By John Q. Hosedrinker When I first heard Bernie Sanders’ remarks on the impending presidential election and the frustration that some voters are expressing about skipping it due to the situation in Israel, my immediate thought was a combination of anger and disbelief. The message is stark and clear: opting not to vote, especially because of a single issue, is tantamount to paving the way for someone like Donald Trump to return to power. Let’s be real here; the reality of what a Trump presidency would mean is terrifying.
Trump is not just another candidate; he represents an absence of basic human decency and an embrace of authoritarianism that is dangerous on multiple fronts. If voters think they can sit out this election because they are dissatisfied with how the Democratic Party handles the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they need to understand the consequences of that choice. This isn’t just about political disagreements; it’s about human lives and rights—and it’s about so much more than Israel.
The very idea that an unwillingness to vote could let Trump back into the White House is infuriating, particularly when we acknowledge that every aspect of his presidency is a regression for rights and freedoms that many of us value. The conversation around voting has often included a dialogue about “the lesser of two evils,” and while that may be frustrating, it’s critical to recognize that one of those evils has a much more destructive track record. The reality is that Trump would not just maintain the status quo; he would actively annihilate any hope for progress on multiple issues, from immigration to LGBTQ+ rights to international relations. His presidency would empower bigots, racists, and those who wish to dismantle the very fabric of our democracies.
I find it incredibly naive, almost privileged, for some voters to think they can afford to skip out this election, believing that by boycotting it, they are sending a message to the Democratic Party. This isn’t a high school debate. It’s real life, with real implications. Choosing not to vote or voting for a third party is surrendering to the idea that the current administration’s opposition is somehow moral or justified while, in reality, it simply aids an agenda that is actively harmful.
When we view this election through the lens of who can potentially do the least harm, the choice becomes clear. Supporting someone like Kamala Harris, who at least hints at a willingness to engage in more diplomatic conversations regarding Israel and Palestine, is preferable to returning to a Trump administration. Ignoring the importance of that choice is a grave oversight. People who say that Harris will be just as damaging are fundamentally misunderstanding that the stakes have changed. Trump has made it abundantly clear that he would endorse regimes and policies that directly oppress those suffering in Gaza and beyond.
There seems to be a dangerous trend among certain factions within the progressive movement where the focus becomes so narrow that they miss the much larger implications of their actions. For instance, just because the approach to Israel from the Democratic side isn’t perfect doesn’t mean we can throw it all away and expect that a Trump presidency would somehow yield a better outcome. In fact, it’s almost laughable to think so, given Trump’s clear disregard for international norms and human rights.
People protesting against the status quo while refusing to engage with the electoral process, thinking it makes them morally superior, are missing a crucial point: we operate in a system where choices matter. Wanting purity of political positions over actionable change isn’t just frustrating; it leads to catastrophe. This approach is fundamentally flawed because it doesn’t just overlook the essential need for action, it also ultimately endangers the lives of marginalized communities, whether here or abroad.
I believe we have a responsibility to vote not just for our own interests but for those who will suffer directly from our inaction. It is agonizing to think about the lives at stake because some choose to prioritize their ideals over the immediate need to prevent greater harm. The reality is that if Trump wins, the scrutiny and pressure on Israel would be non-existent, while the plight of Palestinians would worsen—yet some are willing to risk that outcome to “send a message” that ultimately only helps to entrench powerful oppressors.
This election is about protecting rights. It’s about keeping the door open for progressive change in the future. Realistically, no candidate is perfect, but Harris poses at least some possibility of collaboration with progressives while Trump is a direct threat to the values that we hold dear. It’s a choice between striving for betterment versus surrendering to the abyss. Choosing to not engage politically out of frustration can have dire consequences, and it’s crucial for progressives, disillusioned as they might be, to understand this reality. While being critical of the political machine is vital, doing so in a way that allows for the worst outcomes is simply irresponsible. The urgency to vote is more significant than ever. The message should be loud and clear: we cannot afford to let outright evil back into power.