To put it simply, [Kamala Harris’s remarks on the situation in Gaza were] quite pathetic. There was a “no” on the question of whether there will be a change in policy. And let’s be perfectly clear about what the current Biden-Harris administration policy is. It’s the continued and unprecedented support through consistent weapons supplies to the Israeli military as it carries out a horrific genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza, where somewhere between 40,000 and perhaps up to 200,000 people, according to some estimates, have already been killed, 80% of the structures in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed, and nearly two-million people are homeless, displaced and living under dire humanitarian conditions due to a tightening siege. That’s the policy that Vice President Harris is committing to continue. And I think that that’s, of course, outrageous.
. . . So, [here’s] the real question [that] should have been [asked of Harris]: When are you going to start enforcing U.S. law as it relates to arms shipments? Because what we are doing right now with this U.S. government policy is in violation not just of international law, but also of American law. And Vice President Harris made it very clear in other parts of her interview that she wants to be a prosecutor. She wants to enforce the law. But Israel here is clearly getting an exception from the Harris campaign.
“Is Not Politics a Part of Dharma Too?”
Gandhi’s response to a common question
By Marianne Williamson
Transform
August 19, 2024
When people asked Mahatma Gandhi how he could be involved in something as crude as politics, he responded, “Is not politics a part of dharma [i.e., the eternal and inherent nature of reality] too?” Having had a career in something as relatively sublime as the field of spirituality, and then experienced something as toxic as the inner workings of the American political system, I understand the question.
I also understand Gandhi’s answer.
We’re not sent to earth to heal only some of the world. If we’re here to be lights unto the world, then are we allowed to be selective about which corners of darkness we seek to illumine? There is no religious or spiritual tradition that gives anyone a pass on addressing the suffering of other sentient beings.
In my interview with Booboo Garcia on his podcast Broader Lens, we discussed the relationship between spiritual and social change.
There is a lot of confusion these days about the separation of Church and State. Establishing in the First Amendment that no religious authorities are allowed to limit our ability to worship if or how we choose, our Founders were not seeking to drive spirituality out of the public square. They were seeking to protect it! And its protection serves not only the individual but the whole society. A nation should ask questions such as. “Is what we’re doing the right thing? The good thing?” no differently than we should ask such questions of ourselves.
And while in our own lives we alone must answer, as citizens of a society we often feel that the answer in our hearts is at odds with the will of other forces in society. History is divided between those who gave up in such cases and said “There’s just nothing we can do,” versus those who have risen up to say, “Not on my watch” in the face of societal wrongs.
Among white Americans, the Abolitionist movement emerged in large part from early evangelical churches in New Hampshire. Many of the main leaders of the Women Suffragist movement were religious Quakers. And Dr. King was a Baptist preacher. Throughout our history – particularly the history of social justice movements – religious and spiritual ideals have fueled our progress. Ethical questioning is the basis of moral persuasion; it is that which changes human hearts, and ultimately changes the world.
It’s ethical questioning – whether such questioning is contextualized as spiritual, religious or secular – that leads us to care if corporate greed dooms people to die if they can’t afford life-saving operations, or allows carcinogens in our food supply not allowed in other advanced nations, or ravages the earth that should be promised to our children, or influences government in the direction of unnecessary foreign wars that rain havoc and destruction on innocent lives.
So yes, politics can be toxic. And crude. And corrupt. It is all those things. But an ethical spirit cannot ignore it. There is an old rabbinical saying, “You are not expected to complete the task, but neither are you permitted to abandon it.” Whether or not we succeed at an effort is not as important as whether or not we try. A line I heard years ago has stayed with me: “Be totally invested in an effort, yet unattached to it results.”
There is a better way to live on this planet, for us as individuals and for us as a society. Politics is simply our collective behavior, and Gandhi said it “should be sacred.” Politics should be a collective effort made from the heart, from our deepest thinking, from our most soulful considerations. I have seen it be both. I have experienced both. My bet is on the better way.
Today’s hyper-partisanship and polarization hinder the two major political parties from nominating presidential candidates who can resonate with a wide spectrum of voters. This problem has deep-seated roots, entwined with the business of politics, which benefits from normalizing the extreme.
As a result, many voters have recently found themselves compelled to choose the “lesser of two evils” or resort to protest votes. Recent polling data from NewsNation underscores this frustration, with about 49 percent of American voters willing to consider a third-party alternative [to] both Trump and Biden.
