Purity tests, "Vote Blue No Matter Who," and other tropes for the trash bin
Hey friends! Hope you and yours are okay in these days of hurricane climate catastrophe. Oof. It’s been rough.
Along with hurricane and typhoon season, it’s also time for early voting in many U.S. states. At the risk of pissing some of y’all off (again), I’d like to address some responses / misconceptions around Kamala Harris and this whole, inescapable and escalating “vote blue no matter who” vibe. I don’t plan to do this topic again before the election. Skip this one if that would be self-care for you. But for many of you, I know this read will be cathartic, and a balm for your weary souls.
I’m also going to foreground some excellent voices - via their social media posts - from comrades in the community.
First, some givens.
Stipulated: Trump is a fascist.
He and his movement are dangerous. He is literally promising to “violently round up tens of millions of people including U.S. citizens, shove them into concentration camps without even pretending to follow due process, and deport them en masse at gunpoint.”
You know what that’s called? It is called ethnic cleansing.
And yes, it can happen here.
It’s already happened. American citizens have been rounded up into camps before.
I have always taken Trump seriously and at his word.
I have talked about Project 2025 and Trump a lot here on Unruly Quaker … and honestly, I figure most of you are aware of how dangerous Trump is. Take how dangerous you think he is, multiply it by ten, and we’re in the ballpark.
That is stipulation one.
Stipulation two: although apparently some of you do not agree— robust, honest, ongoing critique, even of things we like or agree with, is imperative to clear thinking. It should be the basis of thoughtful action.
Here at Unruly Quaker, we heed Uncle Karl’s advice: “a ruthless criticism of everything existing, ruthless in two senses: The criticism must not be afraid of its own conclusions, nor of conflict with the powers that be.” (I exempt echidnas and the very young of all species from ruthless criticism.)
Stipulation 3: I will say again, and maybe the third time will be a charm — I am NOT telling you how to vote. (Don’t vote for Trump.)
If you love Harris heaps and bunches, vote for her.
If you want to doorknock for Harris, go for it.
If you feel you need to vote for Harris as a form of harm reduction, go forth and God bless.
If you need to abstain from the prez vote, or vote third party, have at it.
It’s your choice. At least it is this year, maybe for the last time.
With those stipulations stated…
On to the stuff I keep hearing from Democrats:
“Not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump.”
Or its close cousin:
“You must want Trump to win if you don’t vote for Harris.”
Truly, no.
This is an unfair conflation of two very different positions.
“I don’t want to vote for Harris because genocide is a red line for me. I believe that a vote for Harris is a signal that her position supporting genocide is tolerable. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for someone who is one of a handful of people in the WORLD who is in a position to stop the genocide in Gaza— and hasn’t.”
versus:
“I want Trump to win. I like Trump.”
Do you see how those are completely different?
Is it the case that in SOME (not all) states — depending on a state’s election laws, gerrymandering, voter ID laws, exclusion of convicted felons, post-natural-disaster conditions, Electoral College votes, whether it’s an apportionment or a winner-take-all state, if there is voter intimidation, whether Trump’s team gets up to shenanigans that will make the election a giant mess, etc. — well, is it the case that voting third party or abstaining from the presidential vote could make it more likely that Trump would win that state? Yes. Duh. Of course.
Does that somehow make “I can’t in good conscience vote for Harris” turn into “I want Trump to win, I like Trump”?
No. It doesn’t.
Let’s do each other a solid: if Trump wins, let’s [continue to] organize in solidarity to protect the marginalized and the most at-risk among us.
If you have extra energy for blame games, ugh. Fine. Blame the people who deserve it: Trump, top-donor and total creep Elon Musk, the Republican National Committee, J.D. Vance, white Christian nationalists, right-wing and legacy media enabling fascism, the Supreme Court, and the conservative neo-fascists who funded and elected Trump.
Blame the lies that Trump told to stoke hatred. Lies that turned people against their neighbors.
If you simply must blame more people, blame the people who voted for Trump.
But don’t you dare, don’t you DARE blame people of good conscience who could not stomach voting for Harris.
Don’t you dare blame people who could not bring themselves to vote for the vice president of an administration that could, with one call, stop the supply of weapons to Israel, thus ending an entire damned genocide.
Don’t you dare, don’t you DARE blame folks who have put their bodies and educations and freedoms on the line, who have endured being slurred as anti-Semitic, racist, and/ or sexist (including, hi hello, me - I’ve lost friends and readers) for critiquing Harris and for trying to stop Gazans from being bombed, mutilated, starved, displaced, and brutally murdered by the IDF, day in and day out.
It’s deeply insulting and misguided to blame people of good conscience. And it’s inaccurate besides.
“It’s racist and misogynistic to criticize Kamala Harris. So knock it off, will ya!”
Hey, hi, yes, of course we want to be conscious of and actively oppose white supremacy, patriarchy, misogynoir. Hell yeah. I’m all signed up for the entire **waves arms wildly like Kermit the Frog** project of dismantling white supremacy / settler-colonial empire.
