Caught between geopolitical tensions, political polarization and a chaotic candidate swap, the 2024 United States Presidential Election is set to become one of the most consequential in American history.
Kamala Harris’s entrance into the race has significantly improved the Democrats’ fortunes: Polls suggest she is broadly more popular than Biden and stands a better chance of winning the election. Despite the rejuvenated strength of the Democrats, internal party divisions continue to cast a long shadow over Harris’s candidacy, meaning this election remains far too close to call.
While I find it terrifying that an election featuring a candidate who does not have basic respect for democracy can be so close, what alarms me further is the sentiment among many progressives in refusing to support Harris over a variety of topics, most notably the Biden administration’s response to the war in Gaza. But by focusing solely on Harris’s shortcomings in this issue, we lose sight of the bigger picture: her opponent.
I agree Harris is not a perfect progressive candidate — far from it in fact. Her fairly strict stance on border security and refusal to support a national fracking ban would leave any progressive feeling rather underwhelmed at best. But amidst all the arguing about Harris’s views on Gaza, we have often failed to remember that our only alternative to her at this point is Donald Trump.
During his administration, the State Department not only defied decades of American foreign policy by moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and recognizing the disputed city as the Israeli capital but also ordered the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organization office in Washington, the de-facto Palestinian embassy to the United States. While the administration claimed the closure was meant to pressure the Palestinian government into negotiating with Israel, such action should provide little confidence for how Trump’s diplomacy could resolve the present conflict with any consideration for the Palestinian people.
Nowhere was this juxtaposition more evident than during Tuesday night’s Presidential Debate. While Harris committed to working towards a ceasefire deal that guaranteed the release of the remaining hostages, Trump offered no concrete plans of action and instead repeated claims that the conflict would have never started if he were President, further insinuating that Harris “hated” both Jews and Arabs.
I’m sure no progressive Harris boycotter wants Trump to win, but their actions directly increase the probability of such. In a two-way race as competitive as this one, any apathy by the Democratic party base directly benefits Trump. Perhaps the saying “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” falls short when many would not even consider Harris “good.” But while Harris may stack up poorly against the progressive ideal, Trump remains a far worse alternative.
There will never be a “perfect” candidate for any prospective voter because politicians, like all of us, have their own unique views on different issues we may or may not agree with. I write this not to defend Harris’s progressive record, but rather to remind us that the disastrous consequences of a second Trump presidency mean that we must put aside our differences and ensure Trump never enters the Oval Office again. The only way of ensuring that is throwing our full support behind the only alternative: Kamala Harris.
