I have gotten feedback on what I have been doing. Questions. Criticisms. Anger. Even outrage. So perhaps it will be useful and even help my case for stopping Trump to offer some clarifications.

First, for those who indicate they have liked my views before now, perhaps I should note that I still abhor the same things I abhorred before, including the Democratic Party and, more fundamentally, the institutional system the Dems uphold. I still have the same vision and goals including participatory society, classlessness, feminism, etc. etc. And I even still have the same broad understanding of how to think about situations to derive an attitude toward them and an agenda for them, which is to assess the immediate, mid range, and long range harm and benefit of the potential consequences of possible choices. 

For what it is worth, I am positive about all of that, and I also don’t think my ability to reason has as yet fully dissipated. So what is our disagreement? My critics all indicate to me how horrible the Dems have been, but I of course agree about that. So that isn’t it.

My critics then seem to conclude from how horrible Dems have been that my wanting Harris to win is somehow not just ignoring or denying the Dems’ debits, which it certainly isn’t, but may even indicate my suddenly liking the debits and thinking the Democrats are our tribunes. Which it doesn’t.

So what is our actual difference that causes me to say I hope that people in swing states who hate Trump will vote for Harris precisely to stop Trump? And that we will all together then organize and demonstrate to force Harris toward better outcomes than she would pursue on her own.

And what causes my critics to say to potential swing state voters instead, well, honestly, I am not really sure what they would say instead. Do they actually want, on Nov 6, Trump to have been elected? Do they feel it doesn’t matter since the difference is, at any rate, too minor? Is it that they think regardless of who wins, what matters is more votes for Stein? Is it that they want to be able to say they didn’t vote for Trump and also didn’t vote for Harris? To say they were conscience-driven? Or perhaps it’s a little of each? Plus perhaps some defeatist despair.

I think and hope, that instead of all that our actual relevant difference is over how much worse Trump and the Republicans are, domestically and internationally, and also over the prospects of movement-building leading to successes against the two potentially emergent administrations. That is, over the circumstances and prospects for going forward in opposition to one or the other administration.  

I am told that the Democratic Party is corrupt to its core. And of course it is. To hammer that point home, as if I have ever at any time disagreed, I am asked can the party can be saved as a legitimate institution? Okay, that is an interesting though vague question, but in any event, however that question might be intended, it has little bearing that I can see on the coming election. 

(Wait, I take that back. Kshama Sawant about whom I recently wrote, thinks that in the current election Greens can help defeat Harris, which may in turn destroy the Democratic Party, which she thinks would be a great victory, so I guess for her the question is germane. And, oddly, it is germane as well, I suspect, for those with another take, but later for that.)

First, despite my thinking the question is beside the point for what to do on election day 2024, I will answer that I don’t know about the future of the Democratic Party. I don’t see turning the democratic party into something truly worthy as a personal priority though I would have much preferred if West, to try to reach more widely, had run as a Democrat like Bernie did. And I very much support serious progressives and leftists winning office as long as they can keep their views intact while running for office and while serving if they win. 

Another way someone might have raised the query would be will we still have “political parties” representing widely held but different views on various issues in a revolutionized new society? Yes, I think so. And if we do, will one such future party date itself back to the Democratic Party? I would say, maybe, though I doubt it.

Are virtually all institutions in our society corrupt at their core? Yes. You name it, I think it is, overall, corrupt at the core—albeit in every case, like with the Democratic Party, with some good elements on board as well. 

Families, schools, hospitals, factories, churches, and on and on. All currently flawed, or, if you prefer, corrupt, albeit also with some good aspects including fine people and some essential functions. Must they all undergo major transformations in a transition to a desirable society? Yes, I believe so. Will what results for families, schools, hospitals, factories, churches, and so on trace back to what was? In most cases, probably so. Does saying that I think they will likely still be families, schools, factories, hospitals, and churches, albeit drastically and in some cases fundamentally altered, mean that I should ignore them now, or even just that I should not try to currently win lesser changes in them that move toward the ultimately greater changes we ultimately need? I don’t think so. 

And while these matters aren’t pivotal to election 2024, the above observation also applies to the Democratic Party. Bernie and the squad are not fools, and I suspect they know even better than I and my critics just how corrupt the Democratic Party is. And I support their efforts. Their choice is not one I made, but I can’t deny Sanders’ achievements.

In any event, as my critics assert, has the Democratic Party shown little commitment to most if not all of the issues I care about? Yes, of course. That is their vile job. It doesn’t surprise or come as news to me, and I admit to being amazed when long time leftists act as though they are saying something new, when they say that. They have said it before, did they not believe it earlier? I have said it before, and I believed and still believe it.

The ills of the Democrats, recent and past, bigger but also sometimes smaller, are relevant to the current election and what I have written about it if they demonstrate that the consequences of Harris winning this election wouldn’t be much better for diverse constituencies now, and much better for seeking more for those constituencies later, than Trump winning. Listing the Democrats’ ills, honestly, most often doesn’t even tangentially address that issue. 

To my critics I have to say, if you think that somehow Trump winning Tuesday’s election would be better for reproductive rights, not vastly worse, better for foreign policy not substantially and perhaps vastly worse, better for racial justice and not vastly worse, better for ecological sanity and even for planetary survival and not vastly worse, better for wealth and income injustice and for activist impact on government outcomes and not vastly worse, better for human values and practices and not vastly worse, okay, if right such beliefs would be components of a potentially compelling argument. But I doubt many of you or maybe even any of you believe any of that. And at any rate, I don’t. 

