SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Our movement's best hope for change lies in growing our anti-war organizing power, and that power would be severely undermined by a Trump administration. Pro-war forces like AIPAC may want to drive us out of the Democratic Party, but we’re here to stay.
Note: At the conclusion of our historic sit-in at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, we at the Uncommitted National Movement asked Vice President Harris to respond by September 15 to requests to meet with Palestinian American families in Michigan who lost loved ones to U.S.-supplied bombs in Gaza and to discuss their demands for halting arms to Israel and securing a permanent ceasefire. In response to the campaign’s failure to address these requests, Uncommitted National Movement leaders released the following statement on Thursday, Sept. 19, 2024.
The Uncommitted National Movement was born out of historic anti-war organizing by people across our country witnessing a genocide unfold in Gaza against Palestinians whose humanity we recognize as no different than our own. We came together, first in Michigan, and then in state after state to insist that even through our pain and grief, we must organize to save lives, advance policies that build rather than destroy, and create a future where not another bomb from our country drops on a civilian anywhere in our world. We are proud to have grown our movement, even as our government continues to send bombs that destroy families. Our organizing around the presidential election was never about endorsing a specific candidate; it has always been about building a movement that saves lives.
Our organizing around the presidential election was never about endorsing a specific candidate; it has always been about building a movement that saves lives.
Today, the Uncommitted National Movement announces that as we continue advocating for lifesaving policy change which ends the bombing of Gaza and ends U.S. support for the Israeli military's war crimes, Vice President Harris’s unwillingness to shift on unconditional weapons policy or to even make a clear campaign statement in support of upholding existing U.S. and international human rights law has made it impossible for us to endorse her. At this time, our movement 1) cannot endorse Vice President Harris; 2) opposes a Donald Trump presidency, whose agenda includes plans to accelerate the killing in Gaza while intensifying the suppression of anti-war organizing; and 3) is not recommending a third-party vote in the Presidential election, especially as third party votes in key swing states could help inadvertently deliver a Trump presidency given our country’s broken electoral college system.
For months, we have urged Vice President Harris to shift her Gaza policy so we could mobilize voters in key states to save lives and our democracy. The DNC and the Vice President’s campaign fumbled even a small gesture to unite our party ahead of November by rejecting the simple request for a Palestinian American speaker. Now, the Vice President’s campaign is courting Dick Cheney while sidelining disillusioned anti-war voices, pushing them to consider third-party options or to sit this important election out.
The Uncommitted movement began in Michigan with 1.5 million voter contacts in three weeks, delivering 101,000 anti-war votes and was one of the first organized efforts to spotlight Biden’s electability issues. Nationally, we grew to 740,000 pro-peace voters, securing a historic 30 delegates to the DNC. Since then, we’ve expanded to over 300 “Ceasefire Delegates”—Harris supporters who have joined our fight to end Democratic Party leadership’s policy of backing bombs. Their efforts have been supported by our Not Another Bomb campaign, which has brought together dozens of organizations and mobilized over 100,000 people in 35 states nationwide.
We must block Donald Trump, which is why we urge Uncommitted voters to vote against him and avoid third-party candidates that could inadvertently boost his chances, as Trump openly boasts that third parties will help his candidacy.
In our assessment, our movement’s best hope for change lies in growing our anti-war organizing power, and that power would be severely undermined by a Trump administration. Seventy-seven percent of Democrats and 61% of Americans oppose weapons aid for Israel's assault on Gaza, which is preventing a ceasefire and blocking the reunification of Palestinian and Israeli captives with their families. Trump himself has bragged about accelerating the genocide against Palestinians and promised to intensify the suppression of pro-Palestinian activism in the U.S. We must block Donald Trump, which is why we urge Uncommitted voters to vote against him and avoid third-party candidates that could inadvertently boost his chances, as Trump openly boasts that third parties will help his candidacy.
We urge Uncommitted voters to register anti-Trump votes and vote up and down the ballot. Our focus remains on building a broad anti-war coalition both inside and outside the Democratic Party. Pro-war forces like AIPAC may want to drive us out of the Democratic Party, but we’re here to stay. Movements have long worked to rid the Democratic Party of hateful forces—segregationists, anti-union, anti-choice, and anti-LGBTQ proponents, the NRA, and Big Oil—and we will work in that legacy to rid our party of AIPAC’s pro-war extremism.
