When Peace Isn't on the Ballot
What do we do when peace is not on the ballot?
That’s a question millions of people in the USA will be asking themselves on Tuesday.
As happens every election cycle, I’ve been getting into debates with friends and supporters online and in person. As a rule I try to keep these debates friendly, but this cycle in particular that has been a challenge.
People can have different opinions about things. But when one side is being perceived as supporting genocide and the other is being perceived as supporting policies that separate children from their families, things can understandably get a bit heated.
So what is a peace activist to do? The first thing is to acknowledge that the situation is complex. Sticking to the two mainstream candidates, does one represent “the lesser evil”? One can make the case that Trump represents the lesser evil as easily as one can make the case that Harris represents the lesser evil. After all he didn’t actively fund one of the worst genocides in recent history. So therefore all four options are defendable for a peace activist - vote your conscience (third party), vote Democrat if you think they’re the lesser evil, vote Republican if you think they’re the lesser evil, or don’t vote at all.
For voters of my generation or older, any mention of third party voting is sure to bring up memories of an election that took place 24 years ago. In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Presidency. In such a close election one can point to any number of factors that may have cost Gore the election - his failure to carry his home state of Tennessee and the Supreme Court’s halting of the Florida recount are two factors that are perhaps under-discussed. Instead people focussed on the role of third party candidate Ralph Nader. This has been used as an argument against supporting third party candidates ever again.
Without getting into the validity of this criticism, there are ways to support third parties without opening oneself up to that particular criticism. Groups like votepact.org advocate for a “swap”. Left-of-centre voters can vote their conscience without affecting the outcome if they can make a “vote pact” with a right-of-centre voter who wants to vote their conscience without affecting the outcome. That way neither vote effects the outcome, and both third parties (a right wing party and a left wing party) get some support.
What matters most is not what happens on November 5, but what happens the day after. To the extent that the US is a democracy, we as US citizens are complicit in genocide. What does it mean to be, not even a peace activist, but just a decent person opposed to genocide at a time like this? How do we provide meaningful solidarity to those who are the victims of genocide? These are questions everyone should be asking.
Ideally, we should never again have to face this kind of dilemma where the only two people on the ballot are pro-war. I found Harris’ response when questioned about losing voters who oppose genocide enlightening. The pivot from killing children to lowering grocery prices was bone chilling. Trump’s tendency to dehumanise large populations is by now well documented, so I won’t go into it here. The way out of this situation is unclear, but it probably does involve actually getting involved with political parties you agree with instead of supporting the party that you disagree with less than the other one. If everyone who believed in peace and justice actually supported political parties who support peace and justice, change might be possible.
These are desperate times. Along with the tens of thousands of innocents slain in Gaza, the US has effectively destroyed the idea that international law has any standing in the world. Without international law, we are left to the principle of “might makes right” and in that context there is no reason for countries not to expand their arsenals of conventional and nuclear weapons. A new arms race has already begun, making the world a lot less safe than it was even a few months ago. While things may seem tough, the need for people like you and me is greater than it’s ever been.
The history of conflict resolution teaches us that negotiations, words, agreements and enforcement mechanisms can be used to resolve disputes in lieu of violence. Basic democratic theory teaches us that our government should represent our interests. We know from polling that most people in the USA do not want to be funding a genocide; they want peace, not violence. And yet peace is not on the ballot. Something has gone terribly wrong.
Regardless of what happens, in 2025 the USA will have a pro-war President who is actively supporting genocide. If that President is Kamala Harris, how can those who helped put her in the Presidency, including trade unions, and community organisations, hold her accountable? Can those groups be counted on to fulfil their role as the traditional upholders of human rights or will they be coopted into supporting the genocide that their President supports?
If that President is Donald Trump, how can activists for peace and justice learn from and build on the gains they made during the previous Trump administration - through the Black Lives Matter movement to give one example - in order to create momentum for a lasting peace?
These are not easy questions. But they are the questions that the moment demands we find answers to. MK Gandhi said that when one is about to take an action, he or she should envision the face of the poorest and most desperate person they know and then ask whether this action benefits that person. For the past 13 months my dreams and my nightmares are filled with the faces of Palestinian children who are being slaughtered daily by weapons paid for with my tax dollars. While there’s little I can do to help such a child on election day, there’s plenty to do the day after.
