The Double-Edged Sword of Lesser-Evil Voting
Cal Dooley | November 6, 2024
Without further discretion than “the lesser of two evils,” who holds the Democratic Party accountable as they slip further right?
I had originally planned to publish this article well ahead of the election, but it would seem that life had some curveballs to throw at us before then. Instead, it is coming to you the day after the election. Regardless, the argument I make here retains its importance in how we make sense of the results. Do we blame the third parties for a Harris loss, or do we blame her genocidal policies? If she makes it into office, do we expect to push her left? Whether you are relieved at the results or ringing alarm bells, there is immense work to be done. For all those still threatened by the United States (U.S.) imperialist policy—for the people of Gaza—it is just another day. Elections have a way of exaggerating the differences between the two ruling parties in our collective imagination, narrowing our image of what change is possible. Stepping into the next 4 years, I'm hopeful that those of us enraged at the injustices of the U.S. government will find ways of building a real opposition far more just than what the Democratic Party has to offer.
Many who hold views far to the left of Harris and see little to no expression of their views in the actions of the Democratic Party have joined the call to vote Democrat. The logic is understandable: a Harris presidency will continue to cause unacceptable harm, but a second Trump presidency will cause more harm. There are only two viable candidates, therefore voting for Harris is the only option that reduces harm. But before finding a pro-Palestine activist’s post to comment “Just say you want Trump to win,” I would call on those who fall in this category of unhappy strategic voters to consider a side-effect of the “harm reduction” approach. Without the incentive of winning voters, the Democratic Party has no reason not to follow Trump further and further right. The “lesser-evil” approach to voting plays a convenient role for the Democrats by allowing them to continue ignoring demands from the left with impunity.
Compared to the Biden campaign, the Democratic Party has shifted further to the right on issues such as immigration, border security, transgender rights and policing. Even on issues that were once central to the Democrat’s moral condemnation of the first Trump presidency, such as the draconian punishment for asylum seekers crossing the border, Democrats have changed their tune by promising harsher immigration enforcement. Most recently, Harris has proudly touted endorsements from infamous hard-liners from the Iraq war Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales. These rightward shifts in posturing and policy are often justified under the guise of pragmatism. While left-leaning voters are seen as a non-issue, there is a tendency in popular U.S. political discourse to focus on the moderate, White, middle-class voter as constantly up for grabs.
In this way, the harm-reduction vote ultimately aligns with the Democratic Party’s strategy. By setting as a given that left-wing voters are expected to vote Democrat, the party does not have to explain themselves or contend with these issues, always weary of upsetting the business and militarist interests that keep the donor money flowing in.
Despite the lack of emphasis by prominent political pundits, it is likely that Harris is in fact losing votes by running as a moderate. If not for any other issue, her campaign has undoubtedly faced the fiercest criticism for their pledge to continue providing Israel with weapons in their genocide in Gaza, not to mention Harris’s participation in the administration which has paid for 70% of the ongoing genocide. The uncommitted movement poses a legitimate threat to the Harris campaign in Michigan by calling on voters to withhold support for the Democrats until they change course on their support for Israel, stating “The movement has highlighted a clear disconnect between the Democratic Party and key constituencies in their base.” Jill Stein's campaign has also drawn increased support for her opposition to the genocide, with Stein polling slightly ahead of Harris among Muslim voters.
Pressure from anti-genocide movements has already shown some small impact on the Democratic platform. Harris has gone further than Biden in at least paying lip service to the suffering in Gaza, stating “The images of dead children and desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety—sometimes displaced for the second, third or fourth time—we cannot look away in the face of these tragedies” after a meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu. While Harris has said that the at least 42,800 deaths in Gaza are “Unacceptable,” her campaign remains clear that these expressions of sympathy do not indicate a shift in policy towards Israel.
“The most important election of our lifetime” may be one of the most long-running cliches in US politics, but it has rung with uncomfortable truth since Trump has stirred up an arguably fascist movement and led the Republican Party down an increasingly extreme path. There are many good reasons to fear a Trump victory in this election, particularly the loss of abortion rights for millions of people. As a transexual woman, I am mortified at the likely criminalization of my existence and loss of life-saving healthcare. While I encourage everyone to consider this more problematic side of lesser-evil voting, it is understandable that many will still vote for Harris. It is hard to say what outcome we could expect from the Democratic Party if they were to lose this election – there's no guarantee that withholding support from them will lead them to change course. I do hope those comfortable in promoting the Harris campaign can at least distance themselves from the simplistic framing of “We don’t like Harris but what do you want Trump?” or the more cynical “Palestine isn’t on the ballot” which simultaneously erases the fact that the Democratic Party is only answerable to its progressive base insofar as it is relying on their votes.
Ultimately, coaxing the Democratic Party away from its commitment to genocidal and imperialist policies will always be an uphill battle. Without significant efforts on the part of organizers, left-wing ideas are simply not going to take root in the currently existing landscape of U.S. electoral politics. It will take significant expansion in labor organizing, agitation and political education from leftist groups to combat the rising fascist movement, and whether the Democratic Party will choose to work with those forces over the Dick Cheneys of the world is up to them. Whoever wins this election, the same threats remain. Until we consolidate a movement against the capitalist and colonial systems of power that lead us from the “most important election” to the next “most important election,” human rights will continue to be stomped out.