Every day, there is a new story about the blatant disregard the Trump administration has for the rule of law, checks and balances and basic human decency. And while my reservoir of rage towards President Trump, Elon Musk and their band of gleeful fascists stays full, I’ve recently grown angry at a different group: every voter who knew Trump was dangerous but didn’t vote for former Vice President Kamala Harris.
It’s hard to give an exact number, but it is known that the Harris campaign lost significant ground in large cities like Detroit, Philidelphia and Milwaukee, areas where Democrats are traditionally strongest. These voters failed to make the easiest choice in American electoral history. There were several so-called progressive individuals and groups who insisted that Harris had not done enough to earn their vote.
The group at Tulane that best represents this staggering failure of critical thinking is TU SDS. They were formerly a registered student organization of Students for a Democratic Society and are no longer officially affiliated with Tulane University after the encampment they organized near the end of last semester.
This is a group whose first line in their Instagram bio is “Organizing progressive students.” That line precedes a quotation of Mao Zedong, himself no friend to students, democracy or society. The contradictory values don’t end here.
Any analysis of their social media presence shows they weren’t organizing voter registration or phone banking efforts for the most recent election. And this was an election in which the choices were someone who supports the democratic process, and someone who does not. Not exactly a trolley problem dilemma.
But to anyone who has listened to their chants, a failure of rationality should be unsurprising. After all, these are the same people who cried out “they have the tanks, we have gliders, glory to the freedom fighters.” Hamas’ devastating Oct. 7 attack was effective partially due to the use of hang gliders. While this group has aligned themselves with a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, they still claim to support progressive causes.
On some of these causes, they would find common ground with myself and many other Democrats. They have time and again supported the unionization efforts of Tulane professors, a worthy goal. They have posted in support of transgender rights, fighting racism, supporting education and so on.
However, they failed to realize one plus one equals two. They failed to realize that even if they would be as opposed to a President Harris on the Israel-Hamas war as a Trump, on every single other issue they care about that can be categorized as a progressive cause, Harris would have been better.
President Harris would not currently be dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. Nor would she be letting Elon Musk run roughshod over the federal government and its most essential programs. President Harris would have protected abortion rights. President Trump appointed the justices who overturned Roe V. Wade.
But during the entire campaign season, TU SDS only mentioned the presidential election once. On Nov. 1, they announced a protest with the large words in bold, “No matter who wins.”
I, and any American with a functioning brain, would argue that it mattered quite a great deal who won this election. Many Americans will die because Trump is president, not Harris. People will lose their healthcare; people will become less protected from pollution and disease. Many women will lose their right to choose to have an abortion.
On Nov. 6, their description of a rally they were holding was the following: “Election results got you down? Join us on Freret Street to Say No to Trump!!”
If only there had been some kind of way to say no to Trump before that date. Ah, yes, the presidential election. TU SDS told their 3,028 followers to “Say No to Trump!” exactly zero times before the election. Since the election, they have had no problem holding rallies against his actions as president.
If only there was some way to know he was going to do all the bad things he planned on before he got elected. Alas, that would have required compromise and critical thinking. It would have required realizing that a vote is not a valentine. It is a choice between two visions, two leaders. The choice could not have been clearer last November.
And an organization who claims to be a student movement could not summon the clear-eyed view of reality necessary to advocate for the only logical choice last November. Any claim of morality this group makes should be treated with the same dismissiveness they addressed perhaps the most important election of our lifetime with.
