Skip Navigation
No Stupid Questions @lemmy.world
lousyd @lemmy.sdf.org

Serious statement: I don't understand the argument that not voting for Harris was the morally correct thing to do, because of Gaza. Why does anyone believe this?

And I'm being serious. I feel like there might be an argument there, I just don't understand it. Can someone please "steelman" that argument for me?

384 comments

  • Since no one seems to be taking OP's question seriously, I'll take a stab at this. There are a variety of reasons.

    Some people feel that voting is offering material support to a specific candidate or system, and they simply cannot bring themselves to do so given the horrors that that person or system is either supporting or failing to condemn.

    Others may feel that strategically withholding their vote as a punishment may motivate democrats to take these types of issues more seriously in the future.

    Or they may feel that their vote is more impactful in magnifying the voice and power of third parties who offer more meaningful solutions to end the killing, even if they won't win.

    Others still may believe that Trump's incompetence will accelerate the end of America imperialism and lead to a better global political situation sometime in the future.

    Finally, some people feel that voting won't matter at all and is a distraction from efforts to directly slow or stop the war machine.

    I don't personally endorse any of these viewpoints, but some are relatively serious positions and others are not, in my opinion.

  • A lot of people did in fact set aside Gaza until Trump was stopped. As for those that didn't, they should have listened to Bernie Sanders. I did months ago and went all-in on Dem support. There were multiple times when I wrote up an angry post about US support of Israel and then didn't post it because I didn't want to turn a voter into a non-voter or worse a Trump supporter.

    I understand their position of never rewarding ethnic cleansing and war crimes though. They chose to make sure the Dems know they would never "settle" for the illegal killing of civilians. The support for Israel made it especially hard for Arab Americans to vote Dem. It's difficult to support a party that has been in power during the whole conflict yet gives unconditional support for the internationally condemned murder of Arabs.

    I'm sure a lot also felt disenfranchised by the bipartisan protest suppression and condemnation. Even in Dem states peaceful protesters were punished, and sometimes pro-Israeli protesters who attacked got away with it. Then there was the whole "vote with us or else" pressure that went on for months. Dissenters like the "uncommitted" voters were insulted by the party that wanted their unconditional support.

    So it's not like it's completely insane. But as Sanders points out that position only makes things worse and has done so.

  • Steelman:

    The US is currently a fascist, imperialist state. It has brutalized the global south, indigenous people, and POCs generally since its founding and will continue to do so unless the status quo is disrupted and changed significantly.

    The Democratic party supports the same militaristic policies and the same neoliberal economic system that the Republicans do. The primary difference between the parties are various social issues that may make life somewhat better or worse for US citizens, but will never address the core problems of fascism, imperialism, and capitalism. Both parties support and protect the status quo. This status quo only benefits the bourgeois class and rich white people and harms literally hundreds of millions of others around the world.

    The Democratic party is the only one of the two major parties that the Left has any degree of leverage over since the Democrats want the Left to vote for them. So, organizing to essentially boycott the Democratic party is a powerful method of protest that could effect real policy change. It is possibly the only effective method of protest left since the US police & surveilance state is cracking down on protests and the Left has no chance protesting violently against the most powerful military the world has ever seen.

    The only way to make that threat matter to the Democratic party is to follow through if the demands aren't met, even - or especially - if it means a second Trump term.

    The liberal establishment has ignored and abandoned the working class for decades while dangling the carrot of milktoast social democratic reforms that rarely come to pass, but they blame the same people they abandoned for not energetically voting for them. They say it is a moral imperative to vote for them, but they are incapable of bettering the lives of working class people.

    Strawman:

    It would hurt my feelings too much to vote for COPmala Harm-us. Plus, Trump would let Putin annex Ukraine. Also, I'd risk touching grass if I went outside to participate in bourgeois electoralism. Gross.

    Reality:

    You can, and should, do more than one thing. Voting for Kamala is effectively playing defense against outright, full-throated fascism a la Mussolini even if you'd still consider the US fascist - it is clearly worse under Republicans. So vote, play defense, AND organize to raise class consciousness, provide mutual aid, protest when possible, and contribute to socialist causes. Letting Trump win would be a bad move. But, ultimately it is not the Left's fault that he won. He won the popular vole and the electoral college vote by a large margin - larger than all third party socialist/socialist-adjacent candidates' votes combined.

  • Chatgpt translation of a french politician's analysis on the matter :

    • And the following are statements from before Nov 5th, before the election results:

  • If Democrats knew they'd lose for supporting genocide,.they wouldn't have done it. It's precisely because blue-no-matter-who voters convinced them that they were invincible that they ended up losing. They thought they could bully the base into voting for them because enough of the base was willing to be bullied and proud of it.

    On the other side, Trump is more likely to lose the war on Palestine.

