Editor's Note: This transcript was automatically transcribed, so mistakes are inevitable. You can contribute by proofreading the transcript or highlighting the mistakes. Sign up to be amongst the first contributors.
Well, what is the consequence, what are the long term consequences of everybody on the broad left, Democrats, liberals, everyone saying that under any circumstances we will vote for a Democratic candidate as long as they are incrementally better than the Republican candidate does that way of thinking contribute to the rightward shift of the Democratic Party over years?
And what mechanism will ever stop that shift if we're not willing to ever, under any circumstances, leverage our votes?
So what you're saying, if you think it's true, is we should help Trump win, because maybe in the long run that'll affect the Democratic Party. That's a terrible choice. Helping Trump win, as you're proposing, would mean four more years of destruction of the environment, getting possibly the tipping point, which would be irreversible, certainly making any effort to deal with it very difficult. It would mean stacking the judiciary with young ultra right lawyers top to bottom so that nothing would be possibly done for a generation.
And I can go on and on. I don't think that's a wise choice. Just on the hope that maybe sometime in the long term the Democratic Party will pay attention to the fact that you're part of the 50 percent of nonvoters. I think it's a very poor judgment.
I take that very seriously. I take the multigenerational threat very seriously. You know, as a black American whose family members have been living as a third tier in American society.
My mother was born into an America that didn't recognize her basic human rights in 1960. She's a relatively young woman. And obviously the kinds of the world that my grandparents and great grandparents had to live through was much more dramatically unequal to an even that.
And so what concerns me is the way in which the vote blue, no matter who mindset, basically privileges more recent concerns that are equally grave as more longstanding concerns that are built in the status quo and says we have to vote for X candidate to prevent exile from happening.
At the same time, those who have suffered under the status quo never seem to get an opportunity to have their issues heard because a maintenance of the status quo is always a number one priority that will do anything to preserve.
And I think that when you look at a lot of who is feeling disaffected right now, it is a lot of younger black voters who felt like there was an opportunity to pull the lever and do things the right way with Barack Obama, but who don't see any real change having materialized and that the status quo for them just simply isn't good enough.
How do we change that? How do we keep that pattern from recurring so voters have some confidence that pulling the lever isn't just going to maintain the status quo, but do something more.
So what you're proposing is in order to get my voice heard, what I will do is help put into office a candidate who is dedicated to destroying the prospects for human life on Earth by racing towards environmental catastrophe. Who is stacking the entire judiciary with young lawyers who for a generation will be able to block any progressive legislation who will continue to dismantle the arms control regime, which is somewhat rejecting protecting us from nuclear war? Who will I can go on and on.
I will do that because that'll help me get my voice heard. No know very well, Professor.
I wouldn't argue that I am putting I am helping Trump. I would argue that if the Democratic Party, if Joe Biden as a candidate were unwilling to concede these very common sense concessions, that would help him in electoral context and would also be the right thing to do. But it is he who would be enabling Trump and that framing the onus as decidedly on the voter instead of the politician who is in a position of power to actually affect the outcome, is wrongly doing a kind of a kind of voter shaming that continues to have the effect of suppressing the vote among people who are, I think, very valiantly asking for a better world.
And, yes, using the vote, the only real tool they have to directly communicate with their elected officials to influence both the wrong.
That's the view. And you shouldn't buy into it. The vote is not the only tool you have.
I will. One of the only I didn't say exclusively is the list of.
That's the establishment view. You're a spectator, not a participant, do the vote, go home. The real politics is constantly working to change the conditions under which political figures will be compelled to shift their views. That's real politics. Every once in a while, an event comes up called an election. You have to make a take 10 minutes to decide am I going to keep the worst guy off or is it not worth bothering? Often it's not worth bothering.
This time it is very much worth bothering. We have a choice. Well, I take 10 minutes to get rid of a true monster who's going to have devastating effects or will not do it because maybe someday that will help make my voice be heard under far worse circumstances.