"Yes, but...but yes, at the same time": Why I will vote for Joe Biden and think you should too

I will vote for Joe Biden, and I think you should too, especially if you live in a swing state.

*

           (For a very abbreviated version of this essay that goes straight to the punchline, click here.)

Yes, I wish the candidate were someone else.  I wish it were Bernie Sanders, primarily.   Then I wish it were Elizabeth Warren.  Then I wish it were most others from the original field, except Michael Bloomberg.  I am glad Michael Bloomberg is not the candidate.  “Billionaires should not exist.”
         I say that not because I have some larger, pre-existing feud with Joe Biden or some visceral reaction to him.  If we were to meet, I imagine I might enjoy him, personally.  I imagine he would laugh at my bad jokes, and I would laugh at his.  We would talk about Amtrak or Scranton.  I’ve only ever driven through Scranton on the interstate, but I would pretend.  I do miss those happy-go-lucky Vice Presidential days of rainbow flag-waving (real or not, but still) and White House Correspondents Dinner skits with fellow Veep Julia Louis-Dreyfus/”Selina Meyer.”  Simpler times.

But yes, Joe Biden’s legislative and larger political career is problematic.  It is problematic not just for “the left” but in general for liberals, Democrats, and probably for some independents and moderates too, I presume.  From spearheading Iraq 2003 in the Senate to bankruptcy bills to financial deregulation to criminal justice to Anita Hill to civil rights to health care/drugs (and even to gay rights, despite the later rainbow-flag-waving), he has often been on the wrong side of an issue or of a roll call vote.  Can’t a man change?  Can’t a politician evolve?  Yes, absolutely.  Must we judge him by his worst votes or worst days alone?  No (and to be fair, Sanders and other candidates have had their share of bad votes).  But, the record shows that Biden has stood mostly on the side of corporate and state power, and this history hints that he is likely to continue that pattern if elected.

Yes, Biden has said he would like to get back to some pre-Trump "normal."  While I do much prefer the pre-Trump, Obama era, simultaneously I believe that the bi-partisan normal of the past fifty years (especially in regards to enabling Wall Street financialization and endless war) has helped bring us Trump, to some degree, among other causes for sure.  And, I believe that the present COVID scenario is highlighting, lethally, the inequities wrought by our long-time US “normal.” 

Yes, Biden has said to wealthy donors that if elected, “Nothing would fundamentally change.”   I believe almost everything has to fundamentally change.

Yes, I think Hunter Biden is a liability.  I don’t think he would have been on the board of a Ukrainian gas company if his father had not been the Vice President of the United States.  But no, I personally don’t care who Hunter is, although I wish him good mental and physical health.  I have unfortunately come to accept this garden variety nepotism as common in US politics and business.  However, especially because impeachment hinged on Ukraine, the nepotist and grifter sui generis and deflector-in-chief Trump will dangle this to an unhinged audience that already feasts on PizzaGate, QAnon, Benghazi, Vince Foster and now "Obamagate."  But at the same time, I do think Trump should have been impeached (“ITMFA”-Dan Savage/Rashida Tlaib) and convicted.  I think it actually should have been a wider array of charges against him, but I understand the narrow Ukraine legal strategy.  And yet still at the same time, I don’t think Congressman Schiff should have made the case, as he did in part, for why Ukraine needs our weapons.  That was the context, yes, but it seemed to be a distraction from the constitutional, quid pro quo impeachment question.  (No, Susan Collins, I don’t think Trump learned any lessons other than he can get away with everything.)

Yes, Biden’s lackluster campaign in general and his tepid response to the COVID crisis have me concerned about his ability to overcome Trumpism in November’s election, the operation of which might be affected by COVID uncertainty (and by the electoral college).  I am concerned about his “electability,” to use a favorite term.  If it were going to be a more centrist candidate from the beginning, then it should have been someone more dynamic, more mentally acute, younger, and/or less white and/or less male.  I imagine that many in the party leadership at this juncture harbor that same thought.  

Yes, I am concerned that even if Biden wins—and if no fundamental changes are made—Trumpism will snap right back in 2022 or 2024 but this time more sophisticatedly—i.e. less orange and buffoonish but equally or more nefarious and thus more effective.  (To be fair, if Bernie were to have won it all and his fundamental changes were attempted and/or implemented—implementation being difficult in the immediate congressional terrain—Trumpism could still have come back with a vengeance.  But, that is moot.)

And yes, there are the allegations made by Tara Reade against Biden.  They are serious.  Unless or until the Democratic Party has a last-minute insertion of Michelle Obama, Tom Hanks, Lin Manuel-Miranda, or Oprah as the nominee instead, those allegations hang over the campaign.

