It’s a phrase you hear in almost every major election. “Vote blue no matter who” is the default response, it seems, to any criticism of Democratic candidates and policies or suggestion that our votes may be better directed towards a third-party candidate. For the most part, it’s good advice. It’s a fundamental fact of the way our political system is constructed that third-party candidates are rarely, if ever, politically viable. It’s not difficult to see that a Republican victory, often the only realistic alternative to a Democrat, is almost universally the worse option in any given election. If this is the case, then, why do we so often tire of hearing it? Ultimately, it’s because “vote blue no matter who” is most often used to handwave away valid criticism of the Democratic Party’s failure to serve the needs of working class and oppressed people.
While the plea, on its surface, rings true, buried underneath the literal meaning is the implication that the mere possibility of a Republican victory renders any desire for Democratic policies beyond their typical moderate reforms unreasonable. Furthermore, it is often implied that these valid criticisms only serve to help Republicans and therefore should be treated with the same hostility with which we rightfully treat Republicans themselves. The phrase perfectly embodies the increasingly clear attitude held by many Democratic politicians and insiders that Democrats are not simply a political party tasked with winning over voters with popular policies and concrete results, but an unimpeachable pillar of democracy to which voters are morally obligated to dedicate themselves.
No more clearly has this attitude been demonstrated than on former vice president Kamala Harris’ book tour. The tour is to promote her newly published book “107 Days,” which details her experience campaigning for the 2024 presidential election during the titular 107 days following former President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the race. At stops along the tour, Harris has frequently faced interruptions from protesters over her complicity in the Gaza genocide as a member of the Biden administration and her campaign’s refusal to distance itself from the administration’s support for the genocide. While one might expect an apologetic response from someone seeking to profit off their involvement in the administration, Harris’ response has been anything but. On the numerous occasions she’s been confronted with criticism for her actions, her responses have ranged from calmly acknowledging the suffering of the Palestinian people but refusing to acknowledge her complicity in it, to vitriolic accusations that President Donald Trump’s victory was the result of anti-genocide protesters rather than her own failure to address the concerns of working Americans. These brash and deflective reactions to criticism clearly show the entitlement which has come to infect the Democratic establishment, and the belief that Democrats cannot fail but can only be failed.
This entitlement, though extremely prevalent, has a few telling exceptions. It seems that whenever the Democratic nominee for an election holds progressive beliefs, establishment Democrats suddenly gain a deep — and perhaps cynical — appreciation for the value of multiparty politics. Take, for example, the recent New York City mayoral race, won by democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. Despite the fact that Mamdani was the official nominee for the Democratic Party, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declined to endorse him until the day before early voting began for the general election — even then he qualified his endorsement with the statement that he still had concerns with Mamdani’s foreign policy views. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer went even further, refusing to issue an endorsement at all. Schumer later admitted to having cast his ballot in the election, but refused to say for whom.
This reluctance and in some cases outright hostility towards Mamdani was echoed by many other Democrats, all stemming from his progressive economic agenda, his steadfast stance against the Gaza genocide and refusal to capitulate to calls to recognize Israel’s right to exist as an apartheid state. It was almost impressive how quickly the narrative changed from the need to uncritically support the Democratic nominee regardless of disagreements, to the need to properly vet and examine a candidate before making any hasty decisions. Amazingly, all it took was a candidate whose policies served working people instead of the corporate interests that fund the party and inform its agenda.
These two cases, one of expectant demand for unquestioning loyalty and one of sudden reluctance to support their own party’s candidate, put on full display the hypocrisy of that oft-repeated phrase. A more accurate version would be “vote blue when donors want you to.” So what should voters who are understandably disillusioned with the current state of the Democratic Party do? It can often seem like Democrats are the only choice when faced with the outright fascism of the modern Republican Party. Vote blue when you want to. Democrats are still politicians. Their role in our democracy hasn’t changed no matter how much they want voters to think otherwise. They still have to earn your vote.