Image by Philip Oroni.
The mainstream media covers elections – especially the upcoming elections – as if they were sporting events. If you win, hurray! You get the golden trophy or whatever. The electoral process is a matter of clever strategy coupled with, er, sympathy.
The New York Times states: “Tim Walz will bring the energy of a Midwestern father to the presidential campaign.”
Something like that – whatever that means. And I acknowledge that with an appreciative shrug. OK, yes, I get it. Elections are very much a matter of strategy and tactics, often combined with sheer irrelevance (Nixon should have shaved before the first debate with Kennedy). But still, given that the future of humanity is essentially at stake in the American election, somewhere deep in my soul a cry of despair rises. Are we going to keep playing war with the world? Ignore climate change?
Excuse me, but the way we approach the immediate future… is important.
That’s hugely important. So when I read about Kamala Harris’ burgeoning campaign as she prepares to take on Donald Trump, I’m not so concerned with whether she can win, but whether she’s running with transcendent values - values beyond the pro-war centrism of Joe Biden and the mainstream Democrats. Strategy is important, but values are important first.
A few months ago, when Biden was still the Democratic nominee, I was wrestling with nagging uncertainty and having to vote for the lesser evil that, among other things, refused to stop funding and supporting Israel’s genocide in Gaza. I wrote, “Maybe I’ll choose the lesser evil when I vote in November, but for now I’m still unsure. I’m still waiting for Biden’s courage to shine through when he stands against further militarism.”
Well, his courage showed in the form of the exit – and suddenly Harris burst into the collective consciousness of the country. Wow, a black presidential candidate. Big excitement. Horns started sounding.
But what does she stand for? What values will she represent? The first serious indication of this was her choice of vice presidential candidate. Yes, it has to be a white man to “balance” the list, but beyond that – simply a Democrat who supports war? The most likely choice seemed to be Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, a man very much in favor of continuing to arm Israel and helping it “finish the job” in Gaza. He had, for example, infamously compared campus protesters protesting against the US to the Ku Klux Klan.
But something changed. Instead, she voted for Minnesota Governor Tim Walz – who, oh my god, is described as a “pragmatic progressive.” His social positions and legislative acts include: supporting LGBTQ rights; increasing social spending (for things like education, housing, child care, renewable energy); driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants; background checks for gun purchases; legalizing marijuana…
Walz’s political stance, writes Peter Bloom, “aims to portray traditionally left-leaning policies as sensible solutions that are consistent with the values and needs of the majority of Americans.”
OK, that sounds great, but what about…can I even ask? What about militarism? As Ross Barkan put it in the New York Times: “On policy issues, particularly the war between Israel and Hamas, Mr. Walz is at least temporarily appeasing the restive progressive wing of the Democratic Party.”
He’s appeasing the restless left? That hardly sounds reassuring. It sounds more like political gamesmanship than deeply rooted values that go into politics. But I dug deeper, beyond the commercial media, to find out who Walz really is and whether I share his actual values. I was surprised. Is it possible – when it comes to an issue as profound and seminal as war and peace – that Harris’ campaign could go beyond the motto “we are the lesser evil”?
As Sanjana Karanth pointed out in the Huffington Post, Walz expressed “empathy and understanding” toward Democratic voters in Minnesota who cast their ballots as “undecided” in protest against Biden’s support of Israeli militarism.
In a conversation with CNN in March, she said, Walz said, “The situation in Gaza is unbearable” and supported the search for a ceasefire. That is what undecided voters are demanding, “and that is what they should do.”
Karanth also noted that the Institute for Middle East Understanding was at least hesitantly enthusiastic about Harris selecting Walz as her running mate. After his selection, the organization issued the following statement:
“Today was another sign that our collective power can create a historic shift in the Democratic Party away from militarism and impunity for Israel’s war crimes and toward peace, justice and equality for all people – including the Palestinian people. Too many lives have already been lost, and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza now face not only bombings but hunger and disease. We applaud the election of Vice President Harris, but will continue to push the Harris-Walz campaign to advocate for real and substantive political change that reflects the will of the American people and saves countless lives.”
Will Harris and Walz move beyond the idea of the lesser evil? Will they offer voters a real choice – on the deeply rooted question of militarism? We must demand – demand! – that this is so.