You have told me, there is no worse crime on this planet than Genocide. It is the crime of crimes. Biden/Harris are complicit. There’s no denying that. And I agree that there is no denying that. Yes, they are complicit, more than that, they are financiers, munitions providers, intelligence providers, and cheerleaders. If Netanyahu is tried, Biden should be right there with him as co-defendant.

But, nonetheless, alienating as the calculus undeniably is, there are two things even worse than maintaining an on-going genocide. One, is to reduce our chances of reversing it. And two, is to generate an even bigger genocide. 

Is genocide in some sense the crime of crimes? Yes. But is the suicide march toward climate and ecological catastrophe just a sidebar? It may be killing more people right now, and it will certainly kill vastly more people if it goes unchecked. But okay, if you think Trump would cut off aid to Israel if that would be a reason not only to not vote for Harris in swing states, but to literally vote for Trump there. But of course I don’t believe Trump would turn off aid to Israel. Quite the contrary. 

The bottom line, I guess, is that I think my and my critics’ disagreements are twofold. First, would a Trump administration on its own, which is to say acting simply in light of its own preferred agenda, pursue horribly worse outcomes than a Harris administration would pursue on its own? To me it isn’t even a remotely close call. 

But perhaps more interesting for the long run is that that is where my critics often seem to stop their assessment. They acknowledge the left can have a say by voting. But after the voting is completed, it seems that many people think a new administration consults its own list of desires and acts on those, period. I think, in contrast, that a new administration can be constrained, even coerced, by social activism and movements. So for me, not only do the vastly worse internal inclinations of a Trump Administration versus the internal inclinations of a Harris Administration matter, so too do the prospects of either Administration being restrained or coerced by social movements and activism. 

My critics say to me, genocide is what the Democrats offer us. It is what you claim we need to vote for. Have you lost your mind? Well, no, I am pretty sure I am not out of my mind. But I also wonder why my critics seem to think my saying that we need to vote in seven swing states for Harris to stop Trump, implies that I like what Harris offers even most broadly, much less that I like genocide.

My critics aren’t yet outright calling me a shill for the Democrats, or at least I haven’t seen it if they have, but doesn’t their criticism more or less imply that? I am either out of my mind, or if I’m not, then I see what the Democrats are like and I nonetheless say we need to elect Harris, and to my critics that means I must like her or, if not, than I must be a shill for her despite my distaste? Isn’t there a third option? Why can’t those who disagree in most cases see that my advocating voting for Harris in swing states to stop Trump, is, well, precisely to stop Trump? 

Critics sometimes ask me, are you seriously paying proper attention to the fundamentally corrupt and anti-human policies that now fully constitute the Democrat Party?!

Well, first, the Democratic Party isn’t all anti-human—not even all their officials are, much less all their voters—but we can let that slide. Still, if I wasn’t paying proper attention to Dems’ ills, for critics who don’t allow for any other possibility, wouldn’t that make me either a shill for the Dems—saying vote Harris so I could get ahead or for some other self serving reason—or mean that I sincerely like her commitments, aims, etc., and thus have left behind all my earlier attachments and commitments? 

Critics sometimes ask me to point toward something real that they could actually get behind regarding Dem policy commitments. But why do they think they have to like the lesser evil, or the lesser evil’s personal commitments, or even her platform to vote for her where it might make a difference in beating a much greater evil? Why can’t they get behind greatly reducing the damage that Trump winning the election would impose while we also work toward fundamental change?

My critics often top off their case, or have as their entire case, that they don’t vote for Genocide or for any of the other outrages that the Dems manipulatively claim are their pro-people policies.

I wonder, if my critics believe their voting for Harris would be their voting for genocide and all the rest, then in their mind since I know all that they know about the Dems’ ills, do they see me voting for Harris as me voting for genocide? I think perhaps some do, but some don’t because they know that that is utter nonsense and yet they just can’t quite acknowledge that I have my senses, have my values, understand what is wrong with Harris and nonetheless come to a different conclusion than they do. 

What I know,, irrefutably, is that in this election to vote for Stein or West or to abstain in Swing states, if you find Harris is a significantly lesser evil, is to take one vote from her, which helps Trump exactly the same amount as some Trump supporter giving his or her single vote to Trump rather than staying home. And it does so with no gain that I can see to offset the potential loss. If my critics think Stein getting one more vote in Michigan, for example, matters more than Harris getting that vote, okay, vote Stein. But I don’t think that. That is our difference. 

That is why I say if you who are reading this are planning to vote for Stein or West, or on not voting at all in a swing state, I hope you will reconsider. And whatever way you vote, the day after the election we can agree to work to push a Harris administration to make positive changes, or, if it comes to it, we can defend all who will need it, and ourselves, against a Trump administration.

Caveat: There is an exception, two types, actually, to nearly all the above. I mentioned that a possible difference for some of my critics might be defeatist despair. So, I think some people, once leftist, may be feeling such despair not only that Trump exists but about their prior left experiences, that they are immobilized even about a vote, much less about gearing up to struggle beyond Election Day. I have heard this, even punctuated by saying the left is going to get what it deserves. To that, I can only offer this. If you let despair rule you are contributing, however little it may be, to the outcomes you fear. Isn’t it better to work against those outcomes even if you have doubts about succeeding? 

The second type exception to most of the above is a little different. They despair for humanity. They think we are doomed or nearly so. But they want to save nature. For that they think only total revolution today, somehow overnight, or, if not that, then stopping human persistence dead in its tracks by destroying pretty much everything now, before we manage to permanently pollute unto death not only ourselves but all of nature. For them, I have found no words.

And so, I am back where I began. November 5th, in swing states, I urge please hold your nose and vote Harris to stop Trump and MAGA. On November 6th please struggle for better, against fascist reaction and for participatory progress.

Read a follow up response to this article from Kim Scipes here.

---