Building on the work of ‘Uncommitted,’ we invite stakeholders in the Democratic Party coalition—progressives, civil rights, labor, racial justice, reproductive rights, climate, immigrant rights, disability justice, people of faith, young people and more—to join us in our campaign to push our Democratic Party leadership to align with the majority of Democratic voters who support the urgent call for a stop to illegal and morally reprehensible weapons transfers through our campaign, "Not Another Bomb," both now and in the next administration.
Why people, and radicals in particular, fail to grasp the reasoning behind this argument is truly mind-boggling.
One of the most bewildering reactions on the part of certain segments of the U.S. left (whatever that means these days) is that every time there is a crucial election, and the voice of reason dictates casting a ballot in a direction which will help the most to keep out of public office the most extreme, and often enough the positively nuts, candidate in the race, is to scream that this is a case of “the lesser of two evils” thinking and to imply in turn that the one making such an argument is, somehow, a sellout.
Noam Chomsky, of all people, has been the recipient of such brainless reactions for much of his life as he has repeatedly made the argument that voting for a third-party or independent candidate in a swing state would accomplish nothing but increase the possibility of the most extreme and positively nuts candidate winning the election.
Why people, and radicals in particular, fail to grasp the reasoning behind such an argument is truly mind-boggling. Either they don’t understand the nature of U.S. politics, with its winner-take-all election system, or they are simply wrapped up in the “feel-good” factor in politics to even notice such subtleties. But since even a fairly bright elementary student would most likely be able to understand the difference between a winner-take-all election system and proportional representation, it would be logical to conclude that what we have here is nothing less than a display of the politics of feeling good, which basically translates to acting in whatever manner makes one feel good, politically speaking, regardless of the consequences of those actions.
Now, one might say that when the Comintern adopted Stalin’s thinking in the 1920s that “social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism” and proceeded later to lump together Hitler’s Nazi party and the German Social Democratic Party that it was doing so out of conviction that the capitalist world was teetering on the brink of collapse and that the communists would inevitably emerge as the victorious party.
But what is the excuse of the tiny segment of U.S. self-professed radicals who fail to see that in order to advance the program of socialism we must first defeat Trump at the ballot box? Incidentally, this also happens to be the official stance of the Communist Party USA. Yet, one can already hear the argument that U.S. communists must have also fallen victims of the picking a lesser of two evils mental attitude. However, in numerous conversations I've had with radicals (leftists, anarchists, and communists) across Europe, their own thinking was also in line with the reasoning of the Communist Party USA—namely, that priority number one of U.S. progressive voters should be to defeat wannabe dictator Donald Trump in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.
Can this be done by voting in a swing state for someone like Cornel West or Jill Stein when these candidates have zero chance of winning? My chances of being attacked and killed by a shark, which are estimated to be one in 3.75 million, are far greater than either of these two candidates making it to the White House in November 2024.
Oh, but I forgot! Such realizations hardly matter in comparison to how good it might make one feel by voting for a candidate outside of the two existing parties. Who cares if the candidate who would love to turn the U.S. into an autocracy wins the election? The other candidate is simply the lesser of two evils, which is like saying that it makes no difference to live under a political regime that is inadequate in realizing the ideals of a decent society and one that is bent on a process of societal fasticization.
Still, there is something even more bewildering with the lesser-of-two evils dictum that is thrown around by small segments of the left. Generally speaking, as Noam Chomsky has pointed out, there have been two doctrines about voting: the official doctrine, “which holds that politics consists of showing up every few years, pushing a lever, then going back to one’s private pursuits,” and the “left doctrine.” For the latter, “politics consists in constant direct popular engagement in public affairs, including a wide variety of activism on many fronts. Occasionally an event comes up in the formal political arena called an ‘election….’ It’s at most a brief departure from political engagement.”
The third doctrine about voting, which is the “lesser of two evils” principle, has appeared on the political scene rather recently and, as Chomsky highlighted, is “now consuming much debate on the left.” The debate, he went to say, “also falls within the official doctrine, with its laser-like focus on elections.”
