The political landscape is heating up, and as the next presidential election approaches, scrutiny on leading candidates intensifies. Kamala Harris, currently Vice President, finds herself under increasing pressure, particularly from progressive wings of the Democratic party. For some long-time Democrat voters, including the author of the original article on which this piece is based, the upcoming election is not a straightforward choice. A key point of contention? Harris’s unwavering support for Israel, especially amidst the ongoing conflict in Gaza. This stance has triggered significant backlash and raises the question: why is Kamala Harris bad in the eyes of a growing number of voters?
Protesters voice their opposition to Kamala Harris’s policies regarding Israel during a demonstration in Chicago.
The author of the original article, a consistent Democrat voter since 1998, articulates a growing sentiment of disillusionment. While traditionally voting Democrat, the author expresses feeling “angry, disillusioned, disappointed and dirty” after past elections, viewing it as a duty in a flawed democratic system. However, this year marks a potential turning point. The author explicitly states that unless Kamala Harris shifts her policy on Israel, their vote, and potentially many others, will not be cast for the Democratic ticket.
This isn’t an isolated sentiment. The article highlights that over 700,000 Americans have already voiced their dissent through “uncommitted” votes in Democratic primaries. This significant number underscores a clear message: blind support for Israel is no longer acceptable to a substantial portion of the Democratic base. For these voters, a red line has been crossed. They demand an arms embargo on Israel and a cessation of US funding for what they perceive as the “Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.” This perspective isn’t about political maneuvering; it’s a deeply held moral stance against perceived complicity in human rights violations.
When Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 Democratic nomination paved the way for Harris, it wasn’t met with universal celebration. Concerns about her record already existed, referencing her past as San Francisco’s district attorney and her opposition to criminal justice reform. However, her staunch support for Israel has become a central and perhaps defining issue for many progressive voters. There was a fleeting hope that Harris might recognize the power of the “uncommitted” movement and the widespread outrage over the Gaza conflict. This hope, however, appears to be fading.
During a rally in Detroit on August 7th, Harris encountered pro-Palestine protesters chanting, “Kamala, Kamala, you can’t hide! We won’t vote for genocide!” In a democratic society, such protests are not only acceptable but arguably crucial. Citizens have the right, even the responsibility, to hold their political leaders accountable, especially when those leaders are seeking votes and campaign contributions. However, Harris’s response to these protests has been widely criticized. Her retort, “You know what? If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking,” was seen as dismissive and out of touch with the genuine concerns being raised.
This response begs the question: what is the purpose of such an attitude? The protesters were not endorsing Trump; they were directly appealing to Harris to reconsider her stance on arming Israel amidst a devastating conflict. The numbers emerging from Gaza paint a grim picture. The official death toll has surpassed 40,000, with projections suggesting it could reach far higher. Save the Children reports that a million children in Gaza are at risk of famine. The healthcare system is decimated, and diseases like polio, absent for 25 years, are resurfacing.
The digital age has brought the horrors of conflict directly to our screens. Many are confronted daily with graphic images: children killed in air strikes, people burned alive, starvation, and reports of brutal treatment of political prisoners. The original article emphasizes that this suffering is, in part, enabled by US aid, funded by American taxpayers. The demand is clear: stop funding this violence.
However, instead of addressing these demands, Harris appears to be prioritizing image and charisma. The critique shifts to “politics-as-vibes,” a culture where superficial charm and celebrity endorsements overshadow substantive policy debates. This approach is likened to a form of “fascism,” where feelings and appearances take precedence over critical engagement with complex issues.
To illustrate this point, the article draws a parallel with Erik Larson’s book, In the Garden of Beasts, which recounts the experiences of the US ambassador to Germany in the 1930s, William Dodd, and his daughter Martha. Ambassador Dodd, initially reluctant to confront the rising Nazi threat, hoped to avoid interference and focus on his personal work. His daughter Martha, in contrast, became enamored with the “glamour” of the Nazi social scene, seemingly oblivious to the underlying atrocities.
This historical analogy serves to highlight a perceived apathy or superficial engagement within some segments of contemporary liberalism. Like William Dodd, some are seen as too comfortable to fully grasp or address the suffering in Gaza. Like Martha Dodd, others are accused of prioritizing positive “vibes” and celebrity culture, “fangirling” over charismatic figures like Harris while overlooking the “pesky reality of genocide.” The accusation is that for some, politics has become about feeling good, not about confronting uncomfortable truths or demanding meaningful change. Critics argue that this “anti-outrage” is a dangerous form of complacency.
Martha Dodd’s later admission of “not really liking Jews all that much” is presented as a chilling precursor to contemporary attitudes towards Palestinians. The article suggests that a similar casual disregard, rooted in Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism, is fueling the current crisis and hindering a robust response to the situation in Gaza.
The upcoming election is framed as a critical juncture. Pressure must be applied to the Democrats to shift their stance on Gaza before November. While broader efforts to end the violence are essential, the immediate demand is for presidential hopefuls to commit to ending US funding to Israel. This is presented as a non-negotiable minimum.
The article concludes with a stark warning: while Kamala Harris may be seen as the “lesser of two evils” compared to Donald Trump, the “lesser of two evils is still evil.” To secure victory in November, Harris needs to offer more than just charisma and celebrity appeal. A genuine commitment to ending the violence in Gaza, starting with defunding military aid to Israel, is deemed essential. Failure to do so risks alienating progressive voters and potentially losing the presidency. Should this happen, the blame, according to the author, will ultimately rest with Harris herself, not with the “leftist-progressive” voters who are simply demanding accountability and a change in policy.
