Sometimes it’s hard to vote for the Democrats, and Bill Clinton certainly isn’t making it easier. In Michigan on Wednesday, he gave a pretty good, standard-issue speech about the need to protect the Constitution from Donald Trump, whose only concern is personal loyalty to himself. Then he pivoted to Gaza, and it might as well have been Benjamin Netanyahu up there on the podium: Jews were there first, “Judea and Samaria,” Hamas’s human shields, etc. He also pointed out that “Kamala Harris has said she’ll try to negotiate an end to the violence, an end to the killing,” but that was lost in the outrage that naturally followed his remarks—outrage I share. The deaths of many thousands of children, the destruction of hospitals and whole neighborhoods, the starving of the population—there is no excuse for such war crimes.

Still, Clinton isn’t running for president. He hasn’t been president for a quarter of a century. He was great when he explained Obamacare to a puzzled populace at the 2008 Democratic convention, but since then he mostly seems to pop up to injure the chances of women running for president—notably including his wife. (Remember how often Hillary Clinton was taxed with the sexual sins of her husband?)

But this is 2024. It would be a grave mistake, a world-historical mistake that could potentially outlast the lifetime of everyone reading this, to withhold your vote from Vice President Harris next week—whether it’s because of endorsements from Liz and Dick Cheney, among other conservatives, Harris’s owning a gun, or Clinton’s speech in Michigan.

Nor should any of us withhold our vote because of Gaza. Terrible as is the ongoing slaughter, which has now extended to Lebanon, enabling the election of Trump, either by not voting or by supporting a third-party candidate, is not the way to protest. Trump, after all, is completely on Israel’s side in its war against Palestinians. As president, he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the American embassy there—an incredibly provocative gesture, as he surely knew. He calls himself Israel’s “protector.” He has told Netanyahu to “do what you have to do.”

Netanyahu, by the way, clearly supports Trump, as do the large majority of Israelis. In our two-party system, Harris has to be judged against the alternative—and there’s simply no way that Trump would be better for Palestinians. Given what we know about his anti-Muslim views—remember the Muslim ban?—he will almost certainly be worse.

On October 25, a group of 100 Arizona Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian leaders released a statement I hope everyone will read. Its authors warn against Trump’s belligerence, but also see signs of hope in Harris’s leadership:

Multiple media reports state that Harris’s national security advisors are open to re-evaluating policy and conditioning aid to Israel. On October 13^th, the same day the administration threatened to re-evaluate military support if Israel did not improve humanitarian conditions in Gaza and reduce civilian casualties in the next 30 days, Harris tweeted: “Israel must urgently do more to facilitate the flow of aid to those in need. Civilians must be protected and have access to food, water, and medicine. International humanitarian law must be respected.” In Michigan the other day, Harris expressed clear empathy for the suffering of the people of Palestine and Lebanon and the impact of this devastation on Arab Americans. She pledged to do “everything in her power” as President to end the war in Gaza, end the suffering of Palestinians there, and achieve “a future of security and dignity for all people in the region.”

Current Issue

May 2025 Issue

And it isn’t about just Harris and Trump. The letter points out that Harris’s “decisions as President will be shaped by the larger Democratic Party coalition that includes a growing force pushing for Palestinian human rights.” They note that in Arizona, where the letter was drafted, the Democratic Party has passed a resolution calling for a ceasefire. “Every single member of Congress who has publicly called for a ceasefire in Gaza or for an arms embargo is a Democrat,” the letter elaborates. “The major national unions, civil rights groups, and progressive organizations that have called for a halt to military aid to Israel are all working to elect Harris.”

And the Republican Party, the authors write, “offers zero opposition to unconditional support for Israel and zero support for Palestinian human rights. Instead, Republicans urge the US to join Israel in bombing Iran, call to ‘bounce the rubble in Gaza’ and ‘kill ’em all,’ and would likely support the Israeli far right’s drive to annex Gaza and the West Bank.”

Are you thinking of voting for Jill Stein or Cornel West in order to punish the Democrats and move them to the left? That isn’t what happened when lefty Dems voted for Nader in 2000 and helped defeat Gore. Instead, as the Arizona letter argues, it marginalized Nader and his followers too. You hear a lot from people who regret that vote today, but who says, “If only I had voted for Nader’? Same with voting for Stein today. When she helped throw the 2016 election to Trump, progressives got nothing in return. She simply vanished for another four years.

There are those who see their vote as self-expression, “voting my conscience,” “refusing to compromise.” But that’s not what voting is. Voting is not a statement of personal principles. It’s a forced choice between two alternatives, one of which is somewhat better than the other, and one of which is going to win. If you don’t participate, you’re simply helping the wrong side. As Noam Chomsky, no liberal sheep, argues, you vote for the lesser evil because it’s less evil. You don’t end with that vote; you start with it.