I will never forget the first time I was meaningfully engaged in a political movement. It was during the Democratic primaries (you know, back when they had them) in 2015. Washington state has a caucus format so I found myself sitting around the table filled with liberals twice my age trying to agree on a single endorsement.
As I laid out my own reasons for supporting Bernie Sanders I was surprised to see heads nodding and hear an occasional murmur of assent. The agreement was remarkable because many at the table had just finished their arguments in favor of Hilary Clinton. A man in his fifties voiced what seemed to me like the majority response.
“I believe in his policies. I like him. But I don’t believe he can win.”
At the time I thought that was a really sad statement. The man went on to recount, as if we were commiserating over a beer in a forsaken bar, how he had once supported Walter Mondale in 1984 (I’m not making this up) and would never again vote for someone he didn’t think could win, no matter how much he agreed with a candidate.
Earlier this afternoon I nearly jumped out of my chair when I read the news that Dr. Cornel West was entering the presidential race. Particularly as someone who identifies as Christian on the political left, it felt like Christmas morning had come completely out of the blue.
Of course, I immediately made the mistake of going on twitter, thinking I would celebrate with my comrades, particularly in this strange Christian left space. Surely we could have a moment to revel in the (admittedly remote) possibility that a prophetic truth teller who has a remarkably consistent record of leftist advocacy could become president? That someone who advocates for the rights of the poor, against Wall Street, against the military industrial complex, against prisons, against wars, in favor of Medicare for All, in favor of LGBTQ+ rights, in favor of a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body, could set policy at the highest level?
And that he could do this with an expressly religious, historically-rooted Christian faith? What a dream.
To my chagrin, I saw a slew of mainly vague objections. I am not yet ready to publicly call out the accounts I allude to, mainly because I see many of them as friends, or at least as close to friends as folks I’ve spoken with over zoom a couple of times can get. I am ready to ignore bad faith objections but I will assume these were made as a result of honest reflection.
I grouped what I witnessed into three main categories:
Voting for a president is upholding empire, therefore Dr. West is upholding empire
To paraphrase the exact quote that crystalizes this one, “Nothing short of a revolution will do.” Was this written by somebody with immediate plans to overthrow the US government? Just to entertain this objection for a second, let’s pretend that an armed insurrection was mounted Washington DC with a mob who was intent on a low-budget coup d’etat that forgot to include active military participation. I wonder how that would go over.
I’m sorry but it is really hard to take this one seriously. Sitting in air conditioning, drinking a coke and sounding off on Elon Musk’s platform about how running for president is an endorsement of US hegemony seems a bit much. Even for twitter.
There is a variation of this argument offered by my more anarch-communist comrades, to which I say, fair enough. But if your argument is not against Dr. West, but instead the idea of electoral politics as a whole, then why pick this moment to critique this particular candidate?
He should have run as a ___________ instead of with the People’s Party
I suppose this one might be the most serious of the objections. At least on its surface it does seem rational. The Peoples’ Party is a marginal political party at best. It’s only on the ballot in a handful of states and has never, to this point, elected a candidate to office. Fair enough.
Perhaps the Green Party would have been a better option. After all Ralph Nader did win quite nearly three percent of the vote twenty-three years ago. Hard to imagine why Dr. West wouldn’t jump in headlong with another promising third party like that!
I haven’t seen it yet but just to head off any consideration that he should run as a Democrat almost smacks of Stockholm syndrome at this point. After stealing the primary from Bernie in 2016 and watching our billionaire-hating hero cave in 2020 after Obama’s interventions, hoping that the Democratic party would stand for someone with discernable morals and values is much more of a pipedream than the campaign itself.
I also cannot wait for the inevitable accusations that Dr. West will be splitting the vote and handing the election to Donald Trump. Perhaps if we were not witnessing a Democratic president starting proxy wars, gutting SNAP provisions and breaking railroad strikes we would not be in this position to begin with. But what do I know?
Dr. West spends time with rightwing grifters
From Russell Brand to Jimmy Dore to Matt Taibbi to whoever, perhaps the laziest and most predictable critique of Dr. West is his willingness to join forces with journalists and commentators on the ban list. Of course, it may be difficult to point out exactly what makes for a rightwing grifter. Which might present a problem.
Historically, at least to my understanding, what it means to be leftwing is to oppose oligarchy, war, racism and classism and to support unions, fair wages and the right to free speech. Although those mentioned above, along with Dr. West, advance these policies, for some reason they are dubbed rightwing. And grifters.
In short, not everyone who is called a rightwing grifter is indeed a rightwing grifter. That being said, over the years Dr. West has appeared on Sean Hannity and various other Fox News shows. Yes, many of them are hosted by rightwing grifters of the highest order.
To take issue with who Dr. West will speak with in public though, to my mind is madness. Can you find a prominent news show that is not anchored by someone who loves war, defends power and ignores union movements? If anything Dr. West has proven over time that he is willing to make a case for love in public to anyone who is willing to engage him in dialogue.
Our objection, particularly on the left, that people who disagree with us need to be ejected from polite society has reached epidemic proportions. How the hell are we supposed to persuade anyone to join our side when we only talk to each other?
For all the religious trauma many of us have had to unpack over the years, at least my experience growing up “witnessing” to nonbelievers taught me that it is, in fact, good to speak to people who don’t already agree with you.
The same should be true for engaging with those we disagree with politically. If we are unwilling to speak to people outside of our camp then what, exactly is our strategy? In a rational world the fact that Dr. West is known for pulling no punches while handling disagreements with grace would be seen as a good thing.
Look, descending into cynicism is easy. It is comfortable. Once we come to terms with the fact that superheroes only exist in the realm of fantasy, a plausible response is to look for the holes in the story. Maybe Cornel West running will turn out to be a silly quixotic adventure. In fact, that is the most likely scenario. He is running against a power structure that has never been kind to truth-tellers of any race, let alone an independent Black man.
But for a moment today I sat with an imagination that wars were not inevitable. That the poor, the sick and the aging would be cared for. That prisons would be reformed to the point where they would not be recognizable. That unaccountable oligarchs from Musk to Bezos to Gates would receive their comeuppance. That energy policy would be made based on care for the environment instead of corporate profit. That there would be somebody in the White House who supported the rights of Palestinian brothers and sisters.
Would Cornel West, even if he reached the White House, be able to accomplish all of this? Of course not. But what if there was a movement large enough to change the conversation? To remind us that oppressive systems are not what God has intended for us to live underneath?
Look, no president will ever solve the problems we have inherited as a nation or as a species. Most, if not all, of the presidents in our history have done nearly all in their power to make matters worse. We are right to be skeptical about anyone stepping into the ring. We should be ready to hold our leaders to account when necessary.
All I’m saying is let’s not foreclose on the possibility that things could get better if enough people come together and demand better.
It’s fine if you don’t like his policies. Don’t like him? Fine. Don’t like that he came from Sacramento (very near to my own hometown!)? Fine.
Just, I don’t know. Just don’t let twitter bring you down, man.
For me, this is hands-down the best presidential candidate of my lifetime.
I’ll let myself dream a little bit.