*

Yes, there were many things about the 2020 Democratic primary that I found annoying, maddening, and/or disappointing.  Such as:  

CNN countdowns to debates and post-game debate debriefs and crowds at debates (yes, including the rowdy Bernie fans).  Debate questions that focus on “Will you choose a woman as vice president?” instead of “What anti-sexist policies have you pursued in your career?  What anti-sexist policies will you pursue if you are president?”  The former question is not unimportant—I see you, Geraldine Ferraro!—but the latter questions go beyond lean “lean-in” feminism.  And then, there are the usual debate questions loaded with false premises, especially when it comes foreign policy.  They’re annoying, too.

MSNBC Chris Matthews’ “Maginot Line."  (Fun fact: Matthews and I both went to LaSalle College High School outside Philadelphia.  I won a “book award” my senior year with his name on the inside.)  I don’t actually think Matthews meant to make a Hitler/Nazi comparison, especially not since the surging candidate was Jewish. (“Boys will be boys, but LaSalle boys will be gentlemen” means that we’re smarter than that).  I just think that Matthews has spent the last twenty-five years constantly talking and that his network has spent the past twenty-five years just constantly talking that one feels the need on occasion, ad lib, to throw out something really dramatic to make sure you’re still watching.  In general, I find the never-ending election cycle, saturated in cash and consultants but usually lacking in substance, maddening, although it’s not new to 2020.    

Additionally, I found the Democratic Party “Unity Fund” spam emails frustrating.  Maybe I am cynical, but I felt like the “unity” described in those mailers would never be harnessed to coalesce around Bernie if he continued winning.  Those emails seemed to come more frequently when Bernie was in the lead, on that MSNBC Maginot Line.  I read them as “Very cute, dear Bernie supporters, but we both know this will never happen, so get in line.”  And then between South Carolina and Super Tuesday, the ol’ Sunday night drop-out-consolidate-behind-Biden one-two smacked of only a certain type of unity.  Speaking of debates and unity, it seemed like the “Will you support the other candidates if you do not win?” question was asked more frequently to Bernie than to the other candidates.  Around the same time, the Democratic field and its cable news allies successfully out-red-baited and out-jingoed the Republicans, with Cuba-and-Castro and with “of course, Putin prefers Bernie” lazy arguments—stuff straight from Fox News talking points, re Obama, circa 2008-2016.  (I do not insinuate that Bernie had to put up with nearly as much as Obama.  The latter, not a socialist nor a Muslim but a black man, endured anti-socialist, anti-Muslim, and anti-black racism rolled into one.  That last one, anti-black racism, has easily been the most violent and pernicious force in US history.  Putting up with anti-socialist red-baiting seems personally easier than putting up with white supremacists, some of whom want you dead.)     

Maddening on a larger, more systemic level not limited to 2020 or the Democrats of course: Citizens United and money in politics, for-profit media consolidation, social media polarization sometimes stoked by fake ads legally purchased by foreign actors, voter suppression, and (to include congressional elections in my crosshairs) gerrymandering.  Then there are the fundamental things—written into the code from the beginning—that are maddening: the electoral college and (to include Congress again) Senate representation/apportionment and (to include the judiciary, lest they feel left out) lifetime appointments.  And speaking of the judiciary, the 2000 US Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore—that was pretty horrible.     

As for what I found disappointing: Bernie didn’t win.  I mean yes, his campaign won some states and some moral victories, it furthered the “movement” and gave air time and momentum to some good policies, and he got further than many people thought.  But in the end, he didn’t win.  No, it wasn’t “rigged” as in rigged against him personally in some back room.  It was only rigged in how it has always been rigged since the beginning (especially against non-white, non-male, non-property holders), and he (white, male, and property-holding) knew what he was getting into.  He didn’t gain enough votes, and that simple fact must be accepted.

