Michael Albert has argued at “Answering Critics” (Nov. 2, 2024), cogently in my opinion, that people who live in swing states and have yet to vote should vote for Kamala Harris by November 5th; I agree with this.  But I’d approach it a little differently than him.

Regardless of who wins on Tuesday, from everything I can see, the current US policy in the Middle East of politically supporting and militarily arming Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians is going to continue if not get worse.  Period.  And tragically.  And despite our desires currently, we on the left do not have the capability to stop it in the immediate future. 

However, there are two other related issues immediately at hand.  First, and I cannot understand why Harris is not emphasizing this, are potential Supreme Court nominees.  While neither candidate will propose people with any real kind of leftist values, there is a qualitative difference between the pool from which Harris will draw and the one from which Trump will draw:  and this will affect so much of our lives that it is crucial that Harris prevails.  I don’t think this is debatable, although others might challenge it.

Along with that are the people who will be chosen to populate the government at all kinds of levels, from Cabinet on down to everyone below political-appointment level.  These are the people who actually make what the government does or does not do as the President and Administration projects:  these people are essential to any administration’s self-defined success.  Again, the difference in the pool to be drawn from is extreme, with qualitatively different approaches to government, such as toward implementing environmental regulations, gun control, reproductive rights, etc., etc.

So, on those two factors alone—potential Supreme Court nominees as well as potential governmental staffing—there is a world of difference between Harris and Trump.  So, I strongly support voting for Harris.  Period. 

However—and I think this is where people are having problems with/disagree with Michael—is that it appears that Michael’s long-term vision is “more of the same” leftists voting for the Dems in future campaigns.  Now, I don’t think this is accurate—I don’t see Michael ever selling out to them—but I do think his position leads to folks seeing this possibility.

There is actually one thing that I think the left can unify around if our leaders—formal and informal—would project enthusiastically:  I think many people, non-activists as well as activists, are sick of US actions in the world, and especially for the US’s particular foreign policy, with unlimited support of Israel being the latest but perhaps most salient specific issue at this time.  I don’t think most Americans want the US to be a bully (or “policeman” if you will) to the world, and they don’t want to go to war with Russia or China, which different aspects of the ruling elite are projecting.  And my experiences are that younger Americans are even feeling stronger against this than older ones!

And when you point out the cost of these efforts toward world domination, with the cogent argument that the US cannot fund both our military industrial and university complex and take care of all Americans, almost all Americans would—given the choice—support the latter over the former.

But is there a simple, straight-forward term to describe this?  I believe there is: Empire. 

As one who, along with notable others, has studied the US role in the world since at least the end of World War II (1945) in detail, it is unequivocal that US foreign policy has been designed, initiated, and advanced to maintain if not expand US domination of other countries of the world.  Period.

Now, admittedly, most of the US population has been taught that this is good; that it is desirable so they’ve been willing to, as Country Joe once memorably said, “Invest your son!”  (And, to update, your daughters!)  Americans have accepted this, however reluctantly, because our “leaders” could point out our higher incomes and resulting standards of living (when compared to formerly colonized countries; not other imperial countries) and claimed this was “God’s will.” 

Well, “God” has been losing faith in the American project (read Empire) apparently, as our economic system can no longer provide “the American dream” for larger and larger groups of Americans.  Talk with young Americans, and this issue is very salient, as it is for more and more Americans:  ask young people when they expect to purchase a home, a key to American material and cultural success if there is one?  (Something like one-third of all Americans in their early 30s are still living at home today, unable to support themselves and especially families on their own.)  In fact, this problem will only grow worse over the upcoming years as capitalism is providing fewer opportunities with less resources for more people.

At the same time, the issue of climate change is becoming more and more salient to many.  Capitalism is destroying the atmosphere that surrounds the planet and protects us from excessive solar light and energy (heat).  And the general assault on the environment—as well as threat to the very survival of humans, animals, and most plants—is becoming more and more obvious, although the issue of heat is arguably the most important.  (See Jeff Goodell’s 2024 book, The Heat Will Kill You First:  Life and Death on a Scorched Planet, for a particularly cogent argument.)

These are issues that Americans are concerned about and, from my perch in Northwest Indiana—not a progressive paradise, I assure you—are issues that folks can discuss and are increasingly willing to consider.  Trump has developed at least some of the support he has because he’s tapped into some of the increasing concern about the economic uneasiness that so many have developed, and here I’m talking about those who are not racist and/or misogynist and/or homophobic, etc.  (That they believe that he, a billionaire, etc., etc., can and will solve these problems only suggests the intensity of these concerns; or that he even cares about them….)

So, to pull this all together … I believe that Michael would help himself and better convey what I believe are his actual positions if he’d quit tiptoeing around and adopt and use the term “US Empire.”  (Arguably, the Chinese are seeking to build their own empire, but we can leave that debate for a later date.)   

The contest of every presidential election is not between whether the Democrats or Republicans are good or bad, but about who the ruling elite think can best manage the Empire (and try to dominate the world, politically, economically, militarily, culturally, and diplomatically) for their benefit.  They “legitimize” their respective investment by having the American public vote for one candidate or another (or not vote) and usually accept the outcome, so they can claim we have “democracy.”  (Obviously, Trump’s stunt on January 6, 2021, not accepting the 2020 outcome, threatened that “legitimacy.”)

The key thing to note is that a viable national candidacy depends on winning the support of the ruling elite and the ones who have the resources to finance their campaigns; it is not about “values” or “policy positions”; it’s about who they think can best run the Empire.

But that’s a top-down approach; it’s what the ruling elite want those who seek their blessings as candidates to adopt, whether the candidate initially believed in it or not.  In other words, the ruling elites seek politicians who will do their bidding if elected and generally elite domination is such that if the “other side” of the elite should win, they probably will not let too much damage be done, if any, to their elite competitors.  They both know on which side their bread is buttered.

But what about those of us on the bottom of the social order?  While we have the numbers, we are horribly divided, are often turned into competitors by the elites, fighting over what “crumbs” the elites and their economic system will let filter down; and to be honest, the crumbs can be but rarely are substantial.  (Usually, those big “crumbs” go to those who can perform for and entertain the rest of us, diverting us from seeing the larger reality and, ideally, away from ever thinking about the whole shebang.)

The elites schedule elections not to make meaningful change, but to allow them to see empirical evidence as to how well their schemes are working in keeping us distracted, divided and at each other’s throats; i.e., not a threat to elite control.

However, elections—when combined with social movement campaigns around issues of importance to people (i.e., not elections alone)—also allow us on the bottom to see how our efforts to change the system are progressing/not progressing.  Finding, promoting and electing good people who will stand up for people’s interests once elected are important tasks as long as there are independent organizations developed to further define people’s interests and who will govern the elected’s behavior between elections.  And as that great Chicagoan, Al Capone, supposedly liked to say, “A kind word and a gun will get you further than a kind word alone”; the “gun” here, metaphorically, are well developed social movements.

Thus, what we in the bottom should be seeking is power to take democratic control over our lives and the lives of others acting to include everyone possible—including those likewise around the world—with maximum equity globally.  It’s a big challenge and begins with projects to dissemble and weaken the US Empire.

This demands, however, that when we vote, we vote for those that will give us as much institutional space as possible so as to allow us to advance our interests.  The differences on this issue, too, argue for voting for Harris this time; not as “savior” but enabler.

And think of the obvious power that would be generated when the entire left utilizes the same concept: Empire.

---