I voted for Biden in 2020. This was despite the fact that he is one of the main architects of modern American slavery through his crime bill which made the US the nation with the highest proportion of its own citizens imprisoned by far, who are quite literally slaves according to our constitution. This was despite him participating in the lies which caused us to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in our pursuit of blowing up Halliburton’s stock value and taking control of large parts of the oil trade. This was despite his support of the neoliberal consensus which has lead to the deterioration of the economic, social, and physical health of the average American while the wealthiest’s share of the economy continues to grow meaninglessly. In fact, it was relatively easy for me to vote for Biden because the person he was running against was Trump who demonstrated worse tendencies on all of the above (while actually softening some prison laws, still fostered the increased social acceptability of acting according to blatant racism so I can’t even give him credit here) and more. According to my utilitarian principles, the evil choice I made was morally superior to the evil choice I did not make. Recent events have me re-considering this motivation.
To be clear, my opinion of Trump has not changed. Under Trump, I am sure I will be more likely to lose my loved ones or even my own life, although I am personally less at risk than his main targets. I am also sure that his influence would at least maintain if not increase the atrocities committed by the Likud-lead Isreali government with whom he has a strong relationship. Christian Nationalism is extraordinarily dangerous and if some of their desires are pushed through there’s really no telling the extent of future horrors we may have to deal with. If Project 2025 has a certain degree of success we may consider any pretense of democracy to be nullified. If I were only considering the immediate consequences of my decision, I would still support Genocide Joe.
I phrased that last sentence like that intentionally and it is the inspiration for this essay. The lesser of two evils in this case is now facilitating a genocide and I think that’s significant. In 2020 I didn’t think I had a red line which would cause me to allow a greater evil, and within the last few months I’m coming to find that I do have a red line I have to consider in and of itself and that line is genocide.
This is what I find particularly frustrating when I try to engage this topic in good faith, even among Biden supporters who are lucid about recognizing what is clearly happening before their eyes with their implicit support. Yes, they tell me, there is a lot they don’t like about Biden but he is the better choice. There is some equivalence implied here. Biden is guilty of a lot of things like union busting, failure to support a public option despite promises, the continuation of many unfair border policies, and oh yeah genocide too. I really want to emphasize that we are talking about the categorization and systematic elimination of a group of people from their homes which could not be happening as it is now happening without the economic and political support of the Biden administration. This is now among the issues we are telling Democrats we are ok with or not ok with via the use of the only political currency left to us being our votes.
“Vote Blue No Matter Who” is a phrase that made me sick the first time I heard it and I have only grown to detest it more, especially since I acted according to it it through my actions in 2020. Recently I realized that this is less of a call to action and more of a threat. More explicitly, this phrase can be understood as “Vote for our candidate or the Republicans will fuck you up.” We better pay up or they can’t be responsible for what happens to us. Like other organizations who make threats like this, by paying up we are supporting them in what they do even if it’s under duress. As long as their heavy, the Republican party, is out there fucking people up the Democrats have license do anything as long as it’s not as bad. The DNC made a hard right-wing shift with Clinton and have been moving right since then, just not as far as the Republicans have. This is where damage control has gotten us. Democrats have pushed through so many boundaries and now we’re at genocide. Now the promise is, “You better support our genocide, or the Republicans will make it worse and fuck you up too.”
What is going to happen if we tell the Democrats that even though they are facilitating a genocide, we’re still going to pay up? What is the message the DNC will read from that? What precedent is going to be set? Are we going to be safer now that genocide will be seen as something we can compromise on? Do we really believe that Trump is the worst threat they can make, or that the lesser of two evils couldn’t eventually be worse than Trump? Do we really think by making this compromise here, on top of all the compromises we’ve made over the last few decades, that after this time everything will suddenly change and we can start talking about making average peoples’ lives better for once?
I can’t responsibly ask these questions without recognizing that the threat is very real. I am not an accelerationist and I do not desire the further deterioration of our society in hopes of a positive outcome through violent revolution. I do not want to have to risk imprisonment and death to resist government persecution. I recognize that a breakdown of democracy and subsequent shift to political violence would only advantage those most equipped for and skilled in the use of violence, whose society of nails would be governed by hammers.
