People participate in a protest advocating for abortion rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and Palestinian rights on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.
Since registering to vote in 1998, I have consistently cast my ballot for the Democratic Party. However, my voting experience has often been tinged with dissatisfaction, anger, disillusionment, disappointment, and a sense of moral compromise. Despite these feelings, voting felt like a civic duty in what I perceive as a flawed democracy – a necessary, though insufficient, action.
This year, my voting pattern is set to change. Unless Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, significantly alters her stance on Israel, she will not receive my vote. This sentiment is not isolated. The “uncommitted” vote movement in the Democratic primaries, encompassing over 700,000 individuals, clearly signals a substantial rejection of the Democratic Party’s unwavering support for Israel.
For Harris to secure the progressive vote, a fundamental shift is required: she must advocate for an arms embargo on Israel and cease the financial backing of what many perceive as a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. This is a non-negotiable demand for many voters who have not been swayed by her carefully constructed public image.
Following Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 Democratic nomination on July 21st, and his subsequent endorsement of Vice President Harris, my reaction differed from those celebrating her ascent. Harris’s record as San Francisco’s district attorney, marked by opposition to criminal justice reform, already placed her on the wrong side of history for many. Her staunch support for Israel further solidified this perception.
Initially, a sliver of optimism remained. I hoped Harris would recognize the growing power of the “uncommitted” movement – a movement explicitly linking votes to an arms embargo on Israel and a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. I also hoped she would grasp the profound outrage felt by those opposing the ongoing violence in Gaza, violence sustained for the past ten months with US financial aid. However, her subsequent actions have dispelled this hope.
At an August 7th rally in Detroit, Harris encountered pro-Palestine protesters chanting, “Kamala, Kamala, you can’t hide! We won’t vote for genocide!” In a democratic society, such expressions of dissent are not only acceptable but essential. Politicians are accountable to the people, who possess the right – and indeed the responsibility – to voice their demands, particularly when politicians seek their votes and campaign contributions.
Harris’s response, however, was dismissive and confrontational: “You know what? If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking.” This reaction begs the question: what purpose does such an attitude serve? The protesters were simply articulating a clear demand: that Harris commit to ending arms shipments to Israel amidst its devastating military campaign in Gaza. This conflict has resulted in an official death toll exceeding 40,000 in Gaza, with projections reaching as high as 186,000, according to some estimates. Furthermore, organizations like Save the Children report that a million children in Gaza are at risk of famine. Gaza’s health infrastructure has been decimated, leading to the resurgence of polio after 25 years of eradication.
Many people are constantly exposed to horrific images emerging from Gaza – children killed in airstrikes, individuals burned alive in tent fires, emaciated children succumbing to starvation, and reports of brutal treatment of political prisoners. These atrocities are facilitated, in part, by US aid – by American tax dollars.
Instead of addressing these legitimate concerns and demands to halt funding for the violence in Gaza, Harris appears to prioritize cultivating a charismatic public persona. She seems to rely on “vibes” and celebrity-style appeal rather than substantive policy changes.
This “politics-as-vibes” approach is not a novel phenomenon. It represents the encroachment of celebrity culture into the political sphere, a phenomenon that some observers equate with aspects of fascism.
This situation evokes comparisons to Erik Larson’s 2011 book, In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler’s Berlin. The book recounts the experiences of William Dodd, the US ambassador to Germany from 1933 to 1937, and his daughter Martha. Ambassador Dodd, a historian, initially downplayed the severity of the Nazi regime, while his daughter Martha became enamored with the Nazi social scene.
Similarly, many contemporary liberals resemble either William or Martha Dodd in their approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some, like William Dodd, are preoccupied with their own comfort and detached from the suffering of Palestinians. Others, like Martha Dodd, engage with politics superficially, prioritizing positive feelings and charismatic figures like Harris over addressing the grim realities of the situation in Gaza. They are drawn to Harris’s public image and inspirational messaging, seemingly untroubled by the “pesky reality of genocide.”
People tragically burned alive in their tents following Israeli airstrikes in Rafah, Gaza, highlighting the devastating consequences of the conflict.
When confronted with criticism, some of these liberals react defensively, accusing critics of “spoiling their fun.” This aversion to confronting uncomfortable truths is pervasive. However, political action cannot be based solely on positive feelings.
In her memoir, Martha Dodd confessed to a casual antisemitism. This historical parallel is relevant today, as a similar disregard, fueled by Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism, seems to underpin some liberal attitudes towards Palestinians and contribute to the ongoing violence.
This is a critical juncture. It is imperative to pressure the Democratic Party to revise its stance on Gaza before the upcoming November elections. While multifaceted efforts are needed to stop the violence, a crucial minimum step is demanding that a presidential candidate seeking votes commit to ending US financial support for Israel. The demand is straightforward.
Kamala Harris might be perceived as the lesser of two evils compared to Donald Trump. However, the lesser of two evils remains evil. To secure victory in November, Harris must offer more than superficial charisma. She needs to demonstrate a genuine commitment to ending the violence in Gaza, starting by ceasing US funding. Anything less risks alienating progressive voters and potentially losing the presidency. Should this occur, any subsequent Democratic loss will ultimately be attributable to Harris’s failure to address these critical concerns, not to a nebulous “leftist-progressive” bloc.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of why.edu.vn.
