The question of who to vote for in a presidential election is always complex, especially for voters who identify as progressive. With Kamala Harris as a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, many are asking: Why Should I Vote For Kamala Harris? This question is particularly pertinent given her political history and current stance on critical issues, most notably her unwavering support for Israel amidst the ongoing conflict in Gaza. For some voters, particularly those on the left, Harris’s policies and positions require careful scrutiny before casting a ballot in her favor.
Kamala Harris faces voter protests regarding her policies on Israel and Gaza as the Democratic National Convention approaches.
Kamala Harris’s political career presents a mixed record for progressive voters. Beginning her career as San Francisco’s District Attorney and later serving as California’s Attorney General, Harris initially faced criticism from the left for her tough-on-crime policies. Her record on criminal justice reform, particularly early in her career, has been a point of contention. While she has evolved on some issues, her past actions continue to be a subject of debate among those seeking comprehensive reform of the justice system. This history is crucial when considering “why should I vote for Kamala Harris,” as it reflects on her broader approach to policy and governance.
However, it is arguably her stance on international issues, specifically regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that has galvanized significant opposition from progressive circles and raised serious questions about whether to vote for Kamala Harris. Harris has consistently voiced strong support for Israel, often described as “ironclad,” which aligns with traditional Democratic Party platforms but increasingly clashes with a growing progressive movement advocating for Palestinian rights.
This unwavering support for Israel, especially in light of the escalating violence and humanitarian crisis in Gaza, has triggered a notable “uncommitted” vote movement within the Democratic primaries. Over 700,000 voters have cast protest ballots, signaling a deep dissatisfaction with the party’s stance on Israel and directly challenging Harris to reconsider her position if she seeks their support in the general election. These votes are a clear message: a significant portion of the Democratic base demands a shift in policy, particularly an arms embargo on Israel and an end to funding what they describe as the “Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.” For these voters, the question isn’t simply “why should I vote for Kamala Harris,” but rather, can they vote for her given her current policies?
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!” This direct confrontation highlights the intensity of feeling surrounding the issue. The protesters were not merely expressing dissent; they were drawing a line, conditioning their vote on a fundamental policy change. Their demands – an arms embargo and a permanent ceasefire – reflect a deep moral concern and a desire to see US foreign policy align with their values.
Harris’s response to these protests – “If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that. Otherwise, I’m speaking” – further alienated many of these voters. Dismissing their concerns as tacit support for her political opposition sidesteps the substance of their protest. The protesters were not advocating for Trump; they were articulating a demand for a change in Harris’s policy on Gaza. This response raises concerns about her willingness to engage with and address the genuine grievances of her constituents, particularly on issues of significant moral weight.
The conflict in Gaza has resulted in catastrophic consequences, with the official death toll exceeding 40,000 and some estimates projecting far higher numbers. Reports from organizations like Save the Children highlight the extreme vulnerability of children in Gaza, with over a million at risk of famine. The Lancet has published analyses detailing the devastating health crisis, including the resurgence of polio. These stark realities, often visualized through horrific images circulating online, underscore the humanitarian urgency and the ethical implications of continued US support for Israeli military actions.
Critics argue that Harris’s approach reflects a superficial “politics-as-vibes” mentality, prioritizing charisma and public image over substantive policy engagement. This approach is likened to a form of political complacency, even drawing parallels to the era preceding World War II. The analogy to Erik Larson’s book, In the Garden of Beasts, and the Dodd family’s experience in Nazi Germany, serves as a stark warning. Just as some in the 1930s were either indifferent or seduced by the “glamour” of the Nazi regime while ignoring its atrocities, some contemporary liberals are accused of prioritizing political “vibes” and celebrity culture over confronting the harsh realities of the Gaza conflict.
The historical comparison serves to highlight the dangers of prioritizing comfort and positive feelings over ethical considerations and action. Martha Dodd’s initial fascination with Nazi social circles, while her father, the US Ambassador, remained passively optimistic, mirrors concerns that some voters may be swayed by Harris’s charisma while overlooking the grave implications of her foreign policy stances. This historical lens underscores the importance of looking beyond superficial appeal and critically evaluating policy, especially when it comes to issues involving human rights and international law.
The question of “why should I vote for Kamala Harris” ultimately compels voters to weigh her overall political platform against their core values. For progressive voters deeply concerned about Palestinian rights and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Harris’s current stance on Israel presents a significant obstacle. While some may argue for pragmatism and the “lesser of two evils” argument in comparison to Donald Trump, this calculus is insufficient for those who view the Gaza issue as a fundamental moral imperative.
For these voters, a vote for Kamala Harris without a clear commitment to changing course on US policy towards Israel is untenable. The demand for an arms embargo and an end to funding for military actions in Gaza is not merely a policy preference; it is a red line. Unless Harris demonstrably shifts her position, she risks losing a crucial segment of the progressive vote, potentially impacting her chances in the general election. Should this occur, the responsibility for such a loss would lie squarely with her campaign’s failure to address these critical concerns, not with the progressive voters who stood firm on their principles.
Ultimately, the decision of whether to vote for Kamala Harris hinges on whether she can offer more than just “vibes” and political charisma. It requires a tangible commitment to policy changes that align with progressive values, most urgently a revised approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a demonstrable commitment to ending the violence in Gaza. Only then can she convincingly answer the question: why should progressive voters choose to vote for Kamala Harris?
