In the realm of politics, where imperfection is a given and moral ambiguity often prevails, there remains a stark line that must not be crossed: the support of genocide.
Throughout my journey as a lifelong Democrat, I found solace in the party's platform, which seemed to echo my ethical beliefs and desires. However, the unwavering support for actions that can be classified as genocidal compels a reevaluation of my political allegiance.
The reluctance to support political entities engaged in or supporting genocidal acts echoes through history. In the 1930s, many Germans resisted the allure of the Nazi party, recognizing the moral bankruptcy in its genocidal agenda. This historical instance illustrates the ethical imperative to reject political support for regimes or policies that facilitate genocide.
Moving beyond this example, the international landscape offers numerous instances where states have either engaged in or supported genocidal actions against populations. From the Khmer Rouge's terror in Cambodia to the Rwandan genocide and the ongoing atrocities against the Rohingya in Myanmar, history is replete with moments that challenge the global community's commitment to the principle of "never again." The support, whether direct or indirect, of such actions by powerful nations through political alliances, military aid, or economic agreements, raises profound ethical alarms.
It is imperative to clarify that my critique targets specific policies and actions rather than any ethnic, religious, or national group. The argument against supporting genocide is fundamentally an ethical one, devoid of bias against any community or creed. This distinction is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the ethical argument against genocide. This stance is not rooted in anti-Jewish sentiment nor an endorsement of Palestinian governance but is driven by an uncompromising opposition to genocide in any form.
Recent U.S. policy decisions, including the provision of substantial military and financial aid to Israel without Congressional approval, underscore a concerning trend towards supporting actions that, in my view, constitute genocide. This critique extends to the Democratic leadership's stance, which, despite its claims of social reform, has facilitated the perpetuation of violence against populations in open-air prisons. The ethical dilemma posed by these actions transcends partisan politics, urging a reevaluation of support based on moral grounds.
The ethical concern over supporting genocide is not limited to the U.S. or any single conflict. Throughout history, various nations, including our own, have been complicit in the genocide of other peoples, either through direct action, financial support, or political endorsement. The international community's response—or lack thereof—to such crises often reflects geopolitical interests over ethical imperatives, underscoring the need for a principled stand against genocide globally.
I herein reaffirm my ethical stance against supporting genocide, driven by a commitment to universal human rights and dignity. The decision to withdraw support from the Democratic Party is not an endorsement of another political faction but a refusal to be complicit in actions that violate fundamental ethical principles. Highlighting historical and contemporary examples of state-supported genocide serves to illustrate the importance of maintaining ethical consistency in political engagement, regardless of political convenience or affiliation.
“You Want Trump to Win?”
You might be thinking that Trump would be worse for Gaza. How? Gaza would be destroyed and thirty to forty thousand civilians would be murdered and millions would be displaced? I got news for ya... That's what we Americans are SUPPORTING with our money right now under Democratic leadership (it's not just Biden and Blinken... Lou Correa, Brad Sherman, Ted Leiu, Grace Meng, Juan Vargas...all CA Democrat Congressmen who staunchly stand with the United States’ support of this genocide in Gaza).
Choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil.
By the way, dig into Netanyahu's remarks and you'll hear him say where they're going after Palestine. Africa. Ethiopia, precisely. He has already stated it in a public talk!
The Sins of Our Past
I still believe in the American experiment, though. Just because I've lost faith in even the “good guys” (the Democratic Party leadership) because they/we are actively funding the murder of humans doesn't mean that I’m going to jump ship altogether.
Not moving to Canada, neither. 🇨🇦 I think America is still the greatest thing going. And I've traveled large swathes of the planet. This land is my land.
But we haven't atoned and learned from our sins.
Manifest Destiny is the 19th-century doctrine or belief that the expansion of the US throughout the American continents was both justified and inevitable.
Manifest Destiny was genocide.