Most leftists, radicals and communists know fully well what the Democratic Party represents. Moreover, the recently held Democratic National Convention, with its pathetic effort to reclaim the mantle of "freedom” in a simultaneous display of militaristic jingoism, gave us ample warnings of what lies ahead. It takes no political genius to see that Kamala Harris is yet another centrist and wholly opportunistic Democrat who will change her tune as the circumstances dictate. Or, as the British political philosopher John Gray aptly put it, to recognize that she has “been abruptly transformed by compliant media from a vice-president commonly acknowledged to be barely competent into an uplifting national leader.”
Leftists, radicals and communists living in capitalist societies know that elections are hardly the stuff of political participation that will turn things around. Only grassroots activism can bring about meaningful change. But whenever elections come up, and proportional representation is not in the picture, we hold our nose and vote for the lesser-known threat to what is left of the democracy we have. And then we go back to real activism in order to change society and the world for the better.
It's not complicated.
Climate campaigners on Wednesday once again sounded the alarm as historic drought conditions and massive wildfires scorched Europe during a summer in which nearly 12,000 people across the continent have been killed by extreme heat.
"With droughts, floods, and extreme weather on the rise, it's clear that climate breakdown is well and truly here."
The European Drought Observatory said Wednesday that more than 60% of the land area of the European Union and United Kingdom is now under drought warnings or alerts.
"This European summer has included the continent's most severe drought in decades, with major disruption caused to people and industry. Sustained climate action to stop droughts like this is the best investment European nations could make," the London-based Environmental Justice Foundation tweeted.
Taking aim at government subsidies for the fossil fuel and agriculture industries, the group added, "Here's one step we can take for a healthier, happier planet: Stop pumping public money into industries which are actively destroying it."
The U.K. Green Party tweeted that "with droughts, floods, and extreme weather on the rise, it's clear that climate breakdown is well and truly here. Time for the U.K. government to make the right decisions, and act now."
\u201cDrought conditions affecting around 60% of the EU and U.K., Exacerbated by climate-change driven record heat this summer, according to new research from European Drought Observatory. Photo credit: European Drought Observatory\u201d— Rob Davies (@Rob Davies) 1660146982
Andrea Toreti, a senior researcher at the European Commission's Joint Research Center (EC-JRC)--which compiles data for the European Drought Observatory--said that "at the moment... this seems to be the worst" drought in Europe in five centuries, although other scientists have concluded that extreme dry spells on the continent in recent years were "unprecedented" in millennia.
Toreti said EC-JRC has not fully analyzed the current drought "because it is still ongoing, but based on my experience I think that this is perhaps even more extreme than 2018."
"Just to give you an idea the 2018 drought was so extreme that, looking back at least the last 500 years, there were no other events similar to the drought of 2018," he added, "but this year I think it is really worse than 2018."
The 2018 drought and heatwave saw record-breaking temperatures and wildfires ravage much of Europe. Researchers at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and World Weather Attribution estimated that the climate emergency made the heatwave two to five times more likely.
Toreti said EC-JRC expects the current drought to worsen, while warning that drying, warming rivers are exacerbating the crisis.
"Our analysis indeed is pointing to extremely low flows affecting almost all the European rivers," he said.
\u201cThe Rhine \u2014 the continent\u2019s most important river and a pillar of the German, Dutch and Swiss economies for centuries \u2014 has dried up to the point of becoming all but impassable at a key bottleneck, stymieing vast flows of diesel and coal https://t.co/X1lJkJzd22\u201d— Bloomberg Green (@Bloomberg Green) 1660122774
Dry conditions are fueling wildfires raging in southwest France, which is enduring its fourth heatwave of the year and where, according to Agence France-Presse, more than 6,000 people have been evacuated from the Gironde region as fire that destroyed more than 20,000 hectares of forest in July is flaring anew.
Meanwhile in the United Kingdom, the Meteorological Office on Tuesday issued an amber heat warning for large parts of southern England and some of Wales for Thursday through Sunday ahead of forecast high temperatures of at least 90degF over those four days. The move follows the Met Office's first-ever red extreme heat warning last month.