I needed this read as I’ve recently come to see my idyllic middle class life as built on bloodsport. I’ll cast my vote early for cowards and then turn my attention to fostering change where possible.
People also need to put into perspective that because of the undemocratic electoral college, if they are feeling some kind of serious moral conundrum with regard to Gaza and pulling the lever for Harris, then they only really have a decision to make if they live in one of six states.
The amount of consternation being had among leftists living in places like California or New York as to whether or not they should vote for Harris is very out of proportion with how much their vote matters in a solid blue or red state. For most Americans only down ballot really matters. You can write whatever nonsense you'd like in as president.
I do think that leftists in swing states should vote Harris primarily for reasons of the NLRB and the risk of the courts getting even worse. However, I'm MORE upset at the Democratic leadership for being such ghouls over immigration and Gaza than I can possibly be upset at individual voters who can't stomach said Democratic leadership. And vote shaming people doesn't work regardless, it usually backfires.
The way I sell it is to step AWAY from viewing voting as some kind of great all-important moral stance...it's JUST voting...LITERALLY the LEAST you can do as a participating US citizen..only slightly of greater import than making lunch or taking a shit...Getting on a soapbox and declaring in high dudgeon your intent to NOT vote is performative AND incorrect...if you are an ELIGIBLE voter, then there IS no 'off ramp, moral or otherwise to view the show from the sidelines...IOW, you are casting a vote NO MATTER WHAT you do..period...
Voting is IMPORTANT, but you don't get a goddamn cookie for doing it or NOT doing it....
This is, indeed, a well written analysis, deeply touching the frustrations we all have. Nonetheless, there is another, contrary point of view, which understands, appreciates, and maybe forgives, this kind of public policy behavior. Democracy is not a church. Politics is not a religion. Politics is the art of the practical.
Harris hit it on the head when she said "my values have not changed." In order to have any influence on public policy, never mind institute programs against opposition, a person has to get elected. This involves the practical art, the political skill, and the democratic compromise to reach out to people who have contrary, even opposing values and policies. Getting elected is the first priority. Innovative and value based policy must come later.
In this context we can still say Sen Saunders is important and he should continue to vigorously promote his value based policies. It moves the Overton Window. So too, with e.g. Sen Strom Thurmond in the other direction. Neither became President with the authority to advance their agenda. This is part of the ebb and flow of the democratic process. It is not cowardly.
Indeed, our host almost more or less admits this when he says "I can think of a small number of elected officials who exhibit true moral courage while fighting for their beliefs even when they are unpopular."
I mean, this may be intended as a criticism of how elected officials tend to act, but it could just as easily be read as merely a descriptive statement of what sort of people tend to actually win elections and thus earn the title "elected official". In other words, if it's an indictment of anyone, it's an indictment of the electorate.
"Democracy is not a church. Politics is not a religion. Politics is the art of the practical."
WELL SAID!
And like Hamilton implied...Its a permission structure to give YOURSELF a break and step away from all the high dudgeon and moral 'intrigue' and most of all the endless DRAMA of politics...
Politics is what it is...When there are effectively only 2 choices (after a primary) there is going to be a better choice and a worse choice and that's that...TOO much power is ceded to politics although understandable reasons, but there is work outside of that frame that can be done..And again, the OBVIOUS and LIVING example of that is organized labor and unionizing efforts
Politicians well should be cowards, I’d say. Politicians absolutely should fear public opinion. It is difficult to grasp or control, and wildly influential at the ballot box, where they must live and die. A politician who doesn’t fear the will of their constituents is a dictator in the making.
We need to help ourselves and each other be better, so that they can be better.
