As an outspoken supporter of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, I often get questions akin to the one Stein was asked at the Green Town Hall on August 17: "Given the way our political system works, effectively you could help Donald Trump like Ralph Nader helped George Bush in 2000. How could you sleep at night?" More often than not, such questions are followed by the claim that voting for Stein in November is an act of self-indulgent privilege. Only those with little to lose from a Donald Trump presidency can afford to risk it by adhering to a rigid set of principles that will never come to fruition, third-party critics argue; people who might suffer under Trump's policies, on the other hand, understand the stakes involved in this election and that Hillary Clinton is the only practical alternative to Trump.
This formulation misconstrues privilege dynamics and misrepresents the identities and considerations of third-party voters and others who refuse to support Clinton, who are far less often White, affluent, heterosexual men than their detractors seem to believe.
The status quo is serving many people poorly. Proclaiming that, because the alternative is "worse," everyone must vote for Clinton - a politician who has championed policies that have actively harmed millions of people both here and around the world - is, at its very best, patronizing to those who are currently suffering. It's a promise of crumbs instead of a meal with the admonition that starving people better be thankful for crumbs, as the other candidate might take even those away.
This rationale plays on the fears of disadvantaged people and those who care about them in order to perpetuate current power dynamics. Its use is in many ways an expression of the very privilege it critiques.
Third-Party Critics Misconstrue Privilege Dynamics
Privilege is a multi-dimensional concept, and very few people can claim to speak for the most downtrodden in society. Individuals writing widely read articles about the privilege of third-party voters aren't refugees from Central America who President Obama is currently deporting - with Clinton's support, until recently. They aren't incarcerated for marijuana possession or sitting on death row, likely to stay locked up or sentenced to die if Clinton becomes president. They aren't living under Israeli occupation, or in deep poverty, or afraid of being obliterated by a drone strike, with little hope for change under the specter of a Clinton presidency. As Morgana Visser recently noted, "many marginalized people are rightfully horrified of Hillary Clinton," and those accusing nonvoters and third-party voters of privileged indifference to the plight of others have the privilege themselves not to be so marginalized that four, or eight, or indefinitely many more years of incremental change to the status quo is intolerable to them.
The thing is, the argument that the Democrats are the only actual alternative voters have to Trump - that the status quo cannot be radically improved and that incremental change is all that is possible - is one that many people cannot afford. Those of us voting for Stein seek to challenge this thinking, to fight for a world in which the most marginalized people are not consigned to deportation, lifetime imprisonment, poverty, or death at the hands of Democrats who are better than Republicans but not nearly good enough. Third-party voting and abstaining from the presidential election altogether are strategies designed to either change the Democratic Party or create an alternative in a political system that has failed disadvantaged populations for decades, as Sebastian Castro points out.
It's perfectly fine to challenge the efficacy of that strategy, and I encourage everyone to read compelling cases for lesser-evilsism in 2016 from Michael Albert, Noam Chomsky and John Halle, Shaun King, and Adolph Reed. I evaluate the risks of Trump relative to Clinton and a lesser-of-evils vote relative to third-party voting differently than they do, but I also have a ton of respect for where they and other social justice advocates like them are coming from.
It is wrong, however, for anyone to wield accusations of privilege as a cudgel against those with different electoral strategies, especially because this tactic ignores the voices of Michelle Alexander, Cate Carrejo, Rosa Clemente, Andrea Mérida Cuéllar, Benjamin Dixon, Eddie Glaude, Marc Lamont Hill, Jenn Jackson, Rania Khalek, Arielle Newton, Kwame Rose, Kshama Sawant, Cornel West, and numerous other members of marginalized groups who support alternatives to the Democratic Party and/or believe it's fine not to vote at all.
Those who prioritize identity politics should also remember that prominent spokespeople for the Green Party (including Clemente and Cuéllar) tend to be less privileged than their Democratic Party counterparts, that a woman has been on the Greens' presidential ticket every single year in which the party has launched a bid for the White House (beginning in 1996), and that the party's presidential and vice presidential candidates this year -- Stein and Ajamu Baraka -- are by far the least privileged candidates running.
Third-Party Critics Misrepresent Voter Demographics
Statistics on Green Party voters in the United States are hard to find, but it's possible to back out some rough estimates from recent polling. The graph below uses data from four different polls to compare demographic shares among registered Clinton supporters, registered Stein supporters, and all registered voters.
The estimates debunk the notion that Stein's base is especially privileged. Her supporters are about as likely as Clinton's to be women and seem to be a little less likely than Clinton voters to make over $50,000 a year or to have the privilege of a college degree. The confidence intervals on these estimates are likely fairly large and the average differences between the candidates' supporters in these domains, if there are any, are thus probably small, but other evidence also suggests that Green Party voters tend to have low incomes; as Carl Beijer has observed, Ralph "Nader had a stronger 2000 performance among voters making less than $15,000 a year than he had with any other income demographic."
Beijer also makes an important point about the domain in which Stein and Clinton supporters differ most: age. While age-based privilege is a complicated concept - both young and old people can be targets of discrimination - younger voters have to worry much more than older voters about "what happens over the span of decades if [they] keep voting for increasingly right-wing Democrats."
Now, to be fair, Clinton voters are more likely than Stein voters to be people of color. But Stein's share of voters of color is similar to the share in the general population of registered voters; Stein voters are not disproportionately White. Looking at the total population that won't vote for Clinton, which is a larger universe than the set of registered voters who support Stein, provides an even more striking rebuttal to the those-who-oppose-Clinton-are-White-male-Bernie-Bros narrative. As Visser shows, Reuters data actually suggests that over 40 percent of people of color do not plan to vote for Clinton in 2016. In fact, neither do over 45 percent of the LGBTIQ community, nor the majority of women, "marginalized religious folk," and people making less than $50,000 a year.
None of those statistics change the fact that I, along with many Clinton supporters, am privileged enough to have little to lose from a Trump presidency. But like nearly all Clinton supporters - and unlike the millions of people who, as Visser reminds us, "do not have the privilege of feeling or being any safer under Democrats [as] opposed to Republicans" - I have even less to fear from a Clinton win. Pundits and partisans would do well to spend less time alleging that third-party voters don't care about the disadvantaged and more time reflecting on why large numbers of people are much more worried than they are about the status quo.
A version of this post originally appeared on 34justice.