    • They did know it had a serious impact on likely Dem voters, and likely Independent voters, in swing states, and they did it anyway.

      ... Unless you're going to tell me her campaign was somehow unaware of this fairly widely published IMEU poll.

      https://www.commondreams.org/news/kamala-harris-israel

      From July 25 through August 9, pollsters asked voters if and how the Democratic nominee pledging "to withhold more weapons to Israel for committing human rights abuses against Palestinian civilians" would impact their vote. In Arizona, 35% said they would be more likely to vote for her, versus 5% who said they would be less likely. The figures were similar in Georgia (39% versus 5%) and Pennsylvania (34% versus 7%).

      Even bigger shares of voters said they would be more likely to support her in November if President Joe Biden—who dropped out of the race and passed the torch to Harris last month—secured a permanent cease-fire in Gaza. In Arizona, 41% said they would be more likely to vote for her, versus 2% who said they would be less likely. In both Georgia and Pennsylvania, it was 44% versus 2%.

      ...

      Biden dropping out and being replaced with Kamala was an opportunity for Kamala to change the Dem stance on this.

      Kamala would have stood a much better chance at winning if she massively broke with Biden and did an about face on Gaza, and there is basically no way her campaign did not know this.

      • … Unless you’re going to tell me her campaign was somehow unaware of this fairly widely published IMEU poll.

        They were in a bubble of other blue-no-matter-who media and were assured by the consultants from Clinton's campaign and the Labour Party that they could ignore those polls.

        So really, it would have taken a big enough push from the public that MSNBC became anti-genocide. Hypothetically it could have happened, but the Democratic base is too disorganized to pull that kind of bottom-up messaging coup off.

      • So how could she have broken with Biden as the current VP?

        She sides with Palestine, so she supports Hamas? She doesn’t support Israel? She supports Iran too!?

        That’s just the tip of the media iceberg that would have been thrown at her.

        Let’s say she does that. Do you think with the numbers that DJT turned out that she’d have gained so much more than she would have lost that it would have made a difference?

        Let’s further say that she did, and it was, and she won the election. She’s now thrown a long-term, strategic ally under the bus on the world stage. Not only that, she’ll have to forcibly disarm them, potentially feeding them to the wolves in the Middle East.

        How does she politically recover from that? ALL of that?

        And please don’t mention “genocide” in your reply. That’s already a know variable in play.

        Can you (or anyone) provide a politically viable path through the above ‘top level’ landmines which would have gotten her into the White House and into a position where she could take direct action to stop the genocide?

  • To quote a user from another thread:

    Theyre not the ones that need to learn. Voters need to learn DNC is a bunch of wealthy moderates grifting voters.

  • It's simple, for a voter that doesn't have other important things or believes the candidates to be equal in other things, like the economy, it becomes a moral choice to not vote for genocide.

    If they believe there will be human rights violations elsewhere, like in the US, but one candidate and not the other, then the moral choice becomes to limit harm.

    Much of this argument stems from different base assumptions, as follows-

    • Neither Trump nor Harris will commit other human rights violations, and they are materially the same to my family; staying home is the moral action.
    • Trump will commit human rights violations, voting for Harris is the moral action.
    • They will both commit more human rights violations; staying home is the moral action.

    The people who were saying to stay home and not vote fell into camps 1 or 3. If you're unsure of why someone would believe in number 3 you should know we have illegal debtor's prisons that are ignored by the federal government, LGBTQ abuse that has gone unchecked by the federal government, illegal denial of asylum directly by the federal government, ... the list goes on. But rest assured there are reasons people would see them both as committing human rights violations in the US. This is not some Russian info op like the DNC fanboys would have you believe.

  • Consider how you'd go about exploiting the opposite case.

    If people will always vote for the slightly-less-worse candidate, then you only ever have to be slightly-less-worse than the opposition. You can sleaze right up to them and be almost as corrupt and evil as they are, so long as there's just a little bit of extra sleaze sticking out that you can point to as the worse alternative. And you can farm the shit out of that, because then the other side never has to improve either - it's an anti-competitive duopoly, where they both agree to only compete over surface details, not their overall horribleness, leaving them free to sleaze right up to the fucking-monster end of the spectrum.

    Presumably a percentage of people refused to enable that behaviour, and said that slightly-less-genocide is a bridge too fucking far.

    They made it plain from the outset that if the dems wanted to play chicken on this, the dems would lose. That they were not to big to fail, that daddy wouldn't bail them out this time; put down the bombs or you're getting kicked out for real.

    The morally-correct choice would have been for the dems to stop supporting genocide, especially with so much at stake.

    There's this huge narrative that's been consistently pushed that the actions of politicians are beyond accountability, sent down from on high like acts of god, and that moral responsibility lies only with the voters; that it's meaningless even imagine any obligation for the ruling class to try and be good enough to vote for.

