Editor’s note: This column is a head-to-head with this column: Opinion: The left wants too much out of one candidate, they need to settle
Since the 2024 election, a common sentiment has been espoused by political pundits and moderate voters: the left is a bunch of spoilers. Former Vice President Kamala Harris’ loss isn’t because of poor outreach or out-of-touch policies, it’s because the left wing of the Democratic party demands perfection from its candidates.
Such rhetoric downplays the severity of the issues with Harris’ campaign, misunderstands basic democratic principles and ignores what voters actually want.
It’s exceedingly common for moderate members of the Democratic Party to describe their nominees as “the lesser evil” when compared to Republican candidates. On many issues, this may be true, but one has to question the legitimacy of a candidate who is still evil, no matter the degree.
The State of Israel has credibly been accused of conducting a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza by some of the world’s leading human rights groups, and its prime minister is wanted for crimes against humanity. The Biden administration, knowing that Israel’s conduct was likely illegal, chose to arm and fund this genocide. For her part, Harris said she stands by the choices her and Biden made during their term.
It is appropriate for voters to be skeptical of a candidate who aids in a genocide. Genocide is the gravest crime an individual or state can commit, and voters cannot reasonably be expected to support genocidaires, no matter how repulsive their opponent may be.
If Harris could help contribute to such a grave atrocity abroad, how could she be counted on to have morals in her domestic politics? It’s only natural that voters would have serious reservations about casting their ballots for Harris.
While critics of abstainers advocate for voting, they seem to neglect how democratic systems actually function. Unlike monarchies or dictatorships, support for a political figure isn’t a given in a democratic society. It is the responsibility of any candidate to earn popular support if they want to hold office.
Voters make demands and candidates must either meet voters where they’re at or convince them to change their minds on a given issue. This is the most basic framework of an election. What people consider “purity tests” from the left wing of the Democratic Party is actually just normal electoral behavior.
It would be hard to argue that Harris worked to earn voters’ support.
Even beyond the issue of Gaza, Harris was wildly out of step with the demands of the larger party. Take the issues of Medicare for All or the Green New Deal. Both policies have more than 80% favorability among Democratic voters and enjoy majority support from the broader electorate. It is rare for policies to have such broad support and endorsing them would certainly be a boon to any election campaign.
Yet no Democratic nominee has ever endorsed either one. Harris claimed to support Medicare for All during her brief presidential bid in 2020, but she later retracted that support once she had her party’s nomination in 2024. This is the closest that party elites have ever come to endorsing these incredibly popular positions.
The results of such electioneering are plain. Harris received 6 million fewer votes in 2024 than Former President Joe Biden did in 2020. The Republican victory in 2024 wasn’t because of Trump’s dominance as a politician; it was because of Harris’ weakness. Her party didn’t turn out to support her because they couldn’t count on her to represent their interests.
It is hard to seriously argue that a voter should endorse a candidate who commits atrocities, takes support for granted and who does not actually represent the voter’s desires. Instead of simply trying to paint the opposition as undesirable, Democrats need to put up candidates who actually make people excited to vote for them.
This cannot happen if we simply settle for the lesser evil. To say we must accept evil candidates and that anyone demanding more of their politicians is asking for perfection is to create a false dichotomy. There is an entire spectrum of morality between these extremes in which a politician can be good and decent but not perfect. We will never get such a candidate unless we demand better of those who wish to represent us.
Miriam Evelyn Reeson is a 27-year-old political theory student from Baton Rouge, La.