. . . Some analysts predict a third-party candidate could draw more support from Biden’s voters than Trump’s, causing concern among Democrats. . . . Yet this argument overlooks a deeper, longer-term problem at hand: the stranglehold of the two-party system and the corrosive influence of big money in American politics. Consistently voting for the “lesser of two evils” perpetuates a system that limits voters’ personal choices and stifles innovative leadership. A vote for a third-party candidate is not just about one election; it’s about challenging the barriers that uphold the two-party duopoly.
Moreover, the fear of a third-party candidate tipping the scales in favor of either party is based on a flawed assumption – that all potential third-party voters would otherwise vote for a major party candidate. Many may abstain from voting for the presidential candidate or skip the election altogether. Allowing support for third-party candidates could invigorate democracy by incentivizing voter turnout.
A third-party candidate doesn’t have to win the presidency to have a meaningful impact. Their mere presence in the race can reshape the conversation, push major parties to evolve, and inspire a new generation of elected leaders who understand democracy centers on “We the People” rather than “We the Parties.” In this context, concerns about which party might be “hurt” by third-party candidates earning votes are less important than the broader goal of revitalizing democracy and addressing citizens’ needs.
. . . [A] third-party ticket would remind politicians they serve the people, not the other way around. It’s time to reject the false narrative that voting for a third-party candidate is a wasted vote and instead recognize it as a powerful statement in favor of an issue-focused, united America.
There is a ghost
And it goes out on the land
It’s lifted up, it feels and floats
. . . There is a dream you’ve had before
And forgot many times, so many times
When you remember who I am, just call
When you remember who I am
Oh, my lover
Never was there another
Where has my lover man gone?
Away
[Kamala Harris’ nomination is] a historic moment in a lot of ways. Certainly it breaks a barrier. I never thought I would see a Black woman nominated.
. . . I was glad to hear her mention the suffering of the Palestinian people, but, of course, it didn’t ring true. It rang a little bit hollow, because the Biden administration could stop much of that suffering by not sending 2,000-pound bombs and $3 billion a year to the Israeli government. So if it would have been backed up by action, if it would have been backed up by allowing a Palestinian speaker to speak in their own terms, that part would have resonated.
But, of course, talking about Israel’s right to defense disguises the fact that this is an offensive war, offensive on every level. And the United States is facilitating it. . . . [So] it was not enough. It was the wrong message. And, you know, a throwaway line about Palestinian suffering does not get it.
I reviewed the Democratic Party platform for 2024 and found something interesting: When it comes to economic policy, this year’s platform is less progressive and less ambitious than it was four years ago. Democrats have tacked right or retreated on health insurance reform, drug prices, Medicare and Social Security expansion, poverty, labor, taxes, Wall Street, and the minimum wage.
Why become less ambitious on economic issues, especially when public confidence in the economy remains low? Is it the influence of big donors? Is it the willingness of the party’s internal left to back its candidates without first demanding policy concessions? Is it both?
Lobbying certainly played a part. 2024’s scaled-back health proposals, for example, are a big win for the for-profit health sector and its massive lobbying investment. Health corporations spent $751,540,000 (more than three-quarters of a billion dollars) on lobbying in 2023 alone. They employed 3,344 lobbyists, which is more than six lobbyists for every member of Congress. (Source: Open Secrets, using Senate records.)
My economic views are well to the left of the Democratic Party’s, even in its best years. But these changes don’t just repudiate the left. They defy public opinion on one issue after another, driving the party backward even as U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris runs as the candidate of change
This year’s platform also undercuts a favored argument from the Democratic Party’s left wing: that Joe Biden has been “the most progressive president since FDR.” That’s always been debatable. Biden has been anything but progressive on military issues (including the Gaza genocide). By contrast, Lyndon Johnson’s domestic achievements included Medicare and Medicaid, major anti-poverty legislation, and the Voting Rights Act.
Biden did notch some progressive achievements, however, and would have had more had he not been hamstrung by Congress. A party in this situation wouldn’t normally lower its ambitions. It would raise them, pledging to do more if given full control of Congress.
Again, why? Democrats may be operating under the misguided notion that these proposals are “too far left” for voters, which polling tells us is wrong. It may also feel that it no longer needs to appease its own left flank, which is probably true. But even if the party’s internal left has fallen in line behind its leaders, key voting blocs still need and want more than this platform offers.
The race is still close. Democrats are less likely to win it with a platform that reflects the politics of caution – which, for voters, means the soft despair of the status quo.
