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'm not them and I'm not going to give details, but I'd like to posit why I personally am against the idea of not voting. First though, this has nothing to do with you or how I feel about your stance here, I'm not trying to attack you or change your mind, I'm simply expressing my thoughts about how I participate as a U.S. citizen. To me, voting is pretty much the bare minimum - our roles as citizens of the United States pretty much designates us to do this one thing.
So you don't vote. You say something about it and why, gives someone else an idea to do the same. Word gets out and your entire town decides to have solidarity with you. The rippling effect of you being an active non-voter is potentially harmful. At it's core, that's all it really is.
I could go on, but it would be redundant. You are still participating, something seen by others who then may decide to also do it that way, which completely strips your power as a citizen. I do believe it serves it up on a silver platter to something you don't agree with ideologically. As you said, you don't agree with Biden's ideology, which I agree with. I'm glad he's attempted student loan relief and puts pledges towards national hunger, further encouraged policies that give more $$ towards earnings up to $55k (under Obama, initially $47k, lowered to $35k under Trump), and surprisingly getting involved in the situation happening in Rwanda and not completely butchering it. He's done some solid actions, even if there are just as many things (maybe more) than I could be disappointed by.
But you are still participating, regardless of whether you want to or not. That does leave you 2 alternatives, which is to abstain, or to vote with someone with an even greater ideological difference. As a U.S. citizen, there is no way for us to not participate.
I think it's fairly circumstantial from there. You not voting for any ideology is making a choice that you are complacent with either one, when in reality you are abstaining specifically because you are against them. Whether you not voting actually affects something outside of your single vote is relative. As in - in that hypothetical where you saying you won't vote gets someone else to do the same, it goes both ways where they could have voted D/R/ or 3rd party. We are a social creature and there is some inherent value to sharing. Again, whether this is the reality or not is strongly related to where you are and who/how you interact.
So for me personally, few of my values are supported by voting for Biden, however none of my values are supported by abstaining, none are supported by voting R, and, this is most important, none of my values are supported by me being silent. You aren't being represented by abstaining either. That is to say - I am in the exact same position as you, yet I choose to vote for a lesser evil because as I do it I am also campaigning for proper humanitarian values, campaigning for a future that will actually serve me and our people. By involving myself in it I am having a conversation with other people participating in our situation. They inform me, I inform them, and we may or may not come to similar conclusions based off these interactions.
Abstaining never gives this conversation the light of day. It's the equivalent to sticking your head in the sand, because the unfortunately sick reality is that the war machine will keep the meat grinder going regardless of whether you choose to participate, which is exactly the reason why we must participate. By abstaining not only are we acknowledging all of the shortcomings but we are explicitly saying, "I'm okay with this and I am choosing not to do anything about it." I think this gets said so often specifically because you do have an alternative, which is participating politically. It should always be read as get involved locally, because obviously you or I have little actual impact on these candidates - that's never been the point. The point is to engage with other people living under the same responsibility.
Finally, when posed with an impossible choice, abstaining is an attempt to remove oneself from responsibility. We have to face these challenges head on, in broad daylight, surrounded by our peers. Else we sweep it under the rug for the next generation to deal with.
I'm the generation that had climate change swept under the rug, that had the U.S. destabilization of the Middle East and Africa, and some thousand or so corporate secrets from gas and oil spills teflon and xenophobia. I'm at the point in my life where I would like to do my best to ensure the rug is cleaned out. Our wars are more public than ever, our knowledge of climate change is more prevalent than ever, and our awareness of corporate profits in name of human health is higher than ever. I would like to continue this transparency by actively electing a candidate that will acknowledge the shortcomings of our country so that it can become a better place.
No, Biden will not be the one to do this, but his Presidency is far more likely to pave the way for this than Trump is. And that is why we have to vote - not only so that we don't get Trump, but so that we can put the nation on a path to having a chance of doing the right thing.
Anyway, again I'm not trying to chide your position or claim that you are serving Trump his presidency on a silver platter. That is dumb and a poor rhetoric to take with someone. There is also the whole fact that we have many different rounds of voting, it's insinuated that it's the general Presidency election but it may not be, so I wonder if people get defensive for local elections. To which of course I say -
State representatives 1) do have to be elected, 2) do have briefings on constituent requests, and 3) could be you! Jk (unless..?) no for real, 3) that there are other people like you who may not feel fully represented by the state reps, to which I say change is possible. We just... we actually have to do something about it, and usually that means fully informed voting.
This is a lot to respond to, so I will first say that I am only not voting for President. I am and always do vote in races in my local area, as in my area there are choices who align with my beliefs.
This is simply a matter of perspective. If I hand you a gun and tell you to shoot the less-evil of 2 people, and you choose to drop the gun instead, are you actually "complacent" with both of them, or are you refusing to commit murder? Well, both candidates are pro-genocide, and I refuse to take part in that.