It seems to me that failing to support the Democrats this cycle puts us at greater immediate risk of the above, and that is shocking enough to bring most reasonable people under control. The thing is though, I think that by leaving genocide on the table for anyone across the Overton window of elected officials to consider as a socially acceptable tool is a far greater risk in the long term.
I think that by making genocide just another issue of managing how much we can tolerate among the two sides, making it something that is tolerable under some circumstances, or especially encouraging the thinking that the charge of genocide is conditional on the political expediency of it victims, we are ultimately normalizing the general idea that genocide is an acceptable tool for elected officials across our “political spectrum” of right wing and big tent(right wing, centrist, some left wing) to support or even employ in the worst case as long as they call it something else regardless of international law. If this is ok, what is the next boundary the Democrats will push? I want to stop digging the hole we’re in now, suffer the consequences, and deal with Democrats who at least understand they will not get elected if they facilitate genocide. Honestly I’d like one day to not have to make the least evil choice and have the opportunity to support something after the DNC primary, and it doesn’t seem like damage control is leading us in that direction at all but away from it.
In practical immediate terms, Trump is hated outside of his base and has demonstrated that his endorsement is poison to politicians who are not himself more often than not. He is dangerous, but inspires so much more opposition to himself and his ideas than any other candidate I can think of. I even think that Trump’s genocide is going to be received very differently than Biden’s genocide since Trump will be far less tactful and far more honest about his motivations. The worst case scenario is possible under Trump and I don’t think it’s ok to dismiss that, but it is by no means a guarantee that Trump is the one to lead average Americans into fascism. It is a fucking frightening risk allowing a greater evil through inaction, but I think it’s the actual least bad option this time.
I’m open to being challenged on or discuss anything I’ve said here in good faith. I’m also open to rage-induced teardowns of the ideas I’ve proposed here as long as those teardowns are against my ideas and not against me as a person or others who are sympathetic to these ideas. I understand that this is an extremely charged topic and would like to encourage honest conversation as long as it doesn’t bleed into abuse which won't help anyone.
Edit: Whew, that was some important discussion. I hope it was clear that my intention was to clarify my thinking and explore different perspectives on my argument rather than me judging others for coming to different conclusions or trying to convince everyone I am sure I am absolutely correct. Importantly, I realized this entire argument is secondary. What is important now is direct action. Depending on the degree of success we have with disrupting this sick order, this whole conversation could become moot and that is my strongest desire. See y'all on the street.
I guess as horrific as it is, I don’t see how genocide uniquely changes the political calculus here. Trump’s administration will almost certainly apply less pressure to reign in Israeli killing as compared to Biden’s, will be less susceptible to pressure campaigns by the American left, and is of course much worse on a whole host of other issues, most importantly on the issue of democracy. If we lose our ability to voice our concerns in society or to vote out leaders who abuse their authority, this leaves us in a worse bargaining position no matter the issue, and this includes the current and future violence our government enacts in other parts of the world.
I think a lot of this comes down to the emotional repugnance of feeling that you are endorsing a candidate by voting for them. But is this really true? I think it is widely known at this point that most American voters are more motivated by defeating a worse ideology than by supporting a good one. I suppose there is a small harm in that Biden or whoever can claim a mandate from their margin of victory, but I think this benefit is small and fleeting and can easily be undone by other actions like protests or public criticism.
You are right to point out that this lesser evil voting strategy is not going to dramatically improve the US government. But neither will sitting out the electoral process. Do you think Biden or Trump will be less likely to support genocide if you sit out? I don’t think so, and if Trump wins again, even ignoring all of the harm he will do directly, he will shift the political landscape further to the right. Politicians always seek to emulate strategies that win, so boycotting Biden and allowing Trump to win will only incentivize democrats to move right. Trump losing twice in a row sends a strong message that his tactics and ideology are not effective or popular, and should not be copied.
So I think we must continue to use the electoral system to make our voices heard. Primaries, congressional, and local races may be even more important than Trump vs. Biden but yes I think voting for Biden is still the best option in that race. However, we also need to be clear eyed that whether we do or not, the system will not be radically improved through this process. We need to take actions outside of voting. Build our own movements, protest, take nonviolent direct action even. I think we saw under Trump that these actions did have a real effect in limiting his agenda, and I think they will be even more effective against Biden because they will come from within his coalition. But I also think it will require waking up a lot of jaded people on the left who think that Biden is the best we can possibly hope for. This will not be an easy task but may be the most essential obstacle to overcome in improving the situation in the US and abroad.