Bio part [of Harris’ speech] was strong, Trump attacks were brutal and accurate. Foreign policy part was absolute trash. In terms of the normie reaction, I think they’ll like it and she’ll get a bump coming out of the convention. I can’t get over both sides [supporting] a genocide and basically committing to arming Israel/Netanyahu in perpetuity no matter what. Disgusting.
The most boilerplate Democratic Party speech she could have given. I understand the short-term strategy of Walz, as a white guy, taking bigger swings on progressive economic policy in his speech, but Harris needs to identify herself with those policies for sustained success.
[A]fter four days of nonstop Democratic Party boosterism, I’d been so inundated with the message that Kamala Harris is the most qualified candidate to ever run for president, one who will usher in a new era of prosperity, that by the time she took Doug’s hand and retired backstage for a drink and a smoke, I almost, for a second, believed it.
But then I remembered that politics is theater, that Joe Biden stepped down only because Nancy Pelosi held a gun to his head (and would have pulled the trigger), and that Harris was cast in this role not because the people choose her, but because Biden needed a brown woman to appease activists and then his brain turned to mush. A month ago, the only thing left of the KHive was four gay guys in P-Town snorting Adderall off a wicker coffee table; now it’s half the country! Whoever scripted this deserves an Oscar.
I haven’t done any full-on endorsement of anyone. . . . I’m not totally into all this endorsement mentality. I think this is a very serious time in American history, and people need to think and vote their own conscience. And that’s my endorsement: that people think for themselves.
I understand that the larger opponent is Donald Trump, and I want to vote for the person – and support the person – who will have the best chance of winning in November against Donald Trump. That is where my passion lies, and it has more to do with opposition to Donald Trump than it does, at this point, with support of any other particular candidate.
I hope I will hear things [from Kamala Harris] on Thursday night that make me feel very excited; that make me feel that Kamala does have a vision for the United States and a plan for the next four years that I can full-on support. I’ll be very happy if that happens.
• In the District of Columbia Democratic presidential primary, Biden’s best ward and Marianne’s worst was the wealthiest and whitest. Marianne’s best ward was the poorest. She did better than “Uncommitted” in Black-majority wards.
• In the South Dakota Democratic presidential primary, some of Marianne’s best results and Biden’s worst were in Indigenous counties. In Standing Rock, Marianne got over 20%. This trend of Marianne over-performing with Indigenous voters also occurred in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.
• In North Dakota, Marianne’s best and Boden’s worst Senate districts tend to have the most Indigenous people.
• In New Mexico, Marianne over-performed in Indigenous counties while Biden under-performed. Marianne won over “Uncommitted” in the Indigenous counties.
• In Oklahoma, Marianne’s best results were with Black and Indigenous voters.
• In Arkansas , some of Marianne’s best counties have the most African-Americans.
• In Virginia, Marianne did well with Muslim voters.
• In Illinois, Biden received less votes in Cook County (Chicago) than his statewide average but Marianne matched her statewide average.
• In the Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary, Marianne Williamson was the only candidate who over-performed their statewide average in all 11 original Gateway Cities, demonstrating working-class and minority support, including from Jewish voters.
While (rightly) pummeling the GOP–Donald Trump cult of personality, Democrats have mythologized Kamala Harris and turned her into an alternate-Harris who would have been unrecognizable to Harris herself just a few weeks ago: tough, caring, super-smart, results-oriented. Hillary Clinton 2.0.
But no one has ventured to say what this alternate-Harris would do in office. Or, more broadly, what her party wants to accomplish over the next four years. There is no program.
To be fair, the Republican agenda is a mosh pit of confusions – a free-market, tariff-laden, stick-it-to-the-establishment, fuck-China, go-America mélange of half-baked, sort-of proposals.
But the idea behind that confusion is straightforward. It is America first. Americans first. And every bill, initiative, executive decision can be, should be, viewed through that lens. Whether that amounts to a coherent theory of government remains to be seen. (The Republicans seem to be trying to figure out in real time the how behind the what.) But there is a focal point.
No one says what the Democrats’ North Star is. They have wielded enormous power for most of the past two decades, and they insist they won’t “turn back,” but no one says where we’re going. Or what they want beyond the blandest of platitudes about “freedom” and “choice” and “identity.”
These people know how to throw a fantastic party, and it’s full of flashing lights and smiling delegates and Stevie Wonder and dancers and tears streaming down faces and wild roars of hope and love and drama. But for now, after three days of this four-day convention that is really just a supremely entertaining infomercial, no one can say whether the drama is a three-act play that takes us somewhere uncharted, or whether this is a gilded sitcom.
