Respectfully disagree. “Best candidate” does not necessarily equate with the “best person to lead the country at this time among the viable choices.”
When one votes, one engages with politics, so it’s probably useful to look at how politics is generally played, even if you intend to abstain from some of its ingrained behaviors. In a chamber of Congress controlled by the Republicrats, if you’re one of the rare Republicrats who agrees with the Demmicans that the bill on the floor is a bad one, you could choose to vote your conscience but the bill’s gonna pass with or without your support. And if you cast that vote it may come back to haunt you in the upcoming elections.
Principles versus strategy.
In this general sense, the OP is right. And those who’ve said “this is no time to vote Green”, yeah I get it. But I’m not sure you do.
Like the above-mentioned Congressional Republicrat, the individual voter in many states (most states, to be honest) knows who is going to get their state’s electoral votes regardless of who they vote for personally. You can’t vote harder or more emphatically for Kamala Harris by loathing Donald Trump more strongly. So what are your strategic reasons for casting the vote that you do cast?
There are many good reasons to cast a vote for Kamala Harris, above and beyond “she isn’t Trump”. On the other foot, many Greens are unhappy with her support for Israel in light of what they’ve been doing and are emphatic about voting for Stein. Many of you folks would urge the Greens in general to be strategic — to put ourselves in Kamala Harris’s shoes and consider her strategic thinking and calculations that led her to take that position instead of being vehemently critical of Israel during her run. I get that, too.
What you may not know (or aren’t taking into account) is that the Democratic Party has been attacking 3rd party participation in many states, kicking the Greens off the ballot in NY and maneuvering to withhold matching funds and running open attack ads and so forth. So in the states where a Republican win is either Not Gonna Happen or where, if it does, it means Harris is toast nationally anyway, a Green vote is pushback, whereas a Democratic vote helps assure them that yes they are getting away with this.
you be you.
That said, we are in an effectively 2 party system. I’m sure Ralph Nadar behind closed doors rues that his voters and the Supremes gave it to dubya.
For me, the battle lines are simple. There are basically only two options, and I vastly prefer one of the options over the over. YMMV
I’m not so sure that Nader and other like minded progressives really do. It certainly sounds like a lot of them don’t, it’s all principle, they are willing to punt every election, every principle, every result so that they can “vote their conscience.”
Therein, I think, lies the problem. Voting is the way that civilized, or at least semi-civilized, people who engage in dialogue allow the best ideas to rise to the top and become implemented. It is not well-suited for adversarial battle (again, because each of us is limited to one countable bit of effort, so you can’t “try harder” or “go over the top heroically” or do any of that other valiant-in-battle stuff).
If we are at the stage where things have deteriorated to the point that it’s not a civilized people’s decision-making process, and we’re really polarized into battle positions, I suggest you look beyond the voting booth and do other relevant and meaningful things to determine the outcome (not forgetting to vote, of course, but not considering that to be your primary contribution to this battle). I don’t suggest you acquire an M-16 and situate yourself in a clock tower, but you could consider making phone calls or sending postcards or making financial contributions to such efforts.
Of course, there is another possibility: that Democrats win without the help of the far leftists or green party types.
If the far left stays home, and Kamala wins anyways, the Democrats demonstrate that they don’t actually need the fringe left to win. Their pivot to the center, doing things like taking pride in America (USA chants at Harris rallies) or in our military (Harris’s comments about the US armed forced being the world’s most lethal fighting force) will have actually worked.
And that would mean that the far left cannot hold the Democrats hostage. “You’ll stay home if we don’t adopt your fringe, unpopular policies? Alright, stay home, then.”
The people who don’t want Harris and are willing to risk Trump are certainly not Liberals, and they likely aren’t liberal, either. They are, at a minimum, Progressive (though most Progressives do support Harris) and likely further left than that.
If they vote for a Liberal, it’s because they believe that Diet Fascists are better than the Original Recipe.
They’re full of it. The KPD allowed with the Nazis against the Social Democrats, calling them Social Fascists; and that’s precisely what their ilk will do today with Trump, if given the chance.
Case in point. Facts didn’t stop the KPD and they won’t stop these anti-Harris people.
Counting on them to help defeat fascism is a fool’s errand, because they don’t view fascism as significantly worse than the Liberal, Capitalistic status quo. If anything, they view Fascism as a necessary stepping stone between the liberal status quo and their post capitalist dreamed utopia.
They’re not that stupid. Hell, a Jill Stein staffers just got caught saying that the only purpose of her campaign is to spoil Kamala and get Trump elected.
That explains some of what’s behind the candidacies of Jill Stein and RFK Jr., but other major reasons for their campaigns are ego, and pique at being dismissed or obstructed by the powers that be in the Democratic Party.
Nothing really wrong with protest votes if you live in a state where the outcome is a foregone conclusion. I voted third party once instead of for Al Gore when he ran against Bush in 2000 (this was in Texas, where Bush won in a landslide).
Though in their defense the social Democrats had earlier allied with the “freikorps” the ultra right wing proto-fascist stormtroopers to brutally put down the socialists.