Is it significant that Harris is Black and Asian American? Yes. It is. It’s likely a huge part of how she’s navigated and experienced this world.
Does it mean Harris has been targeted in racist and sexist ways by racists and misogynists? Sure. I would assume so.
Does that mean it is racist or misogynistic to criticize Harris? Yes, sure, if the criticism is an attack on a marginalized identity - her race, ethnicity, culture, sex, age, gender.
Is it racist or misogynistic to not see that folks with marginalized identities are subject to oppression? That they must navigate a white-supremacist, patriarchal, heteronormative, capitalist empire differently than white, cis-het people do? Probably, yeah. It’s for sure inexcusably ignorant.
Is it racist to hold an adult human, with marginalized identity/ies, accountable for their actions? Um, no. In fact, it’s kind of … insulting … not to do so.
We need to clearly see the demarcation between critiquing someone’s actions versus targeting their marginalized identity.
If we can’t make that distinction, and we say that critique of BIPOC or other marginalized folks’s actions is wholly off limits, what’s stopping us from winding our way toward fascism with a more diverse cast of sycophants? (Here’s a BIPOC, corrupt, misogynistic oligarch who is wholesale endorsing fascism: Justice Clarence Thomas.)
Me, I’m a big fan of simultaneously acknowledging that fact that marginalized folks are subject to interlocking systemic oppressions AND holding someone accountable for their actions.
You can do both.
That’s part of being a thoughtful, grown-ass adult.
And it’s part of living in solidarity and community: you are ever mindful of, and actively working to dismantle, systems of oppression WHILE you hold yourself and each other accountable for actions and their impacts.
We do NOT target someone based on their marginalized identity - including but not limited to dis/ability, race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, gender, being unhoused, carceral status, neurodiversity, poverty, LGBTQI+ status. We don’t do that. Why? Because we’re not assholes.
How demeaning is it, though, to *not* hold a public figure accountable because they are Black? Or a woman?
Where does that lead?
Does it mean we can’t hold the Durham County D.A. accountable for her actions as D.A.? Does it mean I can’t disagree with her in a meeting, or write about her actions here, because she’s a Black woman?
Does it mean we can’t hold our Durham County Sheriff accountable for his actions as Sheriff? So … I shouldn’t say that it’s unconscionable and immoral for him to oversee the incarceration of majority Black folks, holding them in nearly solitary confinement for up to 23.5 hours a day in our jail? I can’t say a word because the Sheriff is Black?
Does it mean we can’t hold President Obama accountable for what he did over his two terms? The good, the bad, and the ugly, including the deportation of millions of *also marginalized* folks, indiscriminate drone strikes killing civilians?
That just does not make sense to me.
I think it would be insulting to those folks and a disservice to the larger community - be it Durham, the U.S., the globe - to *not* hold them accountable.
“We should remain quiet about criticisms we have about Harris because Trump is so much worse.”
I see the concern. A second Trump term, with the truly contemptible J.D. Vance as VP, would be fucking nightmare. No question. Already stipulated.
But legit criticism is legit criticism. If you’re a grown up, you can do both: you can meaningfully critique one candidate’s policies. And you can meaningfully critique another candidate’s policies. It’s not mutually exclusive.
But sure, let’s say folks are concerned that if “influencers” critique Harris they might sway voters. Agreed. They might.
A newsflash: Unruly Quaker doesn’t have a wide enough readership to swing an election just yet.
And even if UQ were ginormous.
How could I stay silent and still look my Palestinian friends, my Muslim and Arabic friends, my friends laying everything on the line in Jewish Voice for Peace … how could I look them in the eye?
How could I feel like I am living in integrity?
How could I look my own child in the eyes?
What’s the point of having a voice if you don’t speak your truth? (Even if your voice shakes.)
“It’s a positive thing that the likes of Dick Cheney and John Negroponte are endorsing Harris. It’s great that Harris is embracing these endorsements.”
Dude. If your campaign tent is big enough for odious war criminals like Dick Cheney and John Negroponte to find seats under the canvas, your tent is more than a smidge too big.
Look: if Dick Cheney or John Negroponte were going hungry, on a humane human level, I’d chuck them some french fries. Even though the mention of their names truly makes my skin crawl.
If, however, the likes of Dick Cheney or John Negroponte started endorsing Unruly Quaker, I’d (1) know I was doing something terribly wrong to win the endorsement of war criminals, (2) wonder if Dick or John had experienced wild, possibly psychedelic conversion experiences, and/or (3) wonder what exactly the fuck they were up to, and what they expected in return for their endorsement. These operators don’t do squat without expecting power in return, (4) I’d say, “Thanks but no thanks, war criminals.”
“Holding Harris responsible for supporting genocide and for her other misdeeds is an unfair and divisive ‘purity test.’”
This “vote blue no matter who,” Pod Johns, trope is tired and irritating.
What is a purity test?
