Embed Notice

I always thought the “lesser of two evil” argument had its limitations, and when both options include complete annihilation, I think that limit has been reached. Both candidates in the upcoming U.S. elections fail to enact policies to prevent climate change to a meaningful degree and in accordance to the Paris Climate Agreement.

Instead of moralizing the decisions of each individual voter, claiming it's their fault if the more progressive candidate doesn't win, how about questioning the decisions of the democratic party's leadership? It would be the lesser of two evils for the Democrats to simply adopt policies that people would vote for (such as Medicare for All, actual infrastructure re-investments, not doing genocide...)

What long term strategy is there behind continuously voting for a party, even to the point where it doesn't represent you anymore? If Harris/Walz win this election, and by 2028 the shift to the right has progressed so much further that the Democrat's positions are exactly the same as Trump's today, is the only strategy still voting for Democrats? Where and when do you draw the line? If it was so important to win this election, more important than anything else, why is the Democratic party not willing to sacrifice even the tiniest of their corporate sponsors?

Here's what I believe: they don't care. They don't want to win this election. They know you will vote for them no matter what. They don't have to do anything that might go against their corporate sponsors but would win people over and ensure a better life for all. Because they don't have to. Because you let yourself be fooled.