    You know, the way the fossil fuel lobby found ways to shift the blame onto the consumer instead of themselves. The way the opioid manufacturers did the same. The way the gun manufacturers did the same. The way plastic manufacturers did the same fucking thing as well. We'll act however we fucking well want to, and if you don't like it, that's literally your problem.

    Oh no, you can't hold us accountable now, it's the worst possible time. It's too soon to have this conversation, how can you be so insensitive, can't you see there's a highschool full of dead kids?

    Somewhere, sometime, people have to say enough. And they did.

  • Late but here’s my model of the situation. Sort of a WIP and very new but a /gen effortpost, so I welcome thoughts:

    It’s individualism versus collectivism. The collectivist understands intimately the function of working together for the protection and future of the group. There is no doubt in her mind about the practical nature of her actions because she can see them play out in her community. The individualist, by contrast, operates solo; everything for him is about your vote, your candidate. This leads to a divide between the individualist and the material outcomes of his actions. This gap—this absence of practicality, we might call it—leaves a vacuum where symbolism can enter. This becomes a problem not when symbolism is simply encountered by the individualist, but when the symbol becomes the act, when the vote becomes a kind of personal expression, and any thought for collective consequences falls by the wayside.

    “Ordinarily,” if we imagine such a thing exists, these two identities intermix and act in a complex and altogether non-problematic way; I don’t wish to imply that individualism is simply “bad” while collective action is “good.” For example, concepts of individualism are fundamental to advancing human rights to consent and bodily autonomy.

    However, the setting and background of your question is the USA, a country with deep, deep historical ties to white supremacist, capitalist, colonialist, even fascist values, all of which hold the individual as intrinsic over the collective. The result is that hyperindividualism is catastrophically rooted in the heart of U.S. society—even in progressive and leftist spaces!

    So, when you see a pro-Palestinian proclaim abstention or that they voted third party, you are witnessing the complex outcome of genuine compassion intermingled with the values instilled by white supremacy and individualism. And so you hear the phrase, “I just can’t in good conscience vote for XYZ.” To degrees varying between people, the vote loses its material value and becomes nothing more than a symbolic moral statement.

    This doesn’t mean the leftist non-voter is a white supremacist, of course! Rather, it’s that they have been deeply affected by the presence of those values in their cultural context and have not yet had the opportunity or experience with group frameworks to question their assumptions and reassert the significant importance of collectivism.

    So, in conclusion, the unnuanced TLDR is “because America is a racist capitalist hellhole.” The good news I conclude from this, though, is that collectivism can be learned and promoted. Cultural values are definitely not static, and perhaps with education, support, and time, mindsets among leftists can be shifted to better support the whole of the community.

  • For me: Voting represents support for both the process and the government that results from that process. By voting you are essentially expressing that you submit to the electoral process as the sole means for the exercise of political power. Even if you don't like the results, you've agreed to accept it because the rules are more important than the results.

    Some obvious problems with that: What if the process itself isn't fair in the first place? We don't really get to choose our leaders. We get presented with a set of options which are acceptable to capitalists and are asked our opinion on which we like more. You could write multiple books on the ways the US electoral process has been structured to disenfranchise people and reduce the impact they can have on their government, but fundamentally it comes down to the fact that the government doesn't represent people and that's a feature, not a bug.

    So we end up with a pair of awful candidates who both have done and will do more awful shit. If the election randomly fell out of the sky without context, sure, you could argue about one being technically better than the other. But it didn't. It's this way for a reason. It's this way because people are willing to cede their expression of political power to it despite the fact that it's clearly unaccountable to them.

    Voting is just supporting the system that's deprived us of any real democracy while normalizing fascism to protect itself. Voting is a fairly low information form of political expression. You don't get the choice to be like "Oh I'll begrudgingly support this candidate, but this this and that are things I don't like and want them to change." You get two boxes. Each one represents EVERYTHING the candidate stands for plus the implicit choice of accepting the process in the first place.

    If people want things to get better, they have to organize and take real, tangible actions rather than just begging capitalist politicians to do stuff for us every 2-4 years. People should be doing this regardless of who's in office, but let's put a fine point on it: People are worried that Trump is gonna be fascist, take away people's rights, and end democracy. Are you just going to accept that because he won the election? Are the rules that bind the process more important to you than the results? If not, you should be willing to do what it takes to stop him instead of chastising that people didn't show up to participate in a sham of an electoral system.

    For what it's worth, I actually did go to the polls to vote specifically on an equal rights ballot measure in NY. At least that has a semblance of direct democracy. There I'm explicitly saying "I support this policy specifically" instead of supporting a candidate who just says they support those things while also doing awful shit. It passed, so that's nice. If anything I'm more pissed at Californians for voting against a measure to END SLAVERY than I am with people who didn't want to vote for a person currently engaged in supporting a genocide.