Although I can't deny that I don't feel good about voting for certain Democrats, if voting for a Democrat now were likely to move the country left instead of right I would do it and consider it to be the right decision. Your argument is interesting to me because you are advocating the opposite action to get the same result I desire, which is to stop the Overton window from continuing to drift rightward. I would like to focus on this aspect in particular.
I think politicians, especially if they are skilled enough to be elected into federal congress or the presidency, think in purely practical terms. I do think Biden would be less likely to economically support this genocide if he were out of office because he would then lack the power to support it or to do anything else as president. Of course this would mean the situation would be in Trump's hands which I agree would clearly be worse. The reason I am considering allowing this worse outcome to transpire is not because I refuse to vote since I don't feel represented or strongly disagree with both candidates(I don't think I'll see a general election candidate I'm happy to support in my lifetime), but because I am deliberately withholding a vote they would have received if they had not continued to facilitate a genocide which could be established as a line they may no longer approach or move past if they want to win. If the Democrats lose an election because of an issue their voters are especially vocal about, I think that they would be less likely to support that issue in the future. If we tell the Democrats that they must stop facilitating this genocide but vote for them regardless, having our votes is significantly more important to them than our disapproval which they could simply disregard since they already have our vote. If they lose an election because they moved too far right on an issue, they will probably stop moving right on that issue. In 2016 Hillary Clinton lost the electoral college despite winning the popular vote, and the message voters were sending at the time was "We do not want Hillary Clinton." As a consequence, they didn't run Hillary Clinton again because they want to win. If in 2024 Biden loses and the message voters send is "We do not want to support genocide," it is my belief that they would be less likely to support genocide in the future because they would consider it a risk to their electoral success.
As for the public reaction to Trump's election and presidency affecting the overton window, I have observed the opposite effect of Trump's presence in American politics. Trumpism, though popular, is just to the right of the Overton window. He has a solid base of support and disapproval outside of that. Trumpists are not being featured as legitimate political thinkers on any platforms other than their own. The radical right wing elements inspired by Trump have not become an accepted part of American culture. I have never heard from anyone who feels neutral about neo-nazis or the proud boys. January 6th was not seen as a simple evolution of our politics. Though it is true Trump has emboldened many of the the worst of us, there is a visceral contempt of Trumpism everywhere he isn't worshiped, and Trumpists are the minority. As I mentioned above, the only Trumpist who has a chance at winning an election is Trump himself. All this being said, Trumpists are still a legitimate threat of course. I am only arguing that Trump inspires more revulsion than support even though he has enough support to be a threat himself.
Unfortunately, I don't think Trump is going to be the worst Republican we will see if the Democrats believe we will support anything including genocide as long as it's less severe than what their Republican opponent promises. Right-wing lunatics have been a massive boon to democrats since Trump was elected as there are more people like all of us who would rather see Trump's ideology defeated than elected regardless of who they're up against. The track record of Trump-endorsed candidates demonstrates this. Since the democrats don't need to run on their own merits when they are up against a lunatic, they are empowered to do anything and everything short of what their opponent is threatening. Since winning an election is massively influenced by campaign funding and the majority of campaign funding now comes from the corporate world due to the Citizen's United decision, the Democrats can govern in favor of Wall Street against workers all they want just as long as they don't go as far as a Republican would. This means it is to their advantage that the Republicans move even further right or prop up more lunatics. They can then follow along and enjoy the benefits of increased funding. This is the pattern I've been observing since 2010 and is specifically what I want to be some limit on. I think genocide is a clear enough issue that it might possibly have an effect, and those invested in the infrastructure passing through Israel will seek to have have their economic interests rewarded through methods other than genocide. I think this pattern will continue until it is stopped in some way, and I hope it is not stopped due to the end of democracy in general which will happen if our two dominant parties keep going right without ever looking back. I don't think it can be stopped if the Democrats never find a red line which could cost them votes even against the lunatics they're up against.