described as a neoliberal (yawn) warmongering (accurate) era the likes of which we’ve never seen, Biden’s domestic policy has been among the most aggressive expansions of the welfare state in decades. Effective strategies were employed by advocates and organizers during the primaries and throughout the administration to win literally trillions of dollars to improve society despite majorities that literally could not be slimmer. The person running for president as a Democrat right now cast the tie breaking vote for much of those accomplishments. It seems that, rather than wholesale abandoning the path that would most likely lead to desired outcomes — fighting through initial struggle can yield tangible results. This of course is not without setbacks.
Applying this to today’s most glaring issue — I completely understand why someone could not in good conscience support the horror Democrats are currently enabling abroad by casting a ballot in their favor. Joe Biden and the Democrats have enabled an atrocity. I think this is an entirely fair position to take. It also seems fair that, when confronted with a shitty decision, one might choose what they think is the best option even if it’s a shitty option. What I will take issue with is the notion that a vote for Harris somehow automatically removes all capacity to continue to advocate against our actions abroad. It’s never been made clear to me why voting for Harris is a wholesale endorsement of everything she and the Democrats stand for. That’s not how voting works in my view, seems unnecessarily maximalist, and ultimately just doesn’t really make any sense.
If you believe withholding your vote will garner support for your position next time around — why? Where is the evidence for that on a national level? Why is there an assumption any of these parties would move the way you want them to as a result of withholding your vote? That goes for you as an individual and the royal you. Is punishing Democrats worth the harm incurred? Do you sincerely believe it wouldn’t make a difference who was in power? Look, I have no problem criticizing the Democrats. They’ve been party to all manner of terror and awfulness. On the issue most dear to me, transformational policy in the criminal legal system – Joe Biden and the Democrats’ record is nothing short of abysmal.
It doesn’t change the fact that a vote for them moves me closer to my goal. If you don’t think so I am more than willing to try and understand why. Remember, we’re not talking about passing shitty legislation that will harm our ability to pass much more meaningful transformational policy down the stretch. It doesn’t appear to me the same calculus should be applied to a general election in the United States of America with the way our electoral system is designed.
As I can tell the last let’s say…32 years of Democratic rule started with Clinton. The result of three lost general elections in a row was the birth of the New Democrats and the party’s full embrace of neoliberalism, the Third Way, and reactionary policy in the criminal legal system. The destruction of the American welfare state in the 90’s can be traced right back to Bill Clinton. The ’94 Crime Bill written by Joe Biden and signed by Bill Clinton. Certainly didn’t help that Newt Ginrich and his buddies made matters worse. We’ve seen this story before. And it’s been that way ever since. Despite all this, I have yet to see any evidence that shows refusing to participate in the general election actually creates better outcomes for any of the issues I care about. Would Bob Dole have been better for working class families? For me, failing to participate is essentially an expression of idealism that has created exactly zero material gain for the communities we’re purporting to be fighting for. If the candidate that I voted for does not deliver on the issues I demand, it does not then automatically follow that it is somehow advantageous to enable a worse outcome.
If your argument is electoral politics are a waste of time and we should be focused instead on mass popular and political education, organizing, mutual aid, etc. — then I’m all for that. It’s not clear to me why one can’t make an electoral decision they think will make all of that easier and then continue to do those things. Consider: a refusal to take the path of least resistance will only create a landscape in which it is far more challenging to organize and build the power necessary to…I dunno maybe win some of the shit you claim to believe in. I get it. The two-party system is ass. Very few would disagree. And while there is no shortage of backhanded tactics and legal machinations parties can employ to discourage and depress the rise of alternatives – it’s still not impossible. And it’s not clear to me why we’re off the hook for losing all the time. You want our ideas to win? Then we need to be more effective. Organize more effectively. Build power more effectively.
Losing elections does not make us more effective. It makes it damn near impossible to accomplish any of our goals.
So, maybe it’s worth coming back to this question — what is the goal exactly? It’s likely we have very different ideas about what it means to improve society in any material way, but I would say that’s probably mine. Do we think elections matter for such a prospect? It certainly seems that way to me and as such it seems we should take the action that is most likely to lead to that result. In November there are several actions we can take. I would like for anyone to explain to me how refusing to participate or voting for a candidate that cannot win — moves society forward in any material way.
It quite literally doesn’t matter whether it’s the “lesser evil”. My vote is not an expression of how evil I think something is. My vote, and perhaps more importantly, action intended to influence how others vote — is a utilitarian act. It is not an assessment or manifestation of all the things I want to happen or that I believe should happen. It is an act designed to move me closer to my goals. Closer to a world where material conditions can be improved.
So yeah. I guess I just don’t get it. I suppose everyone isn’t explicitly saying people shouldn’t vote for Harris and that if they do, they’re a genocidal psychopath. But that’s basically the implication. And that just seems logically incorrect to me.
I have yet to see a strategy that explains how a Trump administration will improve any of these outcomes. And I’m not interested in fear mongering about Trump, per se. I’m not interested in bullying someone to vote for Harris because Trump will be worse – even if I think that is objectively clear. But I do have to ask what the strategy is should he become president again. If the argument is, “It’s not our fault the Democrats can’t get more people to vote for them. Harris needs to adopt my position. She needs to earn my vote. Otherwise, she won’t get it”. Setting aside the assumption that this threat will work, which, again I have not seen a ton of evidence that it will. Ok. That’s fine. Let’s suppose she doesn’t. Let’s suppose the gap in left enthusiasm is what costs her the election. Now explain to me what the strategy is moving forward. I have yet to see a something that helps me understand with any confidence that Democrats will come closer to left positions in ‘26 or ‘28 as a result of losing this election. If anything, they will only move further to the right.
And the damage that will be done in between? A 7-2 Supreme Court? Maybe even 8-1?
At this point the “most important election of our lifetime” has become little more than a tired cliché. But given the current makeup of the Court – does it not apply in earnest here? Even if we were to elect President AOC and Vice President Rashida Tlaib. Even if we won the senate, the house, every governor’s race, every state house. It would be a generation before anything we care about survives SCOTUS. Irreversible destruction to our rights and civil liberties and unmitigated hostility to even the most modest adjustment to our horrific inequality. Even if we could manage to end the filibuster, pass the dream platform. How much of that survives a Court with Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz and Matt Gaetz on it? What then? Win enough majorities in the next ten elections to change the constitution, I guess?
Assuming we’ll still be having elections.
Vote your conscience this November. Just be thoughtful about how we’re going to pick up the pieces when it’s over.