Why did I support Bernie?  I believe that we spend an unjustifiable amount of money on the military and that “a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom” (Martin Luther King, Jr.).  I believe that we should not go to war with Iran.  I believe that we should not be giving money and cover to Saudi Arabia to make war in Yemen.  I believe that we should not overthrow the government of Venezuela.  I believe “Palestinians ought to be free."  I believe healthcare is a human right.  I believe Wall Street control over the economy is criminal, and its sway over politics is corrupting.  I believe that we need fundamental shifts in our economy to prevent the worst of climate change.  I believe we should have a minimum wage.  I believe many other things.  And, Bernie was a candidate, who in 2016 and this year, lined up on a lot of that.  He was not perfect and, especially in the year 2020, he could have stood to be less white or less male.  (As to why I preferred him over Warren, I will spare you that moot argument.)  To the electability question, I actually thought he was very electable (likewise, I will spare you that moot argument in the immediate, but here is an email I circulated to some friends when Bernie had the momentum.)  I was not a dead-set believer in “Bernie Beats Trump” (one of the campaign slogans this year), but I thought it was a very real possibility and worth a try.  He won’t, however, test my electability hypotheses over November votes because he did not win enough March votes.  That reality must be swallowed.

*

I am not one to look back at 2016 and say “Bernie would have won,” at least not confidently.  I don’t underestimate the power of American xenophobia and racism—and red-baiting and jingoism—and the power of American capital to join forces with that xenophobia and racism, or at least look the other way, as long as profits can be made and taxes can be cut.  And the electoral college—I don’t underestimate that—with its own anti-democratic, racist roots.  So, I don’t necessarily think Bernie would have won.  While he had some surprising victories, Hillary won more votes and states, and that, too, must be accepted.  Donna Brazile tell-alls and Debbie Wasserman Schultz aside, I don’t believe the race was rigged, not any more than the fundamental rigging we take for granted.  In November of 2016, I thought people should have voted for Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump.  I wrote and shared a similar essay then.  I voted for her.  (I have many criticisms of her, but I still cannot comprehend the special vitriol reserved for Hillary, outside of misogyny, from the unhinged right and, yes, from some corners in the left.)  I voted for her because even though I don’t live in a swing state, I wanted Trump to lose badly, and despite my criticisms of her, I wanted to be able to tell a future daughter that I voted for the first woman president. (The daughter has arrived, but we are still waiting on that woman president.)  

Yes, in the past four years, I had hoped that the institutional Democratic Party would have done some more soul-searching and renovating after the 2016 loss to Trump.  (I joined it in December of 2016 and even paid DNC dues in 2019, to have "a seat at the table," on the "edge of the inside.")  Its approach to and reproach of Sanders-led economic populism, however, still seems tone-deaf.  There are many reasons that Trump won, foremost among them the arcane electoral college, and I don’t want to belabor the mythical “white working class left behind” argument because, one, the working class is much bigger and more colorful than just former-steel-worker "white Joe" in Ohio, and two, all types of white voted for Trump in 2016 not just working class whites.  But, I believe something must be done about the gross inequality in our country.  Something must be done about it because when the center falls through, like it did in the 2008 crash, fascism and barbarism start to look good for many people.  In 2016, the people—well, the electoral college actually—went with the billionaire faux-populist demagogue.  They went with barbarism.  Furthermore, I think too much focus is put on the suburban soccer mom swing voter from the Philadelphia suburbs.  I think we’ve often neglected “the other swing voter."      

Yes, I think in the past four years the Democratic Party hasn’t taken that inequality seriously enough.  I think they and CNN and MSNBC have focused too much on Russia.  I think Russia meddling in our elections was serious and that it should have been investigated and prosecuted as such.  But I think Russia-Putin, Putin-Russia every day took up all the air in the room, and so when the reports from Mueller, etc., were made public, the actual crimes looked small compared to our inflated expectations for a bombshell.  (Russia needs to knock that off.  But, it must be noted here that we have interfered in very many elections the past century.  That’s not to minimize the Russian threat nor is that deflecting “what-aboutism.”  Rather, that’s called integrity.  We need to knock that off, too.  It would also make our requests to Russia be less hypocritical and more effective.)

Yes, at the same time, I remain wary of liberals’ reactionary lionization of institutions and people that have wielded great power, and often violence, in recent history: the FBI, the CIA, NATO, Clapper, Brennan, Mueller, Comey, the generals, for example.  Because Trump’s “statecraft” does not follow the traditional conservative playbook, or any cohesive playbook for that matter, Democrats have found themselves with strange bedfellows the past three years.  None of the above actors is wholly bad—ok, probably the CIA is wholly bad—but this lionization has necessitated a forgetting of both distant and recent memory.  True, sometimes, we have to make coalitions with less than savory people and institutions.  We all have “dirty hands.”  Sometimes, we aim for “good enough for the moment” on our way to good.  For instance, in November of 2018, when Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions, I attended a rally protesting that move.  I found it incredibly strange to be rooting, sort of, for the unreconstructed arch-racist (Jefferson Beauregard) Sessions, as he had stood in the way of Trump potentially firing special prosecutor Mueller, a former FBI director from the W. Bush “War on Terror” days.  But, both were performing checks on authoritarian power, somewhat.  So, yeah, that was disorienting, but I have no regrets.  I just hope we don’t lose our integrity and larger vision in the process.  Similarly, I am wary of liberals’ full-on embrace of “Never-Trumper” conservative hawk writers, who had helped us devastate Iraq and destabilize the Middle East among other accomplishments.  Must one hold a grudge against someone for something he said or did seventeen years ago?  God, I hope not.  But true conversion requires true repentance, like Col. Larry Wilkerson has done, for instance.  Therefore, I remain wary of the “normal” these Never-Trumpers want us to return to.        