In a situation where democracy is actually driving the country and participation can actually change the direction of the country, I would agree. In a case where the political and wealth classes operate as an oligarchy that offers you the appearance of agency in order to then use your vote as a mandate to justify whatever evil they do, all you're doing is serving to legitimize their false choices. Obviously, if you don't believe our federal-level politics have fallen that far, we're probably not ever going to agree on how to move forwards.
This is another point where you and I probably fundamentally disagree. I don't think Biden is paving the way for anything but more Center-Right presidents like Biden. He's not pushing us Left. He's not enabling that. He's actually pushing us to the Right. Ronald Reagan was literally harder on Israel for committing crimes than Biden has been. Biden has pushed for mass-incarceration and police funding his entire political life. He's pushing anti-immigrant policies at the border. He's alienating Progressives, while getting people (like many here) to defend him as "paving the way" for the future Left.
You think he's paving the way for a better country. I think he's actively alienating Progressives and minorities from the Democratic Party in order to prevent it shifting to the Left, paving the way for DeSantis in 2028, and funding and supplying a genocide along the way.
One of my values is not actively handing power to evil people, and I do believe Biden is evil. Abstaining is not preventing Biden or Trump from taking power, but the reality is that there is no (legal) way for me to do that. Using "actively preventing bad people from taking power" as the standard for action is also not met by voting, if both choices are bad.
Oh, you're an uninformed bad faith actor. I'm glad I saw this before I took anything you said seriously.
given the exceptional civility of pretty much everyone else here versus the civility of your two comments, i'm going to have to ask you to take it down a notch. it's fine if you don't find these arguments convincing at all but the idea that they're being made by an "uninformed bad faith actor" is not credible. t3rmit3 has been pretty straightforward and honest in their convictions here.
Cool story, bro. Just assume that anyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad-faith. Ignore his continued calls for more cops, more deportations, more bombs for genocidal regimes...
Oh shit, Biden is trying to give more bombs to China and Russia?
Yes, those are his only policies and that's all that matters. Moa is clearly the centrist candidate you would support.
Did I say "for all genocidal regimes"? No? Glad I could clear that up.
Also, I think you mean "Mao", unless you are aware of my interest in PRS. :P
This metaphor doesn't work, because in this case one of the two people will get shot no matter what. It's akin to the trolley problem, and the trolley is already barreling down the hill. Refusing to participate doesn't make the trolley go away, it just means that more people die.
Our federal-level politics have fallen very, very far. They do change the direction of the country, however, even if the changes are insufficient and not always exactly what I prefer. A simple example is the Inflation Reduction Act, which single-handedly doubled investment in clean energy and decreased the "gap" we need to cut in greenhouse emissions by 2/3rds.. Is it what I wanted? Is it "enough?" No. But it changed the direction of the country in a meaningful way.
The Biden Administration, in terms of enacted policies, is further to the left than the Obama and Clinton administrations were. Him being absolutely awful on Israel does not change that overall balance.
Does that mean he's "left" or pushing us there? Of course not. We're a right-leaning country where a plurality of people want fascism, and Joe Biden sucks.
The trolley is coming and will run over someone whether you participate or not. Pulling the lever for harm reduction is not mutually exclusive with any other form of direct action and is an effective means of short-term harm reduction while we work towards popular support for long-term systemic change. As it stands any sort of revolution in the US would be far, far more likely to lead to right-wing authoritarianism than it would be to push us left; not only is the country right-leaning, but the right-wingers are armed to the teeth.
Biden winning means we buy more time to change the tide that before fascists take power again. Trump winning means fascists take power now with an electoral mandate and popular support.
It is our moral obligation, every day, to do what we can within the circumstances we're given to reduce harm. Participating within the circumstances we're given isn't an endorsement of them; using the internet doesn't mean I endorse my ISP, and having a credit card doesn't mean I endorse capitalism. It's just the reality of having to navigate a complex world filled with systems and circumstances I did not set up and don't control. The trolley is already on the tracks; 364 days of the year we can talk about how there shouldn't be trolleys. I hope one day there won't be any more trolleys. But for the hour or two it takes to vote on that 365th day pulling the lever is the most effective means of harm reduction.
I have not seen a single compelling case for how allowing fascists to take power will lead to less harm or a better future. If there is one I'm all ears.
I agree. This is why I won't engage with a system whose only outcome is that eventual takeover.
Is Biden dismantling the duopoly? Is he ignoring or bypassing the fascist-appointed courts? Is he literally doing anything to prevent that takeover? And if not, why would he next term?
This assumes we can in fact change that tide. I have a lot of opinions on where we're going, and what is or isn't inevitable, but frankly they're not something I'm comfortable discussing with people I don't know, and certainly not online.
