By Leah Nath, Staff Columnist
In his final address before retirement, George Washington expressed his explicit opposition to the concept of partisanship and the two-party system due to his fears that parties would eventually prioritize their own interests over the common good. For many Americans, political parties have become an aspect of identity, where people share that they are a Democrat or a Republican, a conservative or a liberal, rather than agreeing with specific values of the parties.
The substitution of parties for beliefs has since required every American to vastly compromise their own morals, integrity, values and rights in the interest of voting for their party, whose sole job is to maintain power — not to serve or represent its constituents.
While there is no perfect option during this election, some remain better than others, and many of the arguments given to bolster Harris’ standing fall flat when thought through. Many Democrats are currently touting Kamala Harris as a protector of rights in comparison to her competitor, Donald Trump.
For years, the Democratic Party has pushed a rhetoric of clothespin voting, where they emphasize the importance of voting for their candidate with the reasoning that the opposite candidate is far worse. Liberals who subscribe to this narrative tend to cite the need to protect the homeground before fighting for international interests, since Harris has continued to support taxpayer funding to Israel despite polling showing a majority of the American public disagreeing.
Harris will never change her stance on this issue since Israel is the country’s main method of exerting power over the Middle East. Moreover, for those who argue in favor of Harris on the precedent that she will be an easier president to organize and protest under, let’s not forget the thousands of American college students who were brutalized by police for campus demonstrations less than eight months ago.
Even on the home front, Harris is much less of a protector of the people than Democrats have been making her out to be. Despite holding political power for decades, she has failed to champion reproductive rights into law or address the damage caused by Dobbs in her four years as Vice President. She has said on record that she would change absolutely nothing about the Biden Administration’s term in office, including the millions of Alaskan acreage handed over to oil drilling and establishing America as the largest oil producer in the world. She recently refused to answer a question asking if the law should ensure access to gender-affirming healthcare, even though the Democratic party allegedly supports this policy. Her immigration policy stances are on par with, if not more strict, than Trump’s, and she wants to protect and increase fracking against the wishes of her party and current President. Even if a woman willing to fund a public genocide would somehow overcome a massive level of cognitive dissonance to protect marginalized Americans, her beliefs, plans and actions have consistently proved the exact opposite to be true.
Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, has been loud and proud about her desire to divest from Israel, address root conflicts causing refugees to migrate here and provide assistance to immigrants, offer increased agency to Indigenous native’s and tribal nations, declare a climate emergency and establish mobilization initiatives, codify Roe v. Wade, and generally approach the role of government as a means of providing for the American people.
Even if one of the main two party candidates wins the election, a vote for Stein instead of Harris could force the Democratic Party to reevaluate its positions and representatives to ensure that it is able to garner more support in future elections. Allowing the Democratic Party to continually push a clothespin voting narrative unchecked ensures that there is no incentive for future Democratic representatives to respond to their constituent’s desires, since this rhetoric has enabled them to feel entitled to the votes of every progressive person in the country no matter what they are actually standing for.
More than that, a vote for Harris is a betrayal of morals for any individuals who believe in human rights, regardless of who her competition is. For all those who believe in Black Lives Matter, defunding the police, supporting public education and affordable healthcare, protecting reproductive rights and the access to bodily autonomy, trans rights, and intervening in an active genocide — remember that you have the agency to vote for your morals.