    • I'm curious where this notion comes from:

      By voting you are essentially expressing that you submit to the electoral process as the sole means for the exercise of political power.

      Do you? Does voting necessarily mean that you can't also express political power in other ways? Sure, it's true that most voters don't really engage with politics outside of the major elections, but that's got nothing to do with them being voters, many Americans don't even engage with the elections at all. Why would it be the case that participating in voting means you submit to the electoral process as the sole means of exercising political power? In fact this seems easily disproven by the fact that most political power in this country is exercised by the capital class, but those people still vote.

      Even if you don’t like the results, you’ve agreed to accept it because the rules are more important than the results.

      Is this actually a condition of voting? What sets these conditions? Are you talking about the social notions of 'civility politics' or 'decorum' that liberals are so fond of? They'll try to hold you to those standards regardless of whether or not you vote.

      For what it's worth, I agree with you broadly that there are serious problems with the electoral system, capitalism, the United States, whatever. I also agree that chastising nonvoters is also counter productive. I also agree that voting is probably not going to get us the broad systemic changes that we need. I just don't really understand the argument that voting somehow precludes one from also doing the actual organizing and activism work we need.

      • There's a philosophical and a practical side to this:

        Philosophically, the core of a democratic system is the peaceful transition of power. The idea that you won't just try to force your will over people with violence and will respect the will of the populace. This is a fine principle in a proper democracy with a fair process and political outcomes that fall within acceptable ranges. If you wanted more money for the trains and someone else wanted more money for the busses, that's a disagreement you can live with. And if the voting system is set up so you had equal chances both to introduce topics/candidates and vote on them, then great. By accepting the election and not trying to go outside the system to get your way, you keep the peace and allow for that process to be a viable vehicle for change.

        If this is a requirement for democracy, then the converse is that if a system isn't fair and produces unacceptable results (eg, Nazis and genocide), participating in it merely legitimizes it. Obviously nothing physically stops you from organizing, but symbolically you've shown that you view the system as the sole legitimate way to exert political power and garner authority. And people will then turn around and say you should vote instead of doing xyz actions. "I don't agree with your methods."

        On the practical side of this: people put a lot of time, energy, and political capital into supporting candidates in these elections. It eats up the public bandwidth, crowding out other forms of political participation. In addition, once someone works hard to get their candidate elected, there is an impulse, an incentive, to defend them. The people who said to suck it up, vote for Biden, then push him to the left turned around and chastised leftists for protesting over things like the continued anti-immigration policies or the support for Israel's genocide. US electoral politics is a team sport. People get psychologically invested in their team. They don't like it when you criticize their team. This makes them resistant to change even on policies they nominally support. I think encouraging people to maintain that emotional investment in elections is harmful. It hinders organizing efforts. It hurts attempts to build class consciousness because it gets people to think about their fellow workers as the enemy and capitalists as potential allies. And the corresponding obsession with 24 hour news cycles turns politics into a TV show. Trying to talk to libs about any history older than like a week ago or maybe at most a presidential term is impossible. If it wasn't on their favorite TV show it doesn't exist.

        We need to be drawing people's attention to actual types of political participation. Elections don't just distract from that, they make people think they're doing the right thing. It's a release.

        All that said, that's not to say there's never value in any part of the electoral system, it's just very limited. Bernie's attempts at running were part of what got me more engaged in politics and shifted me from being a progressive-ish lib to being more of a socialist. Important to that though was not just the policy platform, but the structure and messaging of the campaign promoted the importance of mass political participation. I ended up meeting some local socialist groups in the process of going to campaign volunteering. However, most of the time and energy still went into the election only for the system to block us at the end and Bernie to give in. Tons of hours of volunteer time went into doing little more than getting people to sign ballot petitions. We weren't getting those people into a union or a mutual aid group or anything. We basically just tossed our energy into the void.

  • Because most haven't I will actually answer the call of the question. Voting is perhaps the most important way one can voice their opinion. And carries more effect than most words the average man or woman can utter.

    The largest argument against these types of stances is that it will create a spoiler effect. This usually operates on the premise that a vote to a candidate is owed and not earned and or that it is impossible to achieve a different outcome besides one of the two establishment candidates. This second premise being the results of people who decry voting 3rd party as useless based on a restriction with no physical or legal basis imposed on our society by our society. There's nothing stopping people from electing anyone else on the ballot.

    If you can acknowledge that we as a society have this power the idea of accepting a lesser evil is weakened. If you vote for a lesser evil you perpetuate the broken system you hate. In your example Gaza, if someone feels that the issue is so important it merits a principled stance how can they not take the stance?

    It's a matter of pragmatism vs principles.

384 comments