First of all, it should not require 1D chess logic for you to have a red line at genocide. That should be enough for you to take pause and be absolutely certain that you know what you are talking about. If you’re dabbling in this, it should mean you just spent at least the last year reading extensively on genocide, history, Palestine, and political power and strategy. And yet you just use the usual , self-defeating, lesser evil talking point. That is how little concern you have for Palestinians facing genocide.
But let’s say you weren’t just pretending to care about strategy. Let’s say you are you ten years from now feeling, correctly, like you did something very wrong and this has led you to be curious about how to build power, so you begin to critically engage with the propaganda you have been sold your entire life. Pretty shameful that you didn’t so it when brown people faced genocide, but here we are.
Your logic is that you must always support your party candidate, who is allegedly some measurable amount better, even while doing a genocide, than the other with any chance of winning the election. You’re just minimizing harm, right?
Well no. What you are doing is taking what little leverage you have in your vote and saying, “I will never stand for anything, I will vote for you no matter what horrible things you do”. And your political class, the one in your faction, is glad for this. You have done what you were told, you have made yourself a suppirter that expects nothing, just a cog in their genocidal machine. Four years roll around and you are somehow surprised that your team has moved farther right, done the same kinds of things, or done them worse, or done more if the worst things. Maybe it turns on trans people, as it is doing in Texas by supporting a transphobic candidate. Or immigrants, which Dems already did. You wonder how we got here and then tell everyone “vote blue no matter who, the Republicans are worse!”
You are making several great points and I thank you for explaining them. I don’t even want to argue against any of them.
I just feel like I’ve seen the USA murder muslims for a decade in the first degree, and now people are getting worked up over a second degree, and consider electing a con artist to prevent it.
I’d rather have a reasonable person in office, that might respond to the public opinion, than someone who is purely focused on their own gain.
The “reasonable person” is an active participant in the genocide. Harris has been lockstep with Biden in his public statements and misleading “ceasefire” rhetoric and has clearly signaled material support for Israeli occupation in no uncertain terms. Harris has not “responded to public opinion”, the genocide is very unpopular, as is military support for Israel. She hasn’t even done any real pandering, which would be easy and cost her very little. There are a handful of very willing Palestinian PR liberals that will gladly get up on a stage and say, “this is tragic but [both sides rhetoric]”. You won’t even get that.
It’s important to understand that politicians do not care about polling like you might want them to. They only care insofar as it serves their strategy, and their strategy is premised on supporting Israel both to feed their own military industrial complex and to prop up the petrodollar and ensure the US dollar is the world reserve currency. They need Israel to destabilize any independent groups in the region that could jeopardize this by, say, daring to have their own foreign policy or nationalizing their resources or shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to unilateral sanctions. Israel is a forward base, an attack dog, for US empire. This is why your politicians will not doing anything for you. This is why you don’t even get pandering. This is why they don’t follow “the polls” or “public opinion” on this: it does not align with their prior, and greater, commitments to empire, as filtered down through their donors, the government MIC and intelligence bureaucracy, and the party insiders. This is an important lesson to learn, because they will also come at us with positions that they claim are just “following what people want”, which is almost always something right wing that serves their own interests. They are not consistent about this, it is just cynical PR strategy to launder an agenda.
Re: being a reasonable person, Harris is a former prosecutor and AG that made a name for herself for unnecessary cruelty in keeping people locked up past when they should have been released and for using technicalities to avoid releasing those with exonerating evidence. As a politician, she is an empty suit, adopting policy planks from other politicians and never fighting for them. “It was a debate!” What you can tell from her, however, is that she is self-interested, opportunistic, and never really breaks the party agenda with any coherent vision of her own. That means going all-in on xenophobic Dem rhetoric, playing coy about trans rights (but she’s happy to get photo ops during pride!), and genocide. Expect her, if elected, to not give a shit about you or anyone else and to do exactly what the larger imperialist political bureaucracy wants her to do, all with a smile and an incoherent mealy-mouthed ramble. Expect the trade wars to increase and for yet more US-backed wars and starvation campaigns to ramp up (Yemen has been facing this since Obama).
Harris is in no way less self-interested than Trump, she is just “acceptable” to liberals on a purely aesthetic basis. Her self-interest aligns with the typical liberal idea of what is “okay”, which includes members of Congress being mysteriously extremely rich, getting to participate in insider trading, doing a genocide, being “tough on crime”, lying regularly, having no consistent principals or honestly-stated political program, having no real track record of delivering or pushing for anything at all except what is already fully in line with the party, punching left, and being politely racist.
