The Soviet Dissident Andrei Sakharov was a zealous defender of all human rights, but there was one he spoke of as a first among equals: the right to emigrate. It was, he wrote, “an essential condition of spiritual freedom.” The power to vote with one’s feet, to walk out if one wished, gave the individual a veto over the state. Many other rights are important to an open society – to express political opinions, to worship freely, to assemble without coercion – but all of them are much less meaningful if (as in the Soviet Union) you can’t even decide where to live.

I find myself, in these difficult days leading up to the election, setting priorities in much the same way. Which rights matter most? What conditions are necessary for a democratic society to exist and persist? What material makes up the ground on which we all stand?

Freedom of dissent is a top priority for me – and while reading the recently published memoirs of Alexei Navalny, an intellectual descendant of Sakharov, have only made him more valuable; you can pay for it with your life under a government that cares little about this freedom. Fortunately, in the United States we live – for the moment – ​​in an open society, and if you want to know what dissent looks like in such a society, the last year has provided a pretty good illustration. The American left, in its anger at the administration’s laissez-faire approach to Israel – and in response to the horrors unfolding in Gaza – has protested loudly, disruptively and incessantly. Certainly, there were excesses, but these activists also showed very clearly that, in a democracy, protest can change opinion (even politics).

But I also fear that these dissidents – the progressives and, above all, hundreds of thousands of Muslim Americans in these key Midwestern states – are approaching the election with a doomed plan, which they surely see as a continuation of this protest. It’s not. By neglecting to consider the fundamental conditions of democracy, they could end up undermining their ability to protest again.

They are furious at Kamala Harris’ continued military support for Israel and mourn the tens of thousands of civilians killed in Gaza. We’ve all spent a year watching relentless carnage — and for Arab American voters in particular, the victims in the rubble are (or could be) friends and family. Their attitude is not only ideological. It’s visceral. It’s personal. “I feel very guilty,” said Sereene Hijazi, a Michigan voter. said THE New York Times. “A lot of Arab-Americans feel guilty because, like, we’re here, we’re safe, but it’s our taxes that are killing our loved ones and the people we know.” In response, Hijazi made his choice for 2024: the third party candidate Jill Stein.

Read: How the Trump resistance gave up

Here’s the plan: either withdraw from the vote, choose a third-party candidate, or pull the lever in favor of Donald Trump, all in protest. Any of these choices, if they occurred on a large enough scale, would have the effect of swinging the election in Trump’s favor. If that seems unlikely, consider the fact that an activist is already taking credit for pressuring a national newspaper to withdraw support for Harris. Nika Soon-Shiong, the daughter of the owner of the Los Angeles Timessaid his father’s controversial decision was “an opportunity to reject the justifications for the widespread targeting of journalists and the ongoing war on children.” (Patrick Soon-Shiong denied that his daughter had any influence on his move.)

For some, their protest vote or abstention will be a matter of revenge, punishing Harris for her position. And as an emotional reaction to mass death, this is understandable. But these voters would also be punishing themselves. Whether or not you think Trump would do more to protect Palestinian lives – an absurd notion, on its face. evidence…a more fundamental question is at stake.

Many of Harris’ rallies have been interrupted by protests. A protest was held outside the Democratic National Convention to demand that a pro-Palestinian speaker be allowed to address delegates (a request that was refused). Campuses are overflowing with campsprofessions and physical confrontations. While this year of protest hasn’t influenced policy much — even though Harris’ rhetoric is noticeably different from Joe Biden’s in many ways — it has cemented the Gaza issue in the American consciousness. A recent bench survey In early October, there was a slight increase since last December in the number of Americans who think Israel has gone too far in its military response.

In other words, protest matters. But we must not take for granted that we will always be able to protest. Trump has made clear what he thinks of dissent. He has thoughtful about throwing protesters in jail. He wants relaunch the Insurrection Act of 1792 so that he could entrust the army to those who might oppose his policies. His Defense Secretary, Mike Esper, said Trump propose shooting protesters in the legs during the 2020 protests over the killing of George Floyd.

This avowed, even joyful, desire to violently repress any dissent against what Trump calls “the enemy within” is the main reason why 13 of his former collaborators signed an agreement. letter warning of Trump’s “desire for absolute, unchecked power.”

Read: Those who don’t read political news

Last May, when Biden was still the Democratic presidential nominee but progressive anger was no less intense over Gaza, Jewish currentsa progressive magazine, organized a round table for those on the left who don’t know how they might vote in the next election. A comment from Waleed Shahid, former spokesperson and communications director for Justice Democrats, cut short the tone of sadness and concern. When asked who he would vote for if he lived in a swing state, he did not hesitate with this answer: “When you vote for an elected official in this country, you are voting for the conditions under which you stand. would organize.

These conditions should be kept in mind; they make everything else possible – and there is only one way to guarantee them.

To those who think that Trump would prove to be a better choice for peace in the region and for the fate of Palestinian lives, I don’t know what to say. His entire approach to Israel can be summed up in what he told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a call this month: “Do what you have to do.” Forget worrying about Palestinian lives; he reduced the word itself Palestinian to a connectionby throwing it at his political rivals. I would like to remind Amer Ghalib, the Muslim mayor of Hamtramck, Michigan, who is approving Trump, because of the former president’s vague promise to “end the chaos” in the Middle East, in two words: Muslim ban. This policy of excluding anyone from a Muslim country, even tourists, from entering the United States is now a policy that Trump wants to impose. develop.

And if that’s not convincing enough, remember that there are factions that could pressure President Harris on this issue. If the country gradually moves towards a more pro-Palestinian position, the struggle will take place In the Democratic Party. Harris is mobile. Who among the Republicans will pressure Trump to care about the Palestinians? Tom Cotton? Marco Rubio? Stephen Miller?

Gazans continue to die. It is therefore difficult to think first about maintaining democratic standards. The instinct is to shout, which in this case might mean picking Stein, Trump, or no one at all. But a cry is a reflex, not a strategy. The left and those who care about the Palestinian future must live to fight another day on this issue, and to do so they must exist in a country where it is possible to fight.