Environmental activists are strong backers of Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign despite a lack of detailed policy plans because they fear GOP nominee Donald Trump would set back U.S. efforts to combat climate change.
And they’re almost certainly correct. This is what’s called “strategy” and “foresight.” Nice to see some people actually taking their heads out of their asses and realizing you can’t make forward progress if you’re constantly cutting yourself off at the knees.
Huh, some other groups could take a cue from that.
If you’ll forgive me for tangenting pretty hard here:
This is the level of pragmatism and realpolitik that is appropriate in this context (that is: an election wherein one of the outcomes is “the fascists win”). I staunchly support environmental causes, but losing the forest for the trees (a hilariously accurate metaphor, here) is one of the enormous weak spots of the American left.
And (at the risk of hitting the hornet’s nest), the distinct lack of pragmatism found in the pro-Palestinian movement vis a vis Harris is more than a little infuriating to me. Don’t get me wrong: I find Biden’s handling of the situation thus far, and his usage of our UN vote to block any meaningful action to constrain, discourage, or halt Israel’s genocide they’re conducting in Gaza to be categorically reprehensible, and one of the most categorical failures of his administration. But that’s Biden, not Harris.
Thr fact that so many are refusing to support Harris because she’s being intentionally vague on Gaza, and simultaneously ignoring the fact that she’s being intentionally vague because AIPAC basically has a campaign funding knife to her throat is just so idiotic and self-defeating I have difficulty expressing it.
I get that the genocide is happening by the second. It’s fucking awful, and should be halted immediately. But Biden is definitely not going to do that. And Harris has precisely zero authority to set and enact national policy until she’s sworn in (in reality, the president-elect starts setting policy shortly after they win, but the enacting part NEVER comes before being sworn in). Ignoring these subtle procedural constraints and attributing guilt to Harris for shit she has absolutely no real control over at the moment is a self-defeating strategy of the highest order. Her hands are tied because money runs our elections (which, to be clear, needs to be remedied), and AIPAC has a shitload of money they’ll throw at anyone who’s even mildly critical of Israeli policy. I hope and expect her to be a lot less friendly to Israel after the election is over and settled - or at the very latest, after she’s sworn in (and if she doesn’t, my opinion on her will change drastically).
TL;DR: I deeply wish people who feel strongly about the Gaza Genocide would take a page out of the playbook being used by environmentalists this election cycle.
Actually it is even worse then that. Trump has called Netanyahu to ask him to keep the genocide going, so Harris looses the election. HE is openly calling for Israel to finish the problem. Biden for all his faults in this, has actually send aid to Gaza and has been at least rhetorically pushed for a ceasefire.
Oh, I’m well aware.
Its just absolutely bonkers to me that people can say with a straight face “Harris is going to be just as bad as Trump because she is not openly diverging significantly from the party line at the moment”.
Like… what? What the actual fuck? How is “I’m going to not give much detail on my Palestine/Gaza policy because I don’t want to make an overt enemy of AIPAC this close to the election” the same as “let’s send a few squadrons of B-52s to Gaza to ‘help defend Israel’ by carpet bombing Gaza into grade #8 gravel, which has the serendipitous side effect of clearing beachfront property to build a Trump Tower Gaza”? How are people not seeing that that’s the dichotomy here? I’m absolutely flummoxed.
This person’s brain has been replaced by a Bloomberg terminal.
The brainwashing is spectacular.
How many hours a day would you say you commit to training your brain to default to dismissing any valid arguments as Russian propaganda?
I’d ask you what you mean, but I don’t think you’d answer in good faith.
Edit: not to mention: where was anything mentioned about Russia?
(that is: an election wherein one of the outcomes is “the fascists win”).
That’s both of the outcomes.
And this, fellow users, is precisely the sort of false equivalence idiocy I’m talking about.
No, it’s not a false equivalency at all. It’s the natural result of a strategy which begins and ends with “choose the lesser evil” with no regard for the fact that the lesser and greater evil are becoming steadily more evil every single cycle.
This path leads to fascism no matter how you try to spin it.
Yes, it’s all about being smart, harm reduction, smart voting and so on. We will never get another Al Gore, we will never get a perfect candidate or party.