What's maddening though is a lot of what the cowards sell out on isn't even popular within public opinion, at least if polling is to be believed which shows wide margins supporting an arms embargo for Israel and supporting Medicare for All and all sorts of left wing policies. I like Hamilton's essay but it doesn't take this into account, making it sound like coward politicians are slaves to popular opinion. It's even worse! They're slaves to donor/elite opinion
interesting take! So in a WAY, 'cowardice' can be a PREFERRED 'stance' because cowards are easily pushed into doing what you demand of them (at least democratic cowards can be swayed by pressure from the democratic base, while republican cowards can do what they want because their base has no self respect or expectations from their leaders)
LOL you seriously come up with some extremely helpful shit sir! I didn't realize just how much I needed this, or at least I wasn't actually expecting to see it named so no bullshit no excuses. ❤️
As a side bar, the fracking thing...How many people and how much of the state are ACTUALLY involved in the fracking process? And how many are ACTUALLY in favor of it? I'd wager that PLENTY of Pennsylvanians are as against fracking as SW Virginians are against that GODDAMN pipeline that got put in. IOW I'm not exactly sure WHO that pro-fracking message was FOR since the MAJORITY of the democratic base is AGAINST it...
It's the oil and gas companies that are gaining financially from fracking. I'd surmise they are donating to Harris' campaign, while the Brookings Institute insists consumers are benefiting with "lower" costs. Short term gain, long term suffering. https://environmentamerica.org/center/resources/the-costs-of-fracking/
Oil & gas companies make a mess: contaminated water, pollution, destroyed habitats. But they never clean it up or are held accountable, humans be damned.
Pennsylvanians are for it. There are a lot of jobs as well as ancillary economic effects from the export of natural gas. Harris doesn’t have any wiggle room on this, if she wants to win the state.
My estimation: The Pennsylvanians who support fracking are those whose livelihood depends on it. Those opposing it are many of the rest of us, plus people who've allowed fracking on their land and are now suffering the consequences. And their neighbors.
That's what has me scratching my head. As big an industry as fracking is in Pennsylvania, it's clearly less than 1/10 of 1/10 of a percent of people who are actually working in it. So what if you lose those votes?. How many of them were going to vote for Democrats in the first place? I'd wager about the same fraction. I really hate politics at this level. I want us to win so bad that I am even willing to concede some moral ground that I am uncomfortable conceding. But on the other hand I don't see how this is a smart move. What is to be gained? There really aren't that many people working in this field to move the needle in any significant direction. I use my own state Virginia as an example. The powers that be have greenlighted the pipeline coming through West Virginia into Southwest Virginia into my own fucking backyard practically. Everybody hates it. How would supporting that be a smart political move? Frackers Aren't the only people who live in areas being Fracked. It's such an ugly disruptive process that turns everything into one giant hateful mud pile. People fucking live there for fucks sake. Are they OK with this? I just don't get it
What saddens me the most is leaders should exemplify “C” for courage and NOT compromise. Especially when our climate crisis NEEDs utmost attention and the candidate who was so pro climate in 2016 has completely flipped on all progressive policies just to get some votes, how can that candidate be trusted to “work for the people”?!?
My preference is to NOT encourage and support this hypocrisy by casting my vote- because it will set an example for future leaders to do the same. Thanks for the great insight!
you know that not-voting is still voting, right? you don't get to take the moral high ground by sitting out an election...by sitting out, you cast a half vote for the worst of the two candidates...And with SO MANY Americans who ALREADY don't vote out of sheer laziness, do you think the powers that be are going to miss YOUR vote? You would simply be sending a message to people who don't take messages...
I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I have wondered if it is cowardice or some sort of delusion related to their "belief in the system". This election cycle I have really been wondering what we can do as a people to release the office of the presidency from its thrall to the profiteers and religious nationalists whose unholy alliance has brought us to the brink of destruction.
I think this is a great essay. I think that it’s impossible to distinguish true cowards from politicians caught in the same traps we are caught in as voters. Setting aside the current crop of deeply horrible enemies, the real enemy is the conventional wisdom. We all bear some responsibility for that, and I wouldn’t hang it on the bulk of the work-a-day reporters, but I would identify the dynamics of the news business as one of the most important enemies.
As you are always at pains to point out, I agree that organizing is the best way out of the trap.
How about organizing the schools so that they cease subservience to the standardized testing (which keeps all captive to abstracted categories, group think, and neutered, non-personal language) and instead stress humanities and essay writing?
The latter two grow ability to see individuals outside of groups. Ability to cherish and cite, apply, apt humanities.