For the long-term sake of our country and world, for the sake of justice and equity, I will continue to profess the above concerns and try to do something about them.  

However, in regards to their effects on the short-term—that is, in regards to the November election—I hope my concerns are proven overblown.  I hope they’re proven overblown because, despite all the shortcomings and frustrations listed above, I hope Joe Biden wins.  

Yes, I hear you.  Yes, I understand.  Yes, I share some of the critiques.  Yes, yes, yes.  But, I will vote for him anyway, and I think you should too.   

*

If you haven’t noticed by now, this essay is not “Why Joe Biden instead of Trump.”  I don’t believe, for me, that essay is worth writing.  (David Sedaris already wrote that one in 2008.)  This essay instead is, “Why Joe Biden instead of not voting, instead of Green Party candidate, instead of write-in candidate, (or Libertarian Party candidate).” 

Donald Trump is despicable.  There is nothing redeemable about him as a person or as a president.  I had held out some faint hope, between election and inauguration, that he could be reined in, that Donald Trump the president wouldn’t be as bad as Donald Trump the candidate (or Donald Trump the human being/the ‘businessman”/the TV personality the previous seventy years of his life).  He has been much worse.  People had faith in “our institutions” that would keep him in check—three branches of government elementary school civics stuff.  But, our institutions are only as good as the people in them.  They are not some stand-alone biological or natural force.  His congressional Republican sycophants have been shameful, with only whimpers of protest here and there, usually after it matters.  The Supreme Court majority has enabled him, all the while employing that antiseptic, academic, legalistic reverence-for-the-Constitution sophistry as cover for barbarism, as it so often has throughout US history.  There is no bottom to this president and this administration.  Each day is worse.  Look at his response to COVID.  No, in fact, don’t look at it—it is too enraging.  Trump must go.  That much is evident.

Biden then?  

“You can debate a lot of things, but not arithmetic.  Failure to vote for Biden in this election in a swing state amounts to voting for Trump. Takes one vote away from the opposition, same as adding one vote to Trump. So, if you decide you want to vote for the destruction of organized human life on Earth. . . then do it openly. . . . But that's the meaning of 'Never Biden,’” said Noam Chomsky.    Noam Chomsky, no Democratic Party operative.

People in good conscience can, of course, choose not to vote for Joe Biden.  There’s an ethical calculus that goes into such a decision—a calculus that is slightly different in swing states.   

In the past ten years, I have gotten involved with various groups on the political left, broadly speaking.  From MoveOn.org and Jobs with Justice in South Bend to Veterans for Peace and now the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in North Jersey.  Moving and having the privilege to pop in and shop around—i.e. because for the most part, my immediate well-being is not affected by bad policies—my involvement has been spotty and non-committal at times.  But, I have noticed that there are a number of robust egos, to say the least, in these groups and at these meetings.  I notice my own robust ego, too.  For many of us, we were/are social misfits of varying degrees, and we might have found our identity, or an identity, on the left.  And so, there is the subconscious and often conscious attempt to “out-left” each other.  Implied and sometimes stated sentiments are, “I was there when….I’ve been doing this longer….I have not seen you at a meeting before….I’m here at every meeting….cute idea, young one, thanks for joining us….typical ‘liberal’ or ‘bourgeois’ or ‘neoliberal’ or ‘reactionary’ or ‘counter-revolutionary’ accommodating suggestion….we know better….here’s the real history.”  Certainly, there must be space for good radical ideas to be hashed out, and elders in the movement have much to teach us: e.g. “Yes, new one, top-down environmental protection policies are necessary band-aids, but we must decommidify, socialize, democratize our public utilities because you see in ___ year, ____ just repealed ___ policy, and a larger social safety net must be in place for fossil fuel workers…here's how the CIO used to organize people.”  But, we personalities need to become less personally attached to these ideas.  Our egos sometimes mean that the left eats its own before it can blossom and turns off many potential members and allies.  I think only regular contemplative practice (secular or spiritual) or regular failure—and suffering—can discipline such egos.  As for failure and suffering, individuals from more oppressed groups (i.e. not straight, white bearded guys like me), in my experience, tend to be less attached and less ego-driven.  They can be radically fierce and prophetic but also radically humble at the same time. (I hope that doesn’t sound too paternalistic on my part towards said groups.)              

