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 Halliburtonā€™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 wealthiestā€™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 canā€™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 thereā€™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 thatā€™s significant. In 2020 I didnā€™t think I had a red line which would cause me to allow a greater evil, and within the last few months Iā€™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 donā€™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.

ā€œVote Blue No Matter Whoā€ 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 ā€œVote for our candidate or the Republicans will fuck you up.ā€ We better pay up or they canā€™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 itā€™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 itā€™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 weā€™re at genocide. Now the promise is, ā€œYou better support our genocide, or the Republicans will make it worse and fuck you up too.ā€

What is going to happen if we tell the Democrats that even though they are facilitating a genocide, weā€™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 couldnā€™t eventually be worse than Trump? Do we really think by making this compromise here, on top of all the compromises weā€™ve made over the last few decades, that after this time everything will suddenly change and we can start talking about making average peoplesā€™ lives better for once?

I canā€™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 ā€œpolitical spectrumā€ 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 weā€™re in now, suffer the consequences, and deal with Democrats who at least understand they will not get elected if they facilitate genocide. Honestly Iā€™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 doesnā€™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 Trumpā€™s genocide is going to be received very differently than Bidenā€™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 donā€™t think itā€™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 itā€™s the actual least bad option this time.

Iā€™m open to being challenged on or discuss anything Iā€™ve said here in good faith. Iā€™m also open to rage-induced teardowns of the ideas Iā€™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 doesnā€™t bleed into abuse which wonā€™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 yā€™all on the street.

  • circularfish@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    Ā·
    8 months ago

    There is room for a lot of good faith debate here, but FWIW I reckon It is a mistake for the left to prematurely roll over and telegraph an inevitable Biden vote (whether on this or any other issue) just because Trump would be worse. The time for that utilitarian calculus is much closer to November. Right now, if you want policy change ā€” you have to raise hell.

    As much as you love to hate ā€˜em, this is what the Tea Party and their ideological successors got right about wielding power within their own party. When the time comes, by all means circle the wagons and vote pragmatically, but during primary season you have to come across as a credible threat to the party power structure.

    Iā€™ll personally be willing to (attempt!) to shame my progressive friends into voting blue, say, around October. In the meantime, I am proud of folks for speaking their mind and standing up for human rights.

    • nurple@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      Ā·
      8 months ago

      I largely agree - which is why voting uncommitted in Michigan (or other states where itā€™s available) is a clever and effective idea.

      The fine line, though, is this: itā€™s logical and just to spend time between now and the fall applying pressure to the campaign and administration to change course via uncommitted votes, campaigns, protests, etc. Itā€™s not logical and just, however, to spend time telling others they should not vote in November, which has become sadly common in every left-leaning space I spend time in.

      The former could result in policy changes. The latter is pretty much just pushing to allow fascists into power.

    • Kwakigra@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      Ā·
      8 months ago

      Itā€™s really a game of chicken. Iā€™m not about to say Iā€™ll give Biden my vote as long as thereā€™s a genocide and this primary is the safest way to send that message. However, they know that we donā€™t really have a choice to avoid what could be a catastrophe so they could very well assume weā€™re bluffing as they usually do. This is why I canā€™t afford to indicate if Iā€™m willing to vote for a genocide to prevent a worse genocide because they will take any evidence that weā€™re not serious to not take our demands seriously. Why would they change anything if they know weā€™ll vote for them regardless? Importantly, Iā€™ve engaged this conversation in February during the primary. The most Iā€™m willing to say is that Iā€™m not arrogant enough to be absolutely certain about anything. Actually driving off the cliff with Bidenā€™s campaign would be a disaster. Iā€™m really hoping we can swerve before the chips are down and we find out how many people are serious.