Thanks. I thought about this a little more after I wrote it. I think you could credibly accuse both Obama and the Clintons of cowardice on some important things. I remember vividly my frustration with Obama over his failure to lift one finger to support the striking public employees in Wisconsin. I could go on with examples but trying to thread the electoral politics needle does not qualify. The true political cowards of our age are the GOP shitbirds enabling MAGA that know better. Whatever her many faults, I’ll always hold Liz Cheney in honor for standing so strong against fascism.
One last thing about Cheney. Don’t know her and will never meet her but I feel like I could have a productive argument with her about policy. Not that we would come to any consensus but that we could at least come to some better understanding of each other’s views. If you come to the public square, you must come in good faith. If you don’t you’re ripping up the paving stones we’re meant to stand on. Free speech, stripped of good faith, is a dead and useless right.
Perhaps a kinder definition that could be extended in some cases (not that kindness is a virtue in assessing our elected leaders) would be they are 'overly cautious'...TOO calculating...While we WANT our leaders to be thoughtful and not reactionary, a LOT of moral capital is squandered in squaring the circle and excuse making...Unfortunately the American Electorate doesn't reward candor and unambiguous clarity from our primary-stage-candidates or we would have ended up with VERY different Democratic nominees for POTUS over the years
I think Dem powerbrokers and the DNC UNDERESTIMATE the 'tolerances' and flexibility of the democratic electorate...remember how a couple months ago that NO WAY IN HELL America was ready for a Black Woman as POTUS?
welp! (:
Even If it ends up that we WEREN'T, they sure as hell made a good case that we WERE! And if HARRIS loses in November, Joe Biden DEFINITELY would have lost if he had stayed the course
No matter WHAT happens it will ALYS have been the right choice to go with Harris over Biden
I needed this read as I’ve recently come to see my idyllic middle class life as built on bloodsport. I’ll cast my vote early for cowards and then turn my attention to fostering change where possible.
People also need to put into perspective that because of the undemocratic electoral college, if they are feeling some kind of serious moral conundrum with regard to Gaza and pulling the lever for Harris, then they only really have a decision to make if they live in one of six states.
The amount of consternation being had among leftists living in places like California or New York as to whether or not they should vote for Harris is very out of proportion with how much their vote matters in a solid blue or red state. For most Americans only down ballot really matters. You can write whatever nonsense you'd like in as president.
I do think that leftists in swing states should vote Harris primarily for reasons of the NLRB and the risk of the courts getting even worse. However, I'm MORE upset at the Democratic leadership for being such ghouls over immigration and Gaza than I can possibly be upset at individual voters who can't stomach said Democratic leadership. And vote shaming people doesn't work regardless, it usually backfires.
The way I sell it is to step AWAY from viewing voting as some kind of great all-important moral stance...it's JUST voting...LITERALLY the LEAST you can do as a participating US citizen..only slightly of greater import than making lunch or taking a shit...Getting on a soapbox and declaring in high dudgeon your intent to NOT vote is performative AND incorrect...if you are an ELIGIBLE voter, then there IS no 'off ramp, moral or otherwise to view the show from the sidelines...IOW, you are casting a vote NO MATTER WHAT you do..period...
Voting is IMPORTANT, but you don't get a goddamn cookie for doing it or NOT doing it....
This is, indeed, a well written analysis, deeply touching the frustrations we all have. Nonetheless, there is another, contrary point of view, which understands, appreciates, and maybe forgives, this kind of public policy behavior. Democracy is not a church. Politics is not a religion. Politics is the art of the practical.
Harris hit it on the head when she said "my values have not changed." In order to have any influence on public policy, never mind institute programs against opposition, a person has to get elected. This involves the practical art, the political skill, and the democratic compromise to reach out to people who have contrary, even opposing values and policies. Getting elected is the first priority. Innovative and value based policy must come later.
In this context we can still say Sen Saunders is important and he should continue to vigorously promote his value based policies. It moves the Overton Window. So too, with e.g. Sen Strom Thurmond in the other direction. Neither became President with the authority to advance their agenda. This is part of the ebb and flow of the democratic process. It is not cowardly.
Indeed, our host almost more or less admits this when he says "I can think of a small number of elected officials who exhibit true moral courage while fighting for their beliefs even when they are unpopular."