When we lived in Newark, one of the groups I got involved with was the People’s Organization for Progress (POP), led by Larry Hamm.  Larry is one of the most dynamic, committed, and courageous people I have had the privilege of meeting.  He has been fighting and risking his limbs for justice his entire life, from serving on the Newark school board at age seventeen to organizing the anti-apartheid movement at Princeton to leading POP for the past thirty-seven years in Newark.  Sitting in the back of many POP meetings, I received my remedial black history education.  In 2016, POP decided to endorse Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary (some POP members thought we shouldn’t endorse anyone).  And so, before the New Jersey primary, a couple of us were leafleting at Market and Springfield, in front of the old courthouse.  On the mic, Larry extolled the proposed policies of Sanders versus those of Clinton.  Off the mic, I remember, Larry chuckled once, “I better be careful what I say because in the fall, I might have to say some nice things about Hillary.”  At a meeting in the fall, he encouraged members to vote for her, which set off a ferocious debate that continued into the parking lot as the meeting ended and into the next week’s meeting.  To be sure, robust egos were boiling, but both sides came at it with more integrity and with more social-historical “capital” than I or other white bearded guys could.  Larry argued what Chomsky argued above: math, sorry.  His and POP’s larger struggle would continue through and beyond any election.  But, he would take the necessary minutes to try to stop Trump and thus vote for Clinton and then get back to the larger struggle.  His supporters in the room, some of them the elders, pointed to Selma, pointed to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (since gutted by Shelby County v. Holder), and to people who were lynched for trying to vote.  His detractors in the meeting highlighted Palestine and other sites of US neo-imperialism, saying they could never vote for Clinton because of the “Washington Consensus” she represented.  (And to be fair, Bernie did not necessarily represent that dovish a foreign policy in 2016.  He did, though, this time around.)  I had already made up my mind, but nevertheless I followed Larry’s lead: “I’m with her.”        

Larry, by the way, is currently challenging Cory Booker in the Democratic primary for US Senate, and a larger crop of progressives are putting the Jersey Democratic machine on notice.  Larry is a long shot, but I will vote for him in the primary (and even though Bernie has dropped out, he will still be on the ballot, and I will vote for him, and for Dr. Arati Kreibich challenging the Wall Street-hawk incumbent Josh Gottheimer in NJ-05).  In the fall, should Larry not win, I will likely vote for Booker, too, although that choice is even a different moral equation from the presidential race.

The group I have most recently gotten involved in, DSA, created some consternation when the official, national office tweeted last month, “We are not endorsing Joe Biden.”  Despite what I have just written, I actually agree with that decision not to endorse, and at the very same time, I agree with Bernie’s decision to endorse.  They have different roles and capacities.  And also at the very same time, I think that DSA members should vote for Biden, especially those that live in swing states.  I am new to the North Jersey chapter, but I presume many members will indeed vote for him despite his problematic record.  But, for DSA to endorse, I believe, is a whole other issue.  It begs the question of what endorse means.  For one, DSA is not primarily an electorally focused organization.  DSA-for-Bernie was one slice of a larger agenda, with immigration and MedicareForAll being top agenda items, for instance.  And, many members did not think we should have even endorsed Sanders in the first place (some because he's not left enough and some who still liked him but thought that it took up too much air, time, and resources).  DSA has now shifted back to the rest of its agenda and to "Beyond Bernie" or “Bigger than Bernie,” building working class power and solidarity across unions, community groups, and other places to build momentum behind MedicareForAll and other socialist causes.  To endorse someone who, yes, might stop Trump but who has stood on the side of American capital for most of his career would seem to undermine DSA's core principles and strategies, as a socialist organization.  They’re working on something bigger than November 3.  (Analogously, I think Roman Catholics should vote for Biden, but I don’t think the US Catholic Church should endorse him.  They’re ostensibly working on something “bigger.”  Plus, it seems like the US Catholic Church has already endorsed the incumbent, sadly but not too surprisingly.)  “Endorse ____” vs. “Get out the vote for ___” vs. “Some (or many or all) of you should vote for ____”—maybe that is semantics—but I think it is an important distinction here.  Many members, myself for one, might also at the same time be members/followers of MoveOn, Democracy For America, Justice Democrats, Working Families Party, and other progressive groups who are more likely to endorse Biden.  We can wear multiple hats or wear different hats on different days.  Can DSA members amplify those efforts?  Yes—and I would add should—but I think that's different from endorsing.  