History nerd, reporting for duty. **salutes**
It’s based on a rancidly sexist fad from the 1920s-1930s. College papers published surveys — “Purity Tests” — for young women to answer to test how “lewd” versus “pure” they were. Or still are.
Gross. Ick. Talk about patriarchy, sexism, systems of oppression.
The term “Purity Test” is used in politics, usually by dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, as a catchall defense to criticism of Democratic candidates.
It serves as a conversation ender. It’s a way to denigrate and dismiss any and all good-faith critique. A comrade says it well: “At their core, charges of purity politics are ahistoric and anti-intellectual, pathologizing alternative theories of change that don’t require political compromise….”
Here’s the thing: Critiquing Harris’ record as prosecutor and her engagement with the carceral state, wanting something very different than a law-and-order candidate, is not a “purity test.” (Gross.) It’s a necessary conversation when we are living through decade after decade of mass incarceration.
Having some major big yeah wow big big concerns about Harris’ proposed border policies - which include building the wall - is not a “purity test.” (Gross.) It’s a valid concern about the rightward ratcheting and increasingly inhumane immigration policies of the Dems.
Wanting someone to be actively anti-genocide is not a “purity test.” (Gross.) It’s a basic matter of right and wrong. Of human rights and morality.
Can we throw this rancid trope, “purity test,” in the trash where it belongs?
Can we assume that if someone on the left (or, gah, center) has a concern about Harris’s policies or agenda, maybe we should take that concern seriously and not continually deploy a dismissive term rooted in sexism, heteronormativity, and patriarchy?
Please and thank you.
“Sure, the situation in Gaza is sad. But it’s complicated. Harris has staked out a nuanced position.”
Yeah, no. It isn’t complicated or nuanced.
“It’s complicated” is another tactic I see deployed on the regular.
Look at the work it often does: it dissuades us from seeing what’s right in front of us. It encourages us to make excuses. It gives politicians an excuse to avoid action.
I’ll be honest: I bought the “it’s complicated” line about Palestine and Israel for a long time.
I thought I couldn’t understand the situation because I’m not up to speed on all the politics or the entire history of the middle east. Or because I’m not Jewish, Muslim, or Arabic. Or because there wasn’t anywhere to get reliable, comprehensive information.
And then, a couple years before nonviolent activist Rachel Corrie was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer, when I became closer friends with several Muslim and Arabic folks, I thought— you know what? I really need to learn more.
So I did some reading, and listening, and more reading, and more listening, (including to my own conscience) and I realized: it’s not that complicated.
The history is very clear. And the actions of the Israeli Defense Force are clear.
The violence, the history, did not begin October 7.
And since that time, Netanyahu has made it abundantly clear he does not give a flying fart about getting hostages back.
Now here we are: this week, the IDF burned hospital patients alive in Northern Gaza. It has been killing medical workers in Lebanon. Hundreds of thousands of human souls are dead, wounded, or starving.
Why does this matter to this election? Because the Israeli government could not carry out their campaigns without the support of the U.S.
This genocide is being carried out with our tax dollars. Period. The end. Full stop.
The U.S. has been supplying billions of dollars worth of bombs and other materiel for this genocide.
To quote Tupac: “You got money for war but you can’t feed the poor.”
This is the Biden-Harris administration. This is under the Dems. Biden is all-in for whatever Israel wants to do. Sure, Harris is more savvy about displaying a little more empathy and vibes… while she, like Biden, has done nothing to stop this genocide.
The DNC invited a family of an Israeli hostage to speak on the main stage at the convention. That family shared a painful, horrible story that no one should ever have to experience. They deserve mercy, compassion, and comfort.
And. And after all this time and all the Palestinian lives taken in Gaza, the DNC did not allow a Palestinian family to speak. Why? Because Harris supports Israel’s genocide. The DNC as a body supports it. Tim Walz, too. He said, “the expansion of Israel and its proxies is an absolute, fundamental necessity for the United States to have the steady leadership there.” [bold added by me. Stilted debate response by Walz]
No. This is not complicated. Harris (and Walz) support the Israeli military’s horrific campaign of genocide … and presumably the expansion into regional war.
And for many, many people, people who have begged and pleaded and protested to ask, to demand, for Dems to please, to please do SOMETHING, ANYTHING to stop this genocide— only to get chided by Harris and soooooo many of her supporters as this meaning we “must want Trump to win”?
No. Not even close.
Still with me? Wow. I’m impressed.
Thank you so, so much for your care and time reading this. (It’s taken me fifteen minutes shy of forever to write this.)
Whatever you decide to do, whomever you vote for, I hope we all remember (or learn very very quickly) that voting can be a part of political engagement, but boy howdy, it is abundantly clear that voting can NOT — it simply cannot — be the most important part of your political engagement. If anything, it should be one of the smallest things you do to engage in the project of building a world transformed into justice and liberation.
My blessing to you is my hope, my longing:
May we all find life-giving ways to transform injustices into mutual liberation, shared joy, and easeful smiles - everywhere on this planet.
XOXO