This is true whether I vote or not, and will not be impacted whether I vote or not. The trolley now called America has been running people over since 1619. Always has, always will. The question is whether you believe it can ever be reformed from within. I have come to the conclusion that it cannot be.
Unless you draw a line with regards to reasonable actions, then essentially no one is doing that; after all, certain bad people we're discussing are all still alive. And if you do accept that we can and must draw lines, well, I consider that line to end at endorsing a genocidal leader.
If our options are truly "fascism now" or "fascism later" why choose now? Letting fascists take over because they will eventually makes zero sense.
I hope so! But I'm not Biden, and I don't control him. I am presented with two options to choose from in November. That choice happens whether I engage with it or not. You're again resorting to "well the trolley shouldn't be coming down the tracks." I agree! I hate both options, and the fact that I have to choose at all. But here we are, and it's barreling down the hill. Pulling the lever is free, takes less than an hour, and isn't mutually exclusive with any other form of activism or harm reduction.
No it doesn't. It buys time so we can try. Again, why would we choose "allow fascism now" over "chance of stopping fascism?"
Whether it runs over more or less people (i.e. whether fascism comes to power) is going to be primarily determined by how everyone, including you, votes.
I don't necessarily disagree. I still do not see why that is a reason to let more people be run over.
Personally, I draw the line at reasonable actions, reasonable being "proportional to one's current power and well-being" - otherwise the whole framework quickly becomes unworkable. I don't hold Joe Schmo on 3rd street responsible for plastic pollution generally, but I do hold him responsible for the avoidable plastic waste or litter that he creates. I don't hold individual Roman citizens responsible for the atrocities of Commodus; I do hold them responsible for helping the people they had the power to help. We're responsible for pulling whatever levers of power our hands fall onto in the direction of less harm. If you're an American citizen then there's a lever available to you of whether to have more fascists or less fascists in power. The choice will happen even if you try to ignore it.
The whole lesson of the trolley problem is that not engaging with the problem doesn't make it go away, and that ignoring it is a form of action. Pulling the lever isn't an endorsement of the trolley. It's dealing head on with the reality of a complex situation that you did not create but are presented with.
As I said elsewhere: "I’ve ruminated and ruminated and ruminated on all of this and I can’t find any compelling philosophical or moral argument for allowing the greater evil to take hold, unless there is an imminent, likely possibility of a more just outcome following soon behind. If there was a groundswell of support in the US for a left revolution then perhaps a fascist victory could be the spark to push us towards structural change. But as it stands a plurality of Americans want (or are fine with) fascism, and they’re armed to the teeth. The most likely outcome of fascists winning the election is that fascists take over and keep power, and that will cause unfathomable harm far beyond the disgusting shortfalls of our current administration."
So again - I haven't seen any compelling case for how allowing fascists to take power will lead to a better future. Even if our choice is "fascism now" and "fascism later," as you posit, why on earth should we choose now?
My not voting for Biden does not determine whether "fascism now" (quite literally, the place I live is already a foregone conclusion). I am sorry to tell you I don't have the ability to decide the election, and as I've said repeatedly throughout this thread, I'm not attempting to incite anyone else not to vote for Biden, I'm arguing why it is not a moral wrong to abstain.
I believe that Biden is going to lose for a whole myriad of reasons. You can argue against me 'till the cows come home, but the reality is that polling shows him losing to Trump, and the DNC had 4 years to groom someone new to replace him, and didn't, and now thanks to the DNC we're stuck with someone who I think is going to lose no matter what you or I do. If I'm wrong? Great! I would be fucking thrilled. But if he loses, look to the power structures that petulantly insisted on their preferred candidate despite all evidence, just as they did in 2016 (I voted for Hillary in that one, and, surprise surprise, that didn't change the outcome either).
My bigger issue with this rhetoric I'm seeing is that it feels as though the people pushing Biden votes as a moral imperative know or suspect this, and are preparing to excuse their inaction under a Trump presidency (or coup, if they try again and succeed) by saying, "well I voted for Biden". And excusing their own inaction for one president's genocide (Biden in Gaza) is gonna make it very easy to excuse their inaction for another's (Trump in America).
If Trump starts a genocide, I will not be able to not act. As Biden is also supporting one, I also cannot not act.
I agree, and not voting for him again is the one concrete and reasonable action I can take against Biden for his part in the genocide in Gaza. If I were braver, I might have a higher bar for what is "reasonable", but alas I believe that no other direct actions against Biden here (that are feasible for me) will actually meaningfully impact the genocide there.
Your ultimate argument is one of moral relativism, and I reject that argument on a fundamental level. I refuse to ignore Biden's genocidal actions because other people are bad or worse. When others do bad things, we'll respond to those too.