“Winning the election is the only things that matters” is making the rounds again, I think kicked off by the Platner revelations. Platner, a candidate for Maine Senator on the Democratic side started out with a strong message about fighting oligarchs and Trump. And then it was discovered that her had a Nazi tattoo from his time in the Marines, and then that he had recently said some bigoted and sexist things. That he handled these accusations with all the aplomb of a toddler on a bad day has not really helped. One of the defenses of Platner is that he would be best positioned to beat the current GOP senator, and there is some evidence to support this. But I still wouldn’t vote for Platner, though I would be hard pressed to support Mills, his opponent, with any enthusiasm. Why? She is an anti-democratic candidate.
That sounds harsh, but it is true. Mills supports the filibuster, and that makes her anti-democracy. If the democrats return to power, many things need to be reformed in order to restore a true democracy to the country. Expanding the House and banning gerrymandering or requiring multi-member districts or proportional representation. Re-staffing and re-funding the government and all the programs it supports, and taking control of them out of the hands of political appointees. Reforming the Supreme Court. Reigning in donations. Adding states. Ending ICE. All of these are required, in one form or another, to clear away the rot that has allowed the GOP to turn authoritarian and to so effectively ignore the laws of the country. None of them happen with the filibuster in place, and therefore Mills is anti-democracy, whether she understands that or not. So would I vote for Platner, then, were I in Maine, since he has made noises about getting rid of the filibuster? No, I would not.
And this is the heart of the problem with “winning elections is the only thing that matters”. People who insist on that are usually insisting that someone else either give up their causes or that the cause they support is the most endangered or important issue, even if they do not frame it that way. Platner’s handling of these reservations has revealed him to likely be a standard edgelord asshole. Even if he supports ending the filibuster, what good would that do if he constantly supports programs that hurt people, which I suspect he would?
Newsom is another good example: he is performatively anti-Trump in a way that is meaningful and has helped bring the President’s numbers down. But he is also rabidly anti-trans. If Newsom wins the nomination, how is a trans person supposed to feel about voting for him? But that same argument applied on a different dimension with Harris — she stated she was willing to keep funding Israel’s genocide. Yes, Trump was worse than Harris on every other metric, but if you had relatives dying under bombs that Harris promised to keep sending, how do you look at yourself in the mirror after having voted for her? The standard answer is some version of Trump/GOP would be worse, but that is not always true — if a Dem adopts wholesale the GOP position on Gaza or trans, or immigration or worker’s rights (a child who dies from lack of health insurance or a person who dies at work due to lack of proper safety regulations is just as dead, and just as important), is that better to the people affected?
The answer, really, is that this stuff is hard. Platner and Newsom, right now, are easier choices. Better choices exist, and there might even be a way to get a better person than either Platner or Mills elected in Maine. But if you say Never Newsom, for example, then you mean that you will never vote for Newsom, even if the choice is for president, not for the nomination. And that means you are choosing your issue over all the others. And that may be a valid choice — I am not here to pretend any of this is easy. The easy way is to say that you should value the other people in your coalition as much as you value yourself. But if the rest of the coalition doesn’t value you in the same way, then it is very hard for most people to extend that kind of grace.
I have no grand solution here, nothing that works in every situation for every person. I hope that people stop arguing about how winning elections is all that matters and start dealing with people’s real fears about the consequences of that attitude. Platitudes about the other side being worse are not sufficient, and faux tough guy posturing about being realistic and “winning is everything” range from unhelpful to insulting. The problem with becoming a monster to fight a monster, after all, is that even if you win, someone still has to deal with the monster left standing and his monstrous acts.
We are somewhat lucky now is that this is primary season, so we can defeat some of the monsters. But if you are advocating for a monster, for someone who would toss some people aside in order to win, or for letting the monster on the other side win because the monster on this side will turn on you, then you should be a little less certain in your outlook. You owe the people in your coalition a little more compassion, a little more understanding of the damage you are asking them to risk, and a lot more solid planning about how you intend to protect them from your monsters.
Because if we aren’t willing to protect each other from monsters, then what is the fsking point of us?
Monstrously good read...with monstrously defined as immense, tremendous or enormous, not horrrendous, grisly or gruesome. I thoroughly enjoyed your writing, keep it coming. Happy Monday to you !