I thank those who took time to reply to the essay I offered, “We Need a United Left.” I hope it is helpful to provide some brief reactions to the comments.
When Bill Fletcher Jr. says we have to make a tactical decision to support Clinton to stop Trump, I take it that he means that we should oppose Trump by voting for Clinton in contested states, but we should do so saying we are doing it despite despising her and what she stands for. On that, assuming I hear him right, we agree, and I agree with the rest of what he wrote, as well.
Vincent Emmanuelle and I appear to simply agree.
Howie Hawkins and I disagree. I would say a Trump defeat is a defeat for the right – or can be, if it is carried through to reaching out to his supporters – which will depend on Sanders and the left more broadly, and I wish folks were far more clear about and intent on doing that. I would not say that a Clinton administration will be more favorable to winning reforms (though I think it will for a few, but of course not for many) but that opposition to a Clinton administration will take the form of opposition to the whole underlying system, whereas opposition to a Trump administration will take the form of opposition to Trump, and lunatic right wing forces, but with the intent, for most involved, of getting a liberal in place, and the national environment under Clinton is likely also to be easier for organizers to operate in, than under Trump.
That liberals are abysmal and that their policies abet the right surging, I agree with. Hawkins says lesser evils open the door to greater evils and I quite agree. But I don’t think the solution is to say, here let me help with opening that door. It is, instead, to try to slam the door shut and to also oppose Clinton and move much further, of course. There is no need to take a very large step backwards in order to move forwards. In fact, large steps backwards are just that. After such steps one has to struggle mightily to get back to where one was, in order to then go further.
Hawkins says, “the left should work for system change, not for a Clinton to defeat a Trump.” And what if a Clinton beating a Trump helps with fighting for system change by warding off a fall backwards and, as well, warding off a context of far worse conditions? What if Trump winning hurts, a whole lot, both in the present and prospects?
I take Hawkins word that people voting Clinton instead of Green in contested states will hurt Green prospects for a time in those states. I think that is a real and fair concern. I just don’t think it outweighs concerns over the implications of Trump winning. So I would take Hawkins observation into serious account, but if Trump has a chance to win the presidency, and there are states that are close, then in those states I would vote strategic and I believe doing so would also be better for the Greens than not doing so, as soon as one takes into account more than just whether the Green tally there is a bit higher or lower.
Stephen Shalom and I appear to simply agree.
With Greg Wilpert, I don’t see why the discussion assumes the U.S. is democratic – though in some ways it is, of course, and in many more ways it isn’t. But yes, while I don’t think this alone implies serious democracy, I certainly think participation in the electoral system can at times make a difference – in this case, electing Clinton rather than Trump. If Sanders had the nomination, then I would be very very aggressively supporting him, everywhere, as the only good candidate, and a very good one at that, in context – and again I would think participating can matter. If Sanders creates a shadow government, say, I would support that, again very energetically. But I would rather he have that to fight a Clinton administration than a Trump administration.
I agree with Wilpert that we should work to improve, greatly, the political system, and agree with the points he raises about that, as well.
I am confused by Peter Bohmer’s reply, and also what he reports among many young folks though I think it is highly germane to the debate that is going on, and where people’s thinking and feelings go, and to whether it all deteriorates or becomes productive.
That people are outraged at having to choose between Trump and Clinton I of course get, and agree with, it being something I think anyone who is aware of social relations should have felt for every election I can remember. Bohmer, though, like many others, hears the kind of message I offered and somehow seems to think perhaps it implies a softness about Clinton. It doesn’t, of course. A lesser evil can still be plenty evil. And is. And so is her whole apparatus, the party, and so on. Of course. Among progressives and leftists, this should be a given.
But Bohmer says, “I think people who say they cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton, even in contested states such as Florida, Ohio, etc. should not be criticized nor pressured to change their mind.” And I wonder why. If he, or I or anyone living in Florida, or Ohio, or wherever, believes that the state could go Trump next October, and that Trump with that state in hand could become President, why wouldn’t one then be correct to try to convey that to others and to try to urge them to help stop Trump?
Bohmer says, “I know many, many people in this category and when I ask them what they are likely to do in November, besides telling me about their anger at the mainstream media promotion of Clinton and the marginalization of Bernie, and  the daily coverage of Trump, almost all of them tell me  they will either not  vote or vote for the Greens. I do not criticize this decision although if they ask me what I believe, I say that voting for Hillary Clinton in states where it is not clear who will win, also makes sense and is defensible.”
So, Bohmer is saying he tells such folks they shouldn’t feel that those saying we should vote strategically are shills or sell outs or whatever. Okay, with that I agree. And I certainly empathize with why people don’t want to vote Clinton. I don’t want to, either, of course. But at the same time I think once one takes into account the implications of Trump winning versus Clinton winning, not voting Clinton in contested states is not a sound choice unless the implications are deemed less important than, well, ten minutes in a voting booth doing something distasteful and uncomfortable.
When Bohmer says, “Reducing voting to a strategic decision leaves out the moral dilemma felt by so many newly politicized and radicalized people who are a natural base for the growth of an anti-capitalist transformational politics.” I wonder, why is saying voting should be done in context, in light of implications, in any way reducing it, and why is being strategic in any way ignoring morality? It seems to me agreeing with what disturbs the people Bohmer reports on, and for the most part expressing even more anger and greater concern about what disturbs them, and about much more, while also honestly conveying the belief that even with those concerns, beating Trump remains important, in no way ignores their moral dilemma. Who to vote for, considered morally – which is how all decisions should be considered – requires that we take into account implications that go far beyond one’s time in the voting booth.
Bohmer adds, “My point is not so much that I disagree with the analysis that Michael and others put forward but the way you are presenting it. It leads to you, no matter what your rationale, being dismissed by those who refuse to vote for Hillary as one who compromises with and in the end, who accepts the bankrupt establishment.”
If that is true, it is quite sad. It seems like you are saying, they won’t vote Hilary – nothing can impact that, and anyone who tries will be deemed liberal or worse. That is a larger issue to address than the simple issue of the vote. If an individual hears someone with decades of unblemished opposition to the “bankrupt establishment” say I hate Clinton, I hate the Democrats, but I will vote for her in a contested state because Trump and what he would usher in is much worse than Clinton and what she would usher in, and decides on that account that the strategic voter accepts the “bankrupt establishment,” then the person should be communicated with, not only about the election, but about that reasoning, and to not do so is not a path toward a unified and powerful movement. That the communication should be respectful is true, of course, as always. But that one should say nothing, I don’t get.
I agree with Bohmer that the two sides of this issue questioning each other’s motives, or deciding the each other is a lost cause, is horrible – which was the point of the article. But I don’t think simply avoiding discussion of differences, and especially such false attributions, will solve anything.

---