The policies and actions that were carried out under its justification had devastating impacts on Native American communities, including forced removals, wars, and the spread of diseases that decimated populations. These events are part of a broader history of colonization and expansion that led to significant loss of life, culture, and sovereignty among Native American peoples.
The concept of Manifest Destiny contributed to the rationale for the westward expansion of the United States, which often involved the acquisition of land through treaties that were not always fairly negotiated, wars, and other means that disregarded the rights and well-being of Indigenous peoples. The Trail of Tears, the California missions, and numerous conflicts between the US government and Native American tribes are examples of the tragic consequences of this expansion.
While the term genocide was not coined until the 20th century by Raphael Lemkin, and its legal definition has specific criteria, many historians and scholars argue that the systematic efforts to destroy Native American cultures, societies, and populations through killing, displacement, and assimilation policies can be considered genocidal in nature.
We were wrong then and we are wrong now. If we want the world to be accountable, we should start with ourselves.
Cornel West
I'll still vote. Just not for Joe.
CORNEL WEST is a political activist, philosopher and academic who launched a third-party bid for president that is likely to appeal to most progressive, Democratic-leaning voters. West, 70, initially ran as a Green Party candidate, but in October he said people "want good policies over partisan politics" and announced his bid as an independent. He has promised to end poverty and guarantee housing.
Holding degrees from Harvard and Princeton, where he became the first African American to graduate with a PhD in philosophy from the latter, West has significantly influenced academic and public discourse, especially on issues concerning social justice and democracy.
West's career spans various prestigious academic positions at institutions such as Harvard, Yale, Union Theological Seminary, Princeton, Dartmouth, Pepperdine University, and the University of Paris. His work integrates intellectual contributions from Christianity, socialism, and the black freedom movement, making him a prominent voice in left-wing politics and a critic of the status quo in racial and economic matters.
He is also known for his involvement in the arts and media, contributing to documentaries, films like "The Matrix Reloaded" and "The Matrix Revolutions," and music, where he has blended his social and political insights with cultural expressions. His activism extends to radio and podcast hosting, notably the "Smiley and West" program and "The Tight Rope," where he continues to engage with critical contemporary issues alongside other intellectuals.
Throughout his life, West's activism was sparked by early experiences with racial injustice and political activism, including his involvement in civil rights demonstrations and organizing protests for black studies courses during his high school years. These formative experiences, combined with his academic achievements and personal convictions, have cemented his role as a thought leader advocating for a more equitable and just society.
He has sparked controversy, primarily due to his outspoken political and social stances. West's criticisms have not been limited to one side of the political spectrum. He has been vocal against policies and actions of both Republican and Democratic administrations, including expressing disappointment with the Obama administration, which he believed did not adequately address issues of American imperialism and social inequality.
His tenure disputes at Harvard, particularly related to his stance on Palestinian rights, have also been a focal point of controversy. West's departure from Harvard was framed by him as a matter of principle, highlighting his commitment to speaking out on contentious issues regardless of potential professional repercussions.
Moreover, West's engagement in various forms of media, from radio programs to appearances in films like "The Matrix" series, along with his forays into music, underscore his multidimensional approach to activism and public engagement. His partnership with figures from across the political spectrum, such as his frequent collaborations with conservative intellectual Robert P. George on civil dialogue and the importance of liberal arts education, showcases his commitment to fostering open discussions on critical issues.
Navigating the complex terrain of political ethics and personal beliefs, especially against the backdrop of support for actions that may be deemed genocidal, demands rigorous introspection and unwavering moral courage. The journey of reevaluating one's political allegiance, as underscored by historical precedents and contemporary challenges, highlights the critical importance of aligning one's political support with universal principles of human rights and dignity. Cornel West's third-party candidacy emerges as a beacon for those seeking to transcend traditional political binaries, advocating for a platform rooted in justice, equity, and the uncompromising rejection of genocide in any form. This pursuit of ethical consistency in political engagement underscores a collective aspiration for a more just and equitable society, where the dignity of all is not just upheld but cherished.