Putting War and Peace on the Ballot

The Importance of Values in the American Election

Image by Philip Oroni.

Introduction

The corporate media report on elections — especially the biggie coming up — as though they were sporting events. If you win, hurray! You get the gold cup or whatever. The election process is a matter of shrewd strategy combined with, uh, likability.

Thus, as per the New York Times: “Tim Walz is going to bring big Midwestern dad energy to the presidential campaign.”

That sort of thing — whatever that means. And I note this with a shrug of acceptance. OK, yeah, I get it. Elections are very much a matter of strategy and tactics, combined often enough with sheer trivia (Nixon should have shaved before that first debate with Kennedy), But nonetheless, considering that the future of humanity is essentially at stake in the American election, a scream of desperation keeps rising up from somewhere deep in my soul. Are we going to continue playing war with the world? Ignoring climate change?

Excuse me, but the way we choose to address the immediate future . . . matters.

It matters enormously. So as I read about the burgeoning Kamala Harris campaign, as she prepares to face off against Donald Trump, the question that assaults me the most deeply is not so much whether she can win, but whether she will run with transcendent values — values beyond the pro-war centrism of Joe Biden and the mainstream Democrats. Strategy matters, but values matter first.

The Importance of Values

A few months ago, when Biden was still the looming Democratic nominee, I was thrashing in anguished uncertainty, stuck “having” to vote for the lesser-evil guy who, among whatever else, refused to stop funding and supporting the Israeli genocide on Gaza. I wrote: “I may go lesser-evil when I vote in November, but right now I remain uncertain. I’m still waiting to see Biden’s courage emerge, as he stands up to further militarism.”

Well, his courage emerged in the form of dropping out — and suddenly Harris penetrated the country’s collective awareness. Wow, a female, black presidential candidate. Big excitement. Horns started honking.

But what does she stand for? What values will she run on? The first serious indication of this was her choice of VP running mate. Yeah, it’ll have to be a white guy to “balance” the ticket, but beyond that — just a basic pro-war Dem? The likely choice seemed to be Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a guy very much in favor of continuing to arm Israel and help it “finish the job” in Gaza. He had, for instance, infamously compared campus protesters of U.S. support to the Ku Klux Klan.

But something shifted. She chose Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz instead — who is described, my God, as a “pragmatic progressive.” His social positions and legislative acts include: supporting LGBTQ rights; increasing social spending (for such things as education, housing, childcare, renewable energy); driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants; background checks for gun purchases; legalizing marijuana . . .

Walz’s political stance, Peter Bloom writes, “seeks to position traditionally left-leaning policies as common-sense solutions that align with the values and needs of the majority of Americans.”

Militarism and Transcending Lesser-Evilism

OK, sounds great, but what about . . . dare I even ask? What about militarism? Ross Barkan put it this way in the New York Times: “On policy matters, in particular the Israel-Hamas war, Mr. Walz assuages, momentarily at least, the restive progressive wing of the Democratic Party.”

He’s assuaging the restive lefties? That hardly sounds reassuring. It sounds more like political game-playing than deeply held values emerging into policy. But I continued digging, beyond the corporate media, trying to understand who Walz really is and whether I share any of his actual values. I was surprised. Is it possible — when it comes to an issue as profound and future-significant as war and peace — that the Harris campaign will be running beyond “we’re the lesser evil”?

As Sanjana Karanth pointed out at Huffington Post, Walz expressed “empathy and understanding” toward the Minnesota Democratic voters who cast their ballots for “uncommitted” — as protests against Biden’s support for Israeli militarism.

Speaking to CNN in March, she noted, Walz said: “The situation in Gaza is intolerable” and supported the search for a ceasefire. This is what the uncommitted voters are asking for “and that’s what they should be doing.”

Karanth also pointed out that the Institute for Middle East Understanding was enthusiastic, at least tentatively, about Harris choosing Walz as her running mate. After his selection, the organization issued this statement:

“Today was another sign that our collective power can create a historic shift in the Democratic Party: away from militarism and impunity for Israel’s war crimes, and toward peace, justice and equality for all people—including the Palestinian people. Too many lives have already been lost, and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza now face not just bombing but starvation and disease. While we welcome Vice President Harris’ choice, we will continue to push on the Harris-Walz campaign to commit to real and substantive policy change to reflect the will of the American people and to save countless lives.”

Will Harris and Walz transcend lesser-evilism? Are they offering voters a real choice — on the deeply embedded issue of militarism? We must demand — demand! — that this be so.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
• SDG 13: Climate Action

The article discusses the importance of addressing issues such as war, militarism, and climate change, which are directly connected to SDG 16 and SDG 13.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 16.1: Reduce violence and related death rates
• SDG 16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels
• SDG 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters
• SDG 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning

The article highlights the need to address violence, war, and militarism (SDG 16.1) and to promote accountable and transparent institutions (SDG 16.6). It also emphasizes the importance of taking action on climate change (SDG 13.1) and integrating climate change measures into policies and planning (SDG 13.2).

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator for SDG 16.1: Number of homicides and other violent crimes
• Indicator for SDG 16.6: Existence of independent national human rights institutions
• Indicator for SDG 13.1: Number of deaths and economic losses attributed to climate-related hazards
• Indicator for SDG 13.2: Number of countries with climate change policies and plans

The article does not explicitly mention specific indicators, but the identified targets can be measured using indicators such as the number of homicides and violent crimes (SDG 16.1), the existence of independent national human rights institutions (SDG 16.6), the number of deaths and economic losses attributed to climate-related hazards (SDG 13.1), and the number of countries with climate change policies and plans (SDG 13.2).

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Source: counterpunch.org