I mean, this may be intended as a criticism of how elected officials tend to act, but it could just as easily be read as merely a descriptive statement of what sort of people tend to actually win elections and thus earn the title "elected official". In other words, if it's an indictment of anyone, it's an indictment of the electorate.
"Democracy is not a church. Politics is not a religion. Politics is the art of the practical."
WELL SAID!
And like Hamilton implied...Its a permission structure to give YOURSELF a break and step away from all the high dudgeon and moral 'intrigue' and most of all the endless DRAMA of politics...
Politics is what it is...When there are effectively only 2 choices (after a primary) there is going to be a better choice and a worse choice and that's that...TOO much power is ceded to politics although understandable reasons, but there is work outside of that frame that can be done..And again, the OBVIOUS and LIVING example of that is organized labor and unionizing efforts
Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges...
Brilliant. Thank you for posting this.
Politicians well should be cowards, I’d say. Politicians absolutely should fear public opinion. It is difficult to grasp or control, and wildly influential at the ballot box, where they must live and die. A politician who doesn’t fear the will of their constituents is a dictator in the making.
We need to help ourselves and each other be better, so that they can be better.
What's maddening though is a lot of what the cowards sell out on isn't even popular within public opinion, at least if polling is to be believed which shows wide margins supporting an arms embargo for Israel and supporting Medicare for All and all sorts of left wing policies. I like Hamilton's essay but it doesn't take this into account, making it sound like coward politicians are slaves to popular opinion. It's even worse! They're slaves to donor/elite opinion
Yep that’s way worse. And makes the process way harder once they’re in office.
interesting take! So in a WAY, 'cowardice' can be a PREFERRED 'stance' because cowards are easily pushed into doing what you demand of them (at least democratic cowards can be swayed by pressure from the democratic base, while republican cowards can do what they want because their base has no self respect or expectations from their leaders)
LOL you seriously come up with some extremely helpful shit sir! I didn't realize just how much I needed this, or at least I wasn't actually expecting to see it named so no bullshit no excuses. ❤️
As a side bar, the fracking thing...How many people and how much of the state are ACTUALLY involved in the fracking process? And how many are ACTUALLY in favor of it? I'd wager that PLENTY of Pennsylvanians are as against fracking as SW Virginians are against that GODDAMN pipeline that got put in. IOW I'm not exactly sure WHO that pro-fracking message was FOR since the MAJORITY of the democratic base is AGAINST it...
It's the oil and gas companies that are gaining financially from fracking. I'd surmise they are donating to Harris' campaign, while the Brookings Institute insists consumers are benefiting with "lower" costs. Short term gain, long term suffering. https://environmentamerica.org/center/resources/the-costs-of-fracking/
Oil & gas companies make a mess: contaminated water, pollution, destroyed habitats. But they never clean it up or are held accountable, humans be damned.
Pennsylvanians are for it. There are a lot of jobs as well as ancillary economic effects from the export of natural gas. Harris doesn’t have any wiggle room on this, if she wants to win the state.
thanks for the insight...I wasn't aware is was that big and popular there
My estimation: The Pennsylvanians who support fracking are those whose livelihood depends on it. Those opposing it are many of the rest of us, plus people who've allowed fracking on their land and are now suffering the consequences. And their neighbors.
That's what has me scratching my head. As big an industry as fracking is in Pennsylvania, it's clearly less than 1/10 of 1/10 of a percent of people who are actually working in it. So what if you lose those votes?. How many of them were going to vote for Democrats in the first place? I'd wager about the same fraction. I really hate politics at this level. I want us to win so bad that I am even willing to concede some moral ground that I am uncomfortable conceding. But on the other hand I don't see how this is a smart move. What is to be gained? There really aren't that many people working in this field to move the needle in any significant direction. I use my own state Virginia as an example. The powers that be have greenlighted the pipeline coming through West Virginia into Southwest Virginia into my own fucking backyard practically. Everybody hates it. How would supporting that be a smart political move? Frackers Aren't the only people who live in areas being Fracked. It's such an ugly disruptive process that turns everything into one giant hateful mud pile. People fucking live there for fucks sake. Are they OK with this? I just don't get it
Ugh this is so good
I’ve been in such a funk for all the reasons you articulated. This really helped!
yup...permission to view politics for what it IS and not what it SHOULD be...And work from there
Gawwwwd this is so helpful!! Just upgraded to a paid subscription. Thanks for the work that you’re doing, Hamilton.