That is also a reason I joined DSA and left the Greens in 2016.  There is a flexibility to it.  I am impressed by DSA’s flexibility to work in and with already existing community and advocacy groups, its flexibility to work in and with and around electoral campaigns (despite or in addition to its fierce criticism of those campaigns), and its ability to work in and with and around unions.  (Here is an email I typed up the day after Super Tuesday when it appeared Bernie would not win and why I thought DSA might be an answer—not the answer—for moving the ball forward.  Join us!?!).  I myself joined when DSAers AOC and Rashida Tlaib won seats in Congress and because I realized all the issues I care about are connected and thus stymied by the same quest for short-term profits and because DSA has a historical analysis and organizing theory for building a better world.  If that makes me a “socialist,” so be it.  Simultaneously, I try to keep a healthy skepticism about it.  I’m not one for too much theory and ideology.  I try to read enough fiction and poetry and practice enough Zen so that, one, I don’t become too insufferable for family and friends and, two, I remain on guard against “kitsch” (M. Kundera), idolatry, and any new replacement “opiate for the masses.”  If that makes me not a “socialist,” then so be it.  But for now, I’m a fellow traveler with DSA.  As the farmer-poet Wendell Berry asks poignantly in “The Contrariness of the Mad Farmer” to keep us in check, “Did you finish killing everybody who was against peace?” 

Some on the socialist/Marxist left think that DSA is not radical enough  and that we all should be working for the larger revolution, or something, and that any work or  accommodation with the Democratic Party is betrayal.  Thankfully, I’m not on Twitter, where I hear the farther-left tears liberals apart with zingers and then the far-far left attempts to tear the farther-left apart with its own zingers.  To Chomsky’s arithmetic argument, I hear some say, "Chomsky doesn’t get it...he’s just a 'liberal'...Here’s what Trotsky says."  Ok, you win.  You are more radical than I.  You can be in the vanguard.  But, you lost me.

Greens meanwhile, I presume, are lining up behind Jill Stein or Howie Hawkins or x, y, and z candidates.  That is their prerogative, and I know good Greens who in good conscience who will do that.  But short of rank-choice voting or parliamentary distribution, a vote for the Green party, particularly in swing states, means a vote for Trump.  Maybe not morally, but mathematically.  And, we know from the past four years, or the past 400 years, we’re up against people with no morals.  

In the future, there might be enough critical mass for a third party to mount serious challenges. (I’m teaching Whigs, Free Soilers, Know-Nothings, and (1850s) Republicans right now in AP US History 1.)  That is part of the long-term vision of many DSAers and other leftists—to build a stand-alone party (DSA is not a party) that can realistically challenge the two main parties—but that critical mass is not there yet.  Some might argue that I keep undercutting that critical mass because the Dems can count on me to keep voting for Clinton, Biden, etc.  Touché.  But, for those two minutes this November 3 (or however long it will take, who knows with COVID and, particularly in districts of color, voter suppression), I don’t foresee any other realistic option.  If I, especially in safely blue New Jersey, vote for Biden, am I not part of that undercutting?  That is fair.  But, one, I don’t take any state as “safe” this year in this climate; two, I want Trump to lose badly to Biden; three, I don’t know the other potential third-party candidates and what they stand for (yet); and four, yes I will compromise on November 3 but go back to being fruitfully—I hope—antagonistic on November 4.              

As for the unaffiliated, stand-alone, or even registered-Dem “Bernie or bust” folks, I don’t know what their end game is, beyond the masturbatory.  Do they want to be able to say “I told you so” if Biden loses?  Because “bust” in this case is really bad for a lot of people.  An “I told you so” of that order would not feel good for that long for anyone with good conscience because that would mean Trump is getting another four years.  I don't want to be able to say "I told you so."  I hope my concerns about Biden that I listed at the beginning are proven overblown for November 3’s sake because Trump has to lose--he must go.  Finally, an “I told you so…” where the second part of that phrase is “…Bernie should have been the nominee” does not logically follow because we cannot know for sure the outcome—“Bernie Beats Trump”?—of that counterfactual.

