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 Halliburtonās 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 wealthiestās 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 canāt 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 thereās 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 thatās significant. In 2020 I didnāt think I had a red line which would cause me to allow a greater evil, and within the last few months Iām 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 donāt 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.
āVote 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 āVote for our candidate or the Republicans will fuck you up.ā We better pay up or they canāt 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 itās 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 itās 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 weāre at genocide. Now the promise is, āYou 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, weāre 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 couldnāt eventually be worse than Trump? Do we really think by making this compromise here, on top of all the compromises weāve 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 canāt 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 āpolitical 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 weāre in now, suffer the consequences, and deal with Democrats who at least understand they will not get elected if they facilitate genocide. Honestly Iād 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 doesnāt 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 Trumpās genocide is going to be received very differently than Bidenās 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 donāt think itās 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 itās the actual least bad option this time.
Iām open to being challenged on or discuss anything Iāve said here in good faith. Iām also open to rage-induced teardowns of the ideas Iāve 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 doesnāt bleed into abuse which wonāt 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 yāall on the street.
If I believed that either my failure to pay taxes, or my individual revolutionary actions, could have any chance of ending the genocide in Palestine, I would absolutely agree with you.
If the probability of success of those actions was not 0%, there may be an argument that the impact outweighs the unlikelihood of success. But you and I both know otherwise.
My belief that opposing the genocide in Palestine is necessary, does not assert that I must simply take whatever random actions someone throws out there, especially when the only real and logical outcome is self-harm, without helping Palestinians.
i mean i just donāt find this argument particularly convincing. i think biting this bullet would improperly impugn the vast majority of protests and forms of protestābecause most of them are unsuccessful and will never be successful. likewise, i think āchance of influencing an outcome for the betterā is just one variable you should consider in a moral act, because trying to weigh whether you should do something or not on that basis just invites a whole host of other problems.
If your express and only goal in a marching in a protest is to directly bring about some immediate policy change based on empathy or sympathy from politicians, then yes, stop protesting right now, youāre wasting your time. But generally the goal of most protests is to make an implicit threat that if ignored, other actions will follow (whether it be voting a certain way, boycotting, or other direct actions). The more people who participate in making that threat, the more effective it is.
People who organize protests attempt to plan for actions and times and places that maximize their impact, because 5,000 people standing in a field at midnight is not as effective as 5,000 people standing on a bridge in rush hour. They would tell you that the field at midnight is likely to have 0% chance of achieving any impact, which is why you donāt see that happen, as where you do see bridge obstructions during rush hour.
Of course it is not the only metric, but it can and must be heavily considered. All risk calculation looks at impact and likelihood as the 2 key factors. If Impact is High, but Likelihood is None, there is no chance of that outcome, and the outcome can be safely ignored.