To me it should be an argument for far left to support Harris. The literal actual Nazis were able to seize power because the socialists were not able to get over that. Whatever the social Democrats did to the socialists (which was the equivalent of having Bernie Saunders and AOC murdered by the proud boys) what the Nazis ended up doing was far worse. Terrible unspeakable things happened because the socialists were not able to the see the lesser of two evils. Like the socialists being absolutist about it was justified (at least more so than 2024 American socialists) but that still undeniably led to the rise of Hitler and the Holocaust (not to mention the mass murder of socialists)
Of course where this falls down is I am pretty sure the person in the OP has never heard of any of this. I’d put money on the fact the most they know about the history of socialism is something like: there was a revolution in Russia by Lenin who was awesome, but they died and were replaced by Stalin, who gets a bad rep but defeated Hitler.
A flip side of the things I’ve said so far — I don’t mean a contradiction, I mean the underside of the same truths — yes, there is a lot of holier-than-thou political purism widespread amongst us 3rd-partiers. A very low consideration for expediency, practicality, and in particular the need to work with other people if you’re ever actually going to get things done. And if you’re not going to work with other people, how goddam democratic can your political process actually be? And isn’t that the shit that you say matters the most to you, being fair and keeping things equal, no unfair of putting some people above others ?
So, yeah, in case it’s not obvious that’s my thoughts about the “us” that I’m a part of, the 3rd-partiers, i.e., a self-examination.
Politics can’t just be about developing your own strong opinion about how things ought to be. It can’t just be about expressing that opinion and getting others to agree with you. Although both of those things are necessary. It’s also eventually got to be about structuring the work and organizing the workflow, actually doing it, being government, which means working with people.
Intentions and shared perspectives aren’t enough without developing your own decision-making structures. Bad unfair oppressive social systems arent’ what they are because the wrong people are in the structures, they are what they are as a consequence of the structures. The origins of our country were about moving from monarchy to what we intended to be a more democratic structure. I mean, yeah, we were pissed at George III, but it wasn’t that we wanted a better king, we wanted a democracy. Or said we did.
To what extent have we continued to move in that direction, working towards having more democratic and equal decision-making structures?
A binary 0-1 yes/no Harris/Trump structure is sure as hell not a more democratic decision-making structure.
I can’t say as how I find the 3rdPartiers (Greens, etc) to be shining as much light in those directions as one might hope, if this were your priority, politically,to see us becoming better structured in the sense of more democratic.
I guess that’s my central politics, the structuring of decision-making. That’s my political priority, coming up better, more democratic, structures.
I fully understand defining the negative as coercive authoritarian structures, I’m on board with you there.
The far leftist who will never vote for their liberal enemies who are just as bad as literal fascist remind me of Trump supporters. You know, the Trump supporters who say they’d rather have Putin as their president instead of Kamala.
This. And given recent blue collar voting trends (in a recent Teamsters survey, for example, 60 percent of respondents said they preferred Trump over Harris), if the proletariat in this country ever did succeed in mounting a revolution, they’re probably not bringing about the sort of enlightened, progressive utopia these holier-than-thou class warrior-types are hoping for.
In today’s New York Times (gift link):
Voters (and her own children!) beg Jill Stein to drop out of the 2024 race. She deflects and dodges but offers up this telling statement:
Ms. Stein has also suggested that a Trump victory might serve the cause of left-wing protest. “It’s sad to say,” she said, “but the common wisdom is that under Democrats the antiwar movement goes to sleep.”
I never knew Lenin preferred the pronoun “they”.
Or that Lenin were referred to in the royal plural. 
A vote for anyone other than Harris is a vote against democracy. For those on the far left who are cool with that, I’ll quote Jello Biafra:
In a real Fourth Reich, you’ll be the first to go…
You’ll be the first to go, you’ll be the first to go
You’ll be the first to go unless you think!
…unless you think about spoiler effects under plurality voting and agitate for instant runoff voting, something the Democrats do not oppose and Trump does oppose.
When Hitler was rising to power the Communists in Germany said, “After Hitler, our turn,” meaning he would make things so bad they’d look like a good alternative. Some even joined the Nazi party. It didn’t work out so well for them.
Nor for that matter, did it work out for German communists who fled to the Soviet Union.
Does anyone owe the Left any consideration for their assistance in the Great Project of saving democracy other than further open contempt? Does the Center have some flexibility to show as well?
The example of the German communists is interesting in that the expectation is that they would make common cause with those who had been attacking them in the streets, and in any case, refused to even contemplate working with the dirty Leftists.
Has any group ever reacted the way you demand the Left to react?
Tell that to the Communists, who seem to enjoy the purity of being a voice crying in the wilderness while waiting for Judgement Day.
Former President Trump’s suggestion that U.S. troops could be used to go after “radical-left lunatics” following the presidential election {…}
Trump, who warned Sunday that he could deploy active or National Guard troops to counter the “enemy from within,” {…}
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/4935363-trump-proposes-deploying-troops-radical-left/
Does the Left have any consideration for it’s own self-perseveration?