A flawed strategy

Urging a vote against fascism in November, while damning President Biden with faint praise or singularly leaning into his mistakes and shortcomings or simply leaving him out of the conversation altogether, may seem strategically astute and morally imperative, but it is neither. Such an approach, if taken seriously by too many of the main actors in the coalition to defeat Trump would doom the efforts of the rest to prevent Trump’s return to the White House. Such a posture might resonate with a section of the left and newly radicalized young people as well as inflate the vote count of Joe Kennedy Jr. and Cornell West, but it doesn’t get us a flea hope closer to defeating Trump and electing Biden.

A dual task

The task of the non sectarian left, I would argue, is not only to empower itself, not only to increase its own organizational and political capacity. Of no less importance is to assist the entire range of people’s organizations — not least labor — as the “battle at the ballot box” draws near. This bloc of people’s organizations in collaboration with the Democratic Party at every level possesses the wherewithal — power, political acumen, and moral standing — to defeat Trump and the MAGA movement and re-elect Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, not to mention provide the muscle to regain full Democratic control of Congress.

Of course, such an outcome would have to be defended in the election’s aftermath. Trump and MAGA, as we know all too well, won’t accept defeat without a struggle and are already planning their moves in that event. “By any means necessary” is more than a slogan for this cabal of reaction, racism, retribution, and revanchism.

Political dynamics and the elections

In thinking about the unhappiness of some young, progressive, and socialist minded voters who say they have a problem voting for Biden, we should remind them of the dilemma of the abolitionist movement when the Republican Party’s nominee in 1860 was a candidate whose oratory didn’t lift people out of their seats, telegenic he wasn’t (albeit in a non telegenic age), didn’t dress to the nines, and, above all, held a position on slavery that most abolitionists considered inimical to their own views and life work.

Of course, I’m talking about Lincoln, who, by his own words, said he wouldn’t abolish slavery where it existed, while adamantly opposing its expansion to states and territories where it didn’t.

In his famous Cooper Union Address in New York City in February of 1860, Lincoln in a single sentence provided the rhetorical ammunition that fueled the abolitionist critique of Lincoln and his politics:“Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States?”

As you would expect, Lincoln’s words nagged at the conscience of abolitionists, while presenting them with a very practical question? Should they set aside their desire for a pure abolitionist ticket and cast a vote for a candidate who says that he won’t challenge slavery where it is, but will where it isn’t?Or, should they refrain from party politics until a pure abolition ticket is on the ballot in some future election?Not surprisingly, the abolitionist movement was divided.

What would be mind-boggling is if they were not. Even those who voted for Lincoln must have done it with a mix of hesitations and hopes.If social media was available during that time, some abolitionists might have established a #NeverLincoln site. Other abolitionists, including a sizable wing of Black political abolitionists, were of a different mind. They wanted no part in sitting out the election. Frederick Douglass was one of them, and while he had plenty of criticism of Lincoln, Douglass was a strategic and tactical thinker of the highest order and understood the dynamics of what a Lincoln’s election and presidency would set into motion. He wrote:

“What, then, has been gained to the anti-slavery cause by the election of Mr. Lincoln? Not much, in itself considered, but very much when viewed in the light of its relations and bearings. For fifty years the country has taken the law from the lips of an exacting, haughty and imperious slave oligarchy. The masters of slaves have been masters of the Republic. Their authority was almost undisputed, and their power irresistible. They were the President makers of the Republic, and no aspirant dared to hope for success against their frown. Lincoln’s election has vitiated their authority, and broken their power. It has taught the North its strength, and shown the South its weakness. More importantly, it has demonstrated the possibility of electing, if not an Abolitionist, at least an anti-slavery reputation to the Presidency of the United States. The years are few since it was thought possible that the Northern people could be wrought up to the exercise of such startling courage. Hitherto the threat of disunion has been as potent over the politicians of the North, as the cat-o’-nine-tails is over the backs of the slaves. Mr. Lincoln’s election breaks this enchantment, dispels this terrible nightmare, and awakens the nation to the consciousness of new powers, and the possibility of a higher destiny than the perpetual bondage to an ignoble fear.” (Excerpted from “The Late Election,” Douglass’ Monthly, December 1860, FULL TEXT via University of Rochester)

Let’s hope that those who say that they will never vote for Biden will take close measure of Douglass’ words and come to the understanding that Biden’s reelection is absolutely necessary if we hope to “break the spell” of Trump and the MAGA movement. To believe that sitting out the storm or voting for a third party candidate is the best course is a pernicious and dangerous delusion.

Let’s hope we are smarter. No Biden, no leverage. No Biden, no progressive agenda. We will be fighting on our heels, to put it mildly, to prevent the slide toward a dark authoritarian time. And once we arrive at that place, the climb back is steep, likely long, and dangerous.

Normandy and nationalism

Watching the ceremony at Normandy reminds me that nationalism can be the source of heroism, unity, and uplift as well as their opposites. It isn’t a substitute for internationalism, but it doesn’t have to be the latter’s antithesis either. One can reinforce the other, provided the requisite political activists are committed to that task.


Today’s celebration of D-Day takes on new meaning this year. Once again we are faced with the challenge of fending off and defeating a rising fascist threat here at home and worldwide. But this time the main field of struggle, unlike 80 years ago, is the current elections where Biden and other Democratic candidates face off against Trump and other Republicans.

The outcome of this existential struggle will turn, not on the weapons of war as it did seven decades ago, but the energy, unity, and political acuity of an expansive coalition (which it should be emphasized has the Democratic Party in its middle) and its success in educating and activating tens of millions to vote on election day for Biden and other Democrats running for office.

Each of us, I believe, can and should find a practical way to assist in this effort. Nothing wrong with rhetorical broadsides against Trump and MAGA on social media, but such broadsides are no substitute for the seemingly drab, out of view work to register and mobilize tens of millions of voters to use their voting power to defeat Trump and MAGA in November.

Share This