Why I’m Voting For Cornel West

Graphics by Madeline Barber

Coming into the 2024 Presidential Primaries and the upcoming General Election, voters should be prepared to brace for the worst. Both frontrunners, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, are either in or near their eighties and are continuing their political careers, to the dismay of most American voters. To make matters worse, each candidate has their own set of problems. On the one hand, Joe Biden’s questionable health, reliance on staffers, and lukewarm policymaking have frustrated voters, especially young people, notably resulting in over 100,000 “Uncommitted” votes in Michigan’s Democratic Primary. On the other hand, Donald Trump’s historical and potentially impending election denial should frighten any supporter of the democratic process, while his cronyism and nepotism infiltrate nearly every aspect of his campaign and potential administration.

The more conversations I have about this election, the less confident I feel about the state of American democracy and the health of the two-party system. In this editorial, I aim to articulate those frustrations, rationalize a third-party vote this November, and justify why Cornel West is my choice. 

Historically, third-party candidates have been derogatorily categorized as ‘spoilers,’ implying that their novel candidacy simply detracts from the ‘actual’ candidacy of a Democratic or Republican nominee (or both). The candidacies of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader in 1992 and 2000 set the stage for 21st-century third-party candidates. The losses of Bush in 1992 and Gore in 2000 could not exist in a vacuum, and the modern vilification of third-party characters was established and sustained by the American two-party system. Instead of being celebrated for their checks on democracy, candidates like Perot and Nader became the enemies of not only parties but also of an electorate who believed them to be ineffectual and detracting from ‘real candidacies.’ 

However, these arguments are misguided. 

For clarity, one must break complex ideas about voter psychology and decision-making into two (over-)simplified categories. First, there are ‘rational voters’ – usually long-time voters, ‘rational’ members of the electorate are familiar with the two-party system and unlikely to deviate from this norm. As such, they make decisions in primaries, generals, and specials based on the likelihood of a particular candidate winning with some resemblance to the voter’s personal values. This distinction is important: the voter focuses on electing a palatable candidate they believe will bring about the least problematic victorious outcome. ‘Rational voters’ are less concerned with the morality of their candidate and would prefer an effective politician who is familiar with the political machine and inclined to make slow, steady progress towards an America the voter desires. 

Second, there are ‘idealist voters.’ As one might expect, these voters offer diametrically opposing views. Rather than casting their vote on the likelihood of a prospective candidate winning, idealists check the box for the candidate they feel best represents their morals and values. These voters are becoming less common as our two-party system becomes more polarized, and voters feel forced to choose the ‘lesser of two evils.’ A true idealist voter does not consider a third-party vote in a contested election to be a spoiler; instead, they believe that their selected candidate simply best represents their morals, values, and vision for a better America. 

So why would voting for Cornel West be the right choice this November? For me, this comes down to policy and background.

After the October 7th attack and subsequent Hamas-Israel War in the Gaza Strip, it has become increasingly difficult to identify my ‘lesser of two evils.’ Biden’s danger as a commander-in-chief goes beyond his age: he poses the threat of a third world war while facilitating one of the most fatal genocides (deemed by other scholars an ethnic cleansing or spacio-cide) in recent history. The administration’s actions have been indefensible, and any human rights advocate who chooses to vote for him will be forgoing a major alignment with their morality. Conversely, a vote for Trump cannot be defended either: his neo-fascism, white supremacy, and denial of democratic processes make his renewal a one-way ticket to a civil war that will inevitably turn into a global one. A vote for either candidate is not one for a ‘less bad outcome.’ A vote for Biden or Trump is a vote for some of the most irresponsible and dangerous governance the country has ever seen. 

Now, to make a case for Cornel West.

West’s status as an academic-politician is controversial, and rightfully so. Max Weber’s evaluations of science and politics as vocations in 1917 and 1919, respectively, find that being an effective professor and legislator are distinct and difficult professions that should not overlap. Earlier in his career, Weber desired to accomplish exactly that overlap; his failures made him critical of political idealists, of academic members of “the classes who own nothing.” For me, this distinction is not as clear-cut as Weber makes it sound. Weber seems to authorize an academic throwing in the towel – self-corrupting – to become the political savior he desires. To be clear, I don’t believe West to be a political savior, but I do view him as a suitable academic-politician with the ability to navigate politics competently, intelligently, and morally. 

Finally, I believe West holds the views of a true member of the left, not just the watered-down American left. West’s sharp opposition to the military-industrial complex, U.S. support of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and weak climate policy demonstrate his commitment to a strong leftist bent. Perhaps more important, though, West understands and rebukes American imperialism, racism in the United States, and anti-labor neoliberalism. His views are consistent, thoughtful, and attainable, which is hard to find in the realm of leftist thought. 

When activists and politicians defend Biden through fear-mongering about a Trump presidency, they ignore the reality that the two-party system will not be eliminated from within. When former leaders of Students for a Democratic Society believe that the New Left “cannot see the difference between a capitalist democrat and a proto-fascist,” they miss the mark almost entirely. Members of the New Left, including myself, have reached the point that they cannot see the difference between a ‘milquetoast’ neoliberal enabling genocide and an autocratic racist. 

Idealist voters don’t have their heads in the clouds and are not unrealistic. Rather, they cannot be content with immobile institutions and cyclical policymaking that makes a mockery of democracy. Instead of continuing to wait for a third-party candidate considered viable for the presidency, I believe the time to act is now. A large showing for Cornel West in November would mean a catalyst for change: showing career legislators that their posts are not permanent, party treasurers that donations are not guaranteed, and coalitions across party lines that the two-party system is unstable. A vote for West in November is not wasted because change is rarely immediate. In my view, the faraway election year where the perfect third-party candidate runs may never come. Idealist voters this November will not be making a mistake by voting for West, or any third-party candidate for that matter: they will be rocking the binary boat that has existed in calm waters for far too long.

This November, I will be voting for Cornel West – not because I believe he will win and not because I want to vote for a spoiler – but because I believe in him and his values. We have to start somewhere.