Very well written! Great analysis!
What saddens me the most is leaders should exemplify “C” for courage and NOT compromise. Especially when our climate crisis NEEDs utmost attention and the candidate who was so pro climate in 2016 has completely flipped on all progressive policies just to get some votes, how can that candidate be trusted to “work for the people”?!?
My preference is to NOT encourage and support this hypocrisy by casting my vote- because it will set an example for future leaders to do the same. Thanks for the great insight!
you know that not-voting is still voting, right? you don't get to take the moral high ground by sitting out an election...by sitting out, you cast a half vote for the worst of the two candidates...And with SO MANY Americans who ALREADY don't vote out of sheer laziness, do you think the powers that be are going to miss YOUR vote? You would simply be sending a message to people who don't take messages...
Exactly.
So you're . . . not voting?
This is the single most helpful piece on politics I have ever read. Thank you.
Great point! All I’m gonna say. Very well put.
LOVE THIS!
I feel relieved after reading this honest perspective. We all need a reality check about now.
I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I have wondered if it is cowardice or some sort of delusion related to their "belief in the system". This election cycle I have really been wondering what we can do as a people to release the office of the presidency from its thrall to the profiteers and religious nationalists whose unholy alliance has brought us to the brink of destruction.
I think this is a great essay. I think that it’s impossible to distinguish true cowards from politicians caught in the same traps we are caught in as voters. Setting aside the current crop of deeply horrible enemies, the real enemy is the conventional wisdom. We all bear some responsibility for that, and I wouldn’t hang it on the bulk of the work-a-day reporters, but I would identify the dynamics of the news business as one of the most important enemies.
As you are always at pains to point out, I agree that organizing is the best way out of the trap.
Organizing, Peter?
How about organizing the schools so that they cease subservience to the standardized testing (which keeps all captive to abstracted categories, group think, and neutered, non-personal language) and instead stress humanities and essay writing?
The latter two grow ability to see individuals outside of groups. Ability to cherish and cite, apply, apt humanities.
" I think that it’s impossible to distinguish true cowards from politicians caught in the same traps we are caught in as voters"
""caught in the same traps we are caught in as voters""
nailed it
Thanks. I thought about this a little more after I wrote it. I think you could credibly accuse both Obama and the Clintons of cowardice on some important things. I remember vividly my frustration with Obama over his failure to lift one finger to support the striking public employees in Wisconsin. I could go on with examples but trying to thread the electoral politics needle does not qualify. The true political cowards of our age are the GOP shitbirds enabling MAGA that know better. Whatever her many faults, I’ll always hold Liz Cheney in honor for standing so strong against fascism.
One last thing about Cheney. Don’t know her and will never meet her but I feel like I could have a productive argument with her about policy. Not that we would come to any consensus but that we could at least come to some better understanding of each other’s views. If you come to the public square, you must come in good faith. If you don’t you’re ripping up the paving stones we’re meant to stand on. Free speech, stripped of good faith, is a dead and useless right.
" Free speech, stripped of good faith, is a dead and useless right."
^^^^^^^^
Perhaps a kinder definition that could be extended in some cases (not that kindness is a virtue in assessing our elected leaders) would be they are 'overly cautious'...TOO calculating...While we WANT our leaders to be thoughtful and not reactionary, a LOT of moral capital is squandered in squaring the circle and excuse making...Unfortunately the American Electorate doesn't reward candor and unambiguous clarity from our primary-stage-candidates or we would have ended up with VERY different Democratic nominees for POTUS over the years
I think Dem powerbrokers and the DNC UNDERESTIMATE the 'tolerances' and flexibility of the democratic electorate...remember how a couple months ago that NO WAY IN HELL America was ready for a Black Woman as POTUS?
welp! (:
Even If it ends up that we WEREN'T, they sure as hell made a good case that we WERE! And if HARRIS loses in November, Joe Biden DEFINITELY would have lost if he had stayed the course
No matter WHAT happens it will ALYS have been the right choice to go with Harris over Biden
Assumptions assumptions assumptions
100%
(;