Why I'm going to vote for Joe Biden

Sam Smith - With the departure of Bernie Sanders from the campaign, even his supporters have strong reasons for supporting Joe Biden that may not be readily apparent. For example, the voting records of the liberal Americans for Democratic Action tell  us that in 2008, before running for vice president, Biden got a liberal score of 80% (and probably would have gotten 90%) if he hadn't missed two key votes. Two years earlier, in 2006,  he got a 100% liberal rating from ADA, the same as Bernie Sanders gets now.

The other thing to remember is that politicians in Washington are not activists; they are reactivists. Change comes from the bottom. I say this with some experience.  the Review has opposed federal drug policy for nearly 50 years, was a lonely media voice against the massive freeways planned for Washington, and was an early advocate of bikeways and light rail. In November 1990 it devoted an entire issue to the ecologically sound city and how to develop it.We reported on NSA monitoring of U.S. phone calls in the 1990s, years before it became a major media story.

In 2003 I wrote an article for Harper's comprised entirely of falsehoods about Iraq by Bush administration officials.In 1987 we ran an article on AIDS. It was the first year that more than 1,000 men died of the disease. In the 1970s we published a first person account of a then illegal abortion.
In 1971 we published our first article in support of single payer universal health care. In 1970, we ran a two part series on gay liberation. And in the 1960s we proposed community policing. 

So why will I vote for Biden? In part because I consider presidential candidates not by their sainthood but by the battlefield they will open to us. Do you really want to fight Trump rather than Biden? 

And a month ago I wrote this:


Sam Smith - I realize that, unlike many progressives, I view politics as form of poker rather than as a religion. I'm looking for the best hand, not the best faith. Because my political roots come from places like Philadelphia and Boston, the notion that elections are a moral contest seems weird to me. After all, I remember pols like Lyndon Johnson who got more good legislation through in less time than almost anyone in my lifespan yet you wouldn't want him near your daughter nor could you defend much of what he said and did before he became president,

In the end, especially at the national level, it is a game of chance. You pick the right cards at the right time and it works. And what creates the odds? In no small part, all the good things done previously by movements and local action.

Moral activism is far more successful as  a local or non-political act than a national political one. As I noted in my book Shadows of Hope:

In 1992 alone, the 100 largest localities pursued an estimated 1700 environmental crime prosecutions, more than twice the number of such cases brought by the federal government between 1983 and 1991.

Another example has been the drive against smoking. While the tobacco lobby ties up Washington, 750 cities and communities have passed indoor smoking laws. And then there is the Brady bill [for gun control]. By the time the federal government got around to acting on it, half the states had passed similar measures.

So powerful is the potential for decentralized action that pressure groups sometimes demand that federal or state laws prevent lower levels of government imposing their own restrictions. In one case, the North Carolina legislature passed anti-smoking legislation that, under tobacco industry pressure, preempted local action on the matter. The bill, however, had a six-month delay before it took effect; during this interim some 30 communities passed their own laws.

The more recent history of locally started drives for marijuana rights is another example.  Our national elections reflect the work we have already done, but they rarely exceed these efforts.

Thus, I can support most of Bernie Sanders's proposals but still recognize that he may not be the guy to achieve them.  It is far slower and harder than many evangelical progressives would have you believe. Sanders speaks well to, and shares the anger of, his flock but he's not an opinion changer. Change ultimately needs the support not just of those who figured it all out early, but those who had to be finally convinced.

I am not deluded by Biden, but this poker player couldn't find anyone else with as much chance of changing the odds. If I turn out wrong, I was a bad bettor, but given the status of our society, nobody can guarantee what is going to happen these days.