Like, sure, if a candidate is like “I don’t support raising taxes” or whatever we can call that a matter of debate, but some policies have to be red lines because it means people will die. And since we’re all unwilling to do violence, voting/not voting is the vector we have for teaching politicians.
“I’ll continue our policy of materially supporting a genocide” isn’t just a deviation from hyper purity or whatever—it’s an unforgivable stance that invalidates a politician’s entire platform. If they can’t muster the basic moral wherewithal to oppose genocide, they can’t be trusted in general.
Treating every disagreement as equivalent and every dissonance as merely a matter of an unrealistic expectation of perfection is really disingenuous rhetoric. As if there’s no distinction between, say, not funding high-speed rail and supporting a genocide or oppressing trans people.
Ok. But let’s have a thought exercise. Gavin Newsom is in the Oval Office. He has a Dem majority in both houses. Alito & Thomas die and he appoints two justices in the mold of KBJ. Newsom announces an arms package to Israel and a anti-trans bathroom bill. The people who elected him hit the phones..
They protest at the WH, clog the switchboard, hold massive demonstrations in the streets. Do you really think that administration snubs its nose at that or do you think they’d be willing to listen to the people who elected them!?!
Now run that same scenario but in favor of MAGA.
I agree that Newsom’s support of pro-IDF & anti Trans legislation are unacceptable policy positions. But why does that make him an unacceptable candidate? Have you ever really agreed with every single policy/position a candidate or elected official believed in?
To me, the difference is we could have a rational but imperfect administration who I *think* would consider the input of the voters who put them there. Or we could have a fascist administration who has the same unacceptable positions AND is anti-immigrant AND anti science AND anti-poor…
I'm really struggling to figure out why a system that produces a situation where somehow in every single election we have "no choice" except a stopgap against fascism that requires us to concede a little bit more of our values every time is worth saving, versus like balkanization of the U.S.
If things are truly so far gone that all we can do is sacrifice trans people and homeless people and Palestinian children and sick people and poor people and people with mental health issues on the altar of At Least It's Not Worse, what are we really even saving anymore?
Rewinding a bit, from a pragmatic perspective none of these concessions will even garner more votes, and in fact will likely prove repulsive to voters since most of us still have souls. So why are we running someone who has less of a chance of winning than someone who DOESN'T oppose our values?
AND anti-healthcare AND anti-education AND anti-LGBTQ writ large, AND Xenophobic, AND racist AND anti-government. Do you see the difference!?!
So to be absolutely fucking clear: I don’t want Newsom. But if it’s Newsom, he gets my vote. He is the better candidate against whoever MAGA puts forward. Full stop. I don’t believe there’s a 3rd party candidate anywhere on the political spectrum that can compete with our 2 party system. *YET*
I’m also of the opinion that anyone who does believe a 3rd party candidate can compete against the 2 party system in our *current political environment* is deluded - or not paying attention I appreciate your perspective though.