First of all, it should not require 1D chess logic for you to have a red line at genocide. That should be enough for you to take pause and be absolutely certain that you know what you are talking about. If you’re dabbling in this, it should mean you just spent at least the last year reading extensively on genocide, history, Palestine, and political power and strategy. And yet you just use the usual , self-defeating, lesser evil talking point. That is how little concern you have for Palestinians facing genocide.
But let’s say you weren’t just pretending to care about strategy. Let’s say you are you ten years from now feeling, correctly, like you did something very wrong and this has led you to be curious about how to build power, so you begin to critically engage with the propaganda you have been sold your entire life. Pretty shameful that you didn’t so it when brown people faced genocide, but here we are.
Your logic is that you must always support your party candidate, who is allegedly some measurable amount better, even while doing a genocide, than the other with any chance of winning the election. You’re just minimizing harm, right?
Well no. What you are doing is taking what little leverage you have in your vote and saying, “I will never stand for anything, I will vote for you no matter what horrible things you do”. And your political class, the one in your faction, is glad for this. You have done what you were told, you have made yourself a suppirter that expects nothing, just a cog in their genocidal machine. Four years roll around and you are somehow surprised that your team has moved farther right, done the same kinds of things, or done them worse, or done more if the worst things. Maybe it turns on trans people, as it is doing in Texas by supporting a transphobic candidate. Or immigrants, which Dems already did. You wonder how we got here and then tell everyone “vote blue no matter who, the Republicans are worse!”
You are making several great points and I thank you for explaining them. I don’t even want to argue against any of them.
I just feel like I’ve seen the USA murder muslims for a decade in the first degree, and now people are getting worked up over a second degree, and consider electing a con artist to prevent it.
I’d rather have a reasonable person in office, that might respond to the public opinion, than someone who is purely focused on their own gain.
The “reasonable person” is an active participant in the genocide. Harris has been lockstep with Biden in his public statements and misleading “ceasefire” rhetoric and has clearly signaled material support for Israeli occupation in no uncertain terms. Harris has not “responded to public opinion”, the genocide is very unpopular, as is military support for Israel. She hasn’t even done any real pandering, which would be easy and cost her very little. There are a handful of very willing Palestinian PR liberals that will gladly get up on a stage and say, “this is tragic but [both sides rhetoric]”. You won’t even get that.
It’s important to understand that politicians do not care about polling like you might want them to. They only care insofar as it serves their strategy, and their strategy is premised on supporting Israel both to feed their own military industrial complex and to prop up the petrodollar and ensure the US dollar is the world reserve currency. They need Israel to destabilize any independent groups in the region that could jeopardize this by, say, daring to have their own foreign policy or nationalizing their resources or shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to unilateral sanctions. Israel is a forward base, an attack dog, for US empire. This is why your politicians will not doing anything for you. This is why you don’t even get pandering. This is why they don’t follow “the polls” or “public opinion” on this: it does not align with their prior, and greater, commitments to empire, as filtered down through their donors, the government MIC and intelligence bureaucracy, and the party insiders. This is an important lesson to learn, because they will also come at us with positions that they claim are just “following what people want”, which is almost always something right wing that serves their own interests. They are not consistent about this, it is just cynical PR strategy to launder an agenda.
Re: being a reasonable person, Harris is a former prosecutor and AG that made a name for herself for unnecessary cruelty in keeping people locked up past when they should have been released and for using technicalities to avoid releasing those with exonerating evidence. As a politician, she is an empty suit, adopting policy planks from other politicians and never fighting for them. “It was a debate!” What you can tell from her, however, is that she is self-interested, opportunistic, and never really breaks the party agenda with any coherent vision of her own. That means going all-in on xenophobic Dem rhetoric, playing coy about trans rights (but she’s happy to get photo ops during pride!), and genocide. Expect her, if elected, to not give a shit about you or anyone else and to do exactly what the larger imperialist political bureaucracy wants her to do, all with a smile and an incoherent mealy-mouthed ramble. Expect the trade wars to increase and for yet more US-backed wars and starvation campaigns to ramp up (Yemen has been facing this since Obama).
Harris is in no way less self-interested than Trump, she is just “acceptable” to liberals on a purely aesthetic basis. Her self-interest aligns with the typical liberal idea of what is “okay”, which includes members of Congress being mysteriously extremely rich, getting to participate in insider trading, doing a genocide, being “tough on crime”, lying regularly, having no consistent principals or honestly-stated political program, having no real track record of delivering or pushing for anything at all except what is already fully in line with the party, punching left, and being politely racist.