Some in the above camps will withhold their votes in the hope that the Democratic Party will pay attention.  But, I believe that is only slightly less naive than my hope that, as a dues-paying member, the DNC cares what I have to say.  If the Democratic Party did not tack left after Nader-2000 or Trump-2016, I don’t see them tacking that left if we withhold our votes now.  For better or worse (mostly worse, yes), they probably don’t care. 

There are some anarchists, maybe of commune or Catholic Worker or Occupy or permaculture flavor, and purists, maybe of (William Lloyd) Garrisonian or Thoreauvian persuasion, who choose not to participate in the corrupt system.  Who choose moral suasion and nonparticipation and building up alternative structures.  Those projects and principles are beautiful, yes, and I am envious of your commitment, but we need you on November 3 to put those aside for ten minutes (or however long it will to take, with COVID complications and voter suppression).  And if I may challenge the abolitionist Garrison, who was averse to the political process: politics is ugly, corrupt and corrupting, and electoral politics is by no means enough, but it is necessary, and participating in it makes a difference.  Frederick Douglass eventually broke with his mentor Garrison over this matter and others.  People who looked like Garrison had the privilege of non-participation.  Less so for Douglass’ people and descendants, even though the political process has so often excluded them and let them down.  There is no perfect action, but act anyway.

As for people who sincerely won’t vote for Biden because of the Tara Reade allegations, I don’t have a satisfactory reply, I apologize.  There may be some less sincere recent converts to the #metoo movement in the BernieBro RedditLeft, I presume—I’ve never gone there, thankfully, so maybe I am wrong.  But, I will presume good faith here.  I don’t know what to say, and my own incomplete reasoning goes as such: a Biden administration will pursue less sexist policies than a Trump administration; the allegations by Ms. Reade remain allegations for now; Trump admitted to sexual assault in a deposition given to lead attorney Billy Bush on that Access Hollywood bus; Biden lies from time to time; Trump lies pathologically.   

*

In 2016, some people on the left whom I really respect—and still do—advocated not voting for Clinton, for some of the reasons above.  They argued that both parties are the same.  

Absolutely, I would argue that the Democratic Party has moved too much to the right in the past fifty years.  I would furthermore argue that the Democratic Party of the New Deal and Great Society eras was left because of movements outside of it and despite reactionary forces inside it.  And that there was no “golden age” of the Democratic Party.  Or before the parties flipped memberships, so to speak, I would argue that there was no golden age of the Republican Party either, as much as I admire Lincoln (as far as I admire presidents) and more so Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner (as far as I admire white politicians from our history).  What happened to all the moderate Republicans?...They’re called Democrats! was a good little quip for me when I first heard it in 2009, probably from Chomsky.  It’s still true today.  To argue that the Democratic Party is way too conservative and is in the pockets of Wall Street is one thing (and true).  To argue that it is just as bad as the Republican Party, however, is intellectually dishonest.  It feels good to say—I think I said it a couple times over the years—but it is not true.  This Republican Party in 2020 is completely off the rails.  And, these false equivalencies have the effect of clouding over the actual criticisms of the Democrats, of Hillary Clinton, of Joe Biden.  To say Joe Biden is just as bad as Trump is false and papers over the true and necessary criticisms of Biden.  Same with saying Clinton was just as bad as Trump.  Anyone who thinks a Hillary Clinton administration would have been just as vile and as incompetent—and yet so successful at the same time looking out for its friends—as this Trump administration has been, I don’t believe, is being honest with him/herself.  The Trump administration’s criminal handling of COVID19 proves those equivalencies as false.  

Susan Sarandon said that Trump’s election could bring the revolution more quickly.  Ok.  But a revolution did not or may not come.  History is descriptive and helpful but less predictive.  Meanwhile, over 100,000 people have died from COVID in the United States as we await this revolution.  I can say, with a Hillary Clinton administration counterfactual, that fewer people would have died.  (But I will take my own advice: history is helpful but not reliably predictive.)     

*

The argument I am making here, after the primary—that yes, I know, but Biden is the only choice—is different from the ones made during the primary that irked me: A vote for Bernie is a vote for Trump...Bernie isn’t even a Democrat...you are throwing your vote away.  Those were prematurely anti-democratic arguments--that we should compromise even before the primary was over (and it must be noted here, for some on the left, Bernie was already the compromise candidate).  With the general election, however, I am now making the maturely anti-democratic argument (yes, I know): get in line, vote for Biden.  

