When I studied politics at university, a lecturer shared an insight that resonated with me: we don’t vote to elect the best leader, but to keep the worst out.
These words have reverberated in my head the past week, as I grapple with criticism of our news coverage.
In recent days, Women’s Agenda‘s Instagram page has copped a grilling over a reel we shared of Beyoncé. Last week, the singer gave a speech at Kamala Harris’s election rally in which she claimed to be standing there, supporting the Democrats’ candidate, not as a celebrity but “as a mother”.
The reel spurred comments and accusations of “imperial feminism”, “white supremacy” and outrage at our easy ability to endorse a candidate who’s stayed infuriatingly quiet on the crisis in the Middle East.
And look, I get it. I genuinely loathe “girl boss” feminism. Placing excessive emphasis on individual success rather than on changing structural, intersectional inequalities leads us nowhere good.
But, when we shine a light on the US election, I think nuance is necessary.
Democracy’s imperfections are evident, particularly in two-party systems like the US (and to an extent, Australia), where voters often find neither side aligns fully with their views or values. Such limited choice undoubtedly leaves significant portions of the electorate without a voice especially on complex issues that don’t fit neatly into a binary divide.
This structure also leads to a pervasive mentality, where each party’s primary goal is to defeat the other rather than collaborate on policies that benefit the nation as a whole. Polarisation swiftly turns compromise into a dirty word and results in gridlock, where neither party is willing to work with the other.
Of course, both Trump and Harris have showcased the worst of this throughout the US election campaign. It’s been a popularity contest of the highest order where personalities have routinely been the focus rather than policies. (I don’t care if Kamala charismatically and enthusiastically orders caramel mud-cake, nor do I have any interest in watching Trump dance at his rallies– unless, of course, he falls over).
Witnessing crises like the war in the Middle East unfold and escalate with minimal substantive discussion from either candidate has been galling. Trump’s sociopathy over the situation went so far as him praising Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and suggesting that Gaza could become prime “beachfront” real estate.
But Harris has been restrained on the subject too. Her feeble calls for a ceasefire sans clear policy commitments, feel weak if not cowardly. And it’s certainly up to the media (like us) to call this out.
But when I talk about nuance, my central point is this: Women’s Agenda exists as a news platform aimed at representing the interests of all women. When we share a reel of Beyoncé at a Harris rally, we are not suggesting that either individual is perfect. But we are supporting the election of Harris when the only alternative is Donald Trump.
Because no matter which way you skin it, the two are not, and have never been, “equally bad”. In truth, comparing Donald Trump to nearly anyone with a shred of humanity, is grossly offensive.
Donald Trump is a man accused of 27 sexual misconduct offences including a conviction for sexual abuse and defamation against E. Jean Carroll. A man charged charged with four criminal counts, including conspiracy to defraud the US and conspiracy against the rights of citizens. A man who has, for the best part of a decade, encouraged and incited the worst impulses in his country including racism, bigotry, misogyny and ableism.
He has capitalised on the vulnerability of voters struggling with cost of living surges, who feel disillusioned with their lives, livelihoods and the general status quo. He has made them believe that he, an egomaniac, celebrity billionaire businessman, is the true saviour of the blue collar worker. The working man. The underdog.
He has shifted society so much that significant swaths of the population are no longer guided by the herd to broadly do right. Under Trump’s sinister glow, America has grown increasingly divided; with individuals saying anything, doing anything, in a fight that no one truly understands.
The irony of course is laughable.
As leader, Trump won’t defend the rights of the everyday American. He will strip foreign aid, obliterate women’s reproductive rights for a second time, threaten and likely deport legal immigrants, widen the healthcare gap, widen the gender divide, stay inert on climate change, spur more insidious division and influence other countries to do the same.
Harris, on the other hand, while far from flawless, brings experience and commitment to democratic values. Her track record demonstrates support for reproductive rights, healthcare reform, climate action, and economic policies that promote equity. She is a normal, arguably uninspiring, politician.
Should we expect that global leaders be better than what America currently has on offer? Potentially.
But to claim Harris and Trump are “equally bad” is to ignore the glaring truth: one candidate has built his entire political career on hate and division, while the other is imperfectly striving to protect democratic norms. To safeguard our rights and uphold our values, sometimes the only choice is to prevent the worst outcome.