*

It appears Biden needs the support of younger progressives, of the more Warren and certainly the more Sanders wings of the party/electorate.  Whom is the onus on: the Biden campaign or young progressives?  I would say both, but I would say mostly the Biden campaign.  I will do my little part trying to convince my friends, colleagues, or “comrades” who are on the fence.  This way-too-long essay is one attempt if someone should have stumbled upon it and made it this far.  But, Team Biden played hardball to get this far, as all campaigns do, and so, they must go out and get them.  (In a moment of feeling both slighted and snarky after the Bernie drop-out, I wanted to post this piece.  But, when at least the slight subsided, I decided not to.  Plus, I didn’t put in many explicit Bernie volunteer hours to merit posting it myself.  Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal gives some sample advice.)  

*

“Some days, you have to be Martin, and some days you have to be Malcolm,” a (fellow white) friend told me once, as we pontificated and appropriated black freedom fighters (and as I used Frederick Douglass above).  Or, to stick with just Martin, some days you have to be March-of-1965-Martin on the streets of Selma and then other days, you have to be August-of-1965-Martin next to LBJ as he signs the Voting Rights Act.  And then later, you might have to be 1967-Martin railing against LBJ and the war on Vietnam, and then later, you might have to be 1968-Martin organizing poor people in Memphis.  And, we know what happened in Memphis in 1968.  

That Voting Rights Act mattered a whole lot.  It matters less since the reactionary Supreme Court majority gutted it in Shelby County in 2013.  I have a hard time imagining that law getting signed by a President Barry Goldwater (Johnson’s 1964 opponent).  I have a hard time imagining Herbert Hoover signing into law New Deal reforms if FDR had not defeated him.  I believe inches matter on the way to the miles needed.  I believe that the road to a more just world goes through a world that is slightly less unjust.  And while I appreciate Susan Sarandon and the Marxist theorist-dreamer keeping me honest on some longer arcs of history, I think a President Biden would be more receptive to reforms than a President Trump.  But only if we keep fighting for those reforms—or revolution.  Neither are foregone conclusions.

I will continue to be active with DSA, around health care, housing, climate change, etc.  At the same time, I will try to convince people to vote for Joe Biden.  Should COVID allow for travel and such activity, I will even go to my native Bucks County, PA to convince people to vote for Joe Biden because in Pennsylvania, due to the arcane anti-democratic electoral college, their votes matter more than ours across the Delaware River.  I will remember Larry Hamm’s chuckle/acknowledgement that, yes, we are a bundle of contradictions and God forgive us.  And I hope Larry/God forgives me.  Some days, I will put on a shirt and tie and be active with Common Defense, a progressive veterans group that endorses candidates, backs legislation, and lobbies decision-makers.  Other days, I will let my hair down and not shave and work on the more radical, such as curriculum and cultural demilitarization, with Veterans for Peace.  (It is no Martin-Malcolm dichotomy, but it is the best I have).  My centrist/only slightly left teacher union—NJEA and the NEA national affiliate—I imagine will easily endorse Joe Biden, perhaps even without member input, but at the same time, colleagues and I will try to organize and push our union to look beyond our members. (Here is an email I sent to our union leadership about “organizing for the common good."  At the same though, I probably shouldn’t assume that we teachers will still be fine because COVID austerity will come for us, too, and we need to take that on.)    

There are many things we can all do, from organizing, to advocacy, to gardening, to charity, to direct service to those in need, to mutual aid and more anarchist adventures, to activity in one’s place of worship (especially if your bishops haven’t endorsed Trump), to meditation, to raising children and/or pets, to writing to shut-ins especially during this pandemic, to taking care of parents, to cooking, to cooking for others, to just wearing a mask in public places and not being an asshole (who knew that would be so hard?  Ok, we knew), to supporting local businesses, to being kind and just to “essential workers” and not just in a pandemic, to reading and writing and painting and playing music, to spending time with wild things in nature, to asking this government not to destroy every wild thing.  These are the things we can do.  We can do them in addition to voting for Joe Biden on November 3 to send Trump packing.  Or, if you prefer, from your own different moral calculus, you can do them to make up for voting for Joe Biden, so what we can send Trump packing.

*

I get angry.  I get self-righteous.  I write long, unpaid, unsolicited essays that few people read.  I have a robust ego.  I have my favorite positions, principles, and personalities.   However.... 

I return to the mad farmer's question, which gets me out of my head and puts my ego in check, at least for a moment: “Did you finish killing everybody who was against peace?”  

I don’t know if Wendell Berry votes or whom he votes for, but regarding November 3, my interpretation of his question is, “Get over yourself.  You see this monster in the White House?  Stop him first.  You see his cowardly enablers?  Stop them.  That means voting for Biden.  Register here if you haven’t.  Then, on November 4, you can get back to whatever it is you need to do.”