Taking a Harm Reduction Approach to Voting
February 12, 2025
“Hitler did some good things. I won’t say he didn’t do some good things — the ‘Autobahn’ — he gave more people work — we won’t say he didn’t do some good things. But the other things. The things they say he did — we know nothing about it.”
- Frau Halbestadt, Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)
Child survivors of Auschwitz are seen in this 1945 photograph. (Creative Commons)
It is becoming common to hear Trump voters who have been ostracized by family and friends complain that it is unfair that people are judging them on “politics.” They tend to list the reasons they voted for Trump, which usually include border security, immigration, crime, and the economy. They act as if those are very rational reasons to vote for a candidate and friendships should not dissolve over mere political disagreements. But are these disagreements really political (in the sense of partisanship, which I think most of them mean)?
The list of reasons Trump voters give for supporting him is eerily similar to the reasons Germans gave for supporting Hitler, both in terms of subject matter and in the way the obfuscate what the political leader they supported really planned to do. The divide between the fascist and the antifascist is much wider than that between traditional American liberals and conservatives. For decades after 1945, liberals and conservatives in the US generally agreed on the framework of government and policy - particularly foreign policy. The major parties themselves had both liberals and conservatives in them.
The had their differences, and sometimes they were big ones, but they were usually political not fundamental. Labor rights is one example. Most people accepted the right to collectively bargain, but the differences were in how strongly that right would be protected and mediated by the government. But there were fundamental difference, and we saw that when it came to civil rights and voting rights. When race was at issue, the differences were over values, not political opinions. Refusing to recognize the equality and humanity of one’s neighbor is something quite different than disagreeing over the use of secondary boycotts.
Are people’s refusal to break bread with their Trump-supporting friends and family based on political disagreements? It may appear so when the situation is framed as Trump supporters frame it. They frame their support as concerns about border security and the economy. The problem is that they are assigning the judgment of their family and friends to the wrong things. The seemingly standard category of issues they claim to care about hide the inhumanity of the details, which we have seen operationalized in less than month out from the inauguration. Putting aside for the moment how ingrained racism and xenophobia are with the Trump voter’s issues, the problem lies even deeper than that, just as it did with Hitler. And like Hitler, Trump made no secret of what he planned to do in advance of the election. So no voter has any business saying without shame that they had no idea Trump would do the things he already has done in three weeks in office.
As many people have noted, the issue is not about politics; it’s about values. For instance, we can have a reasonable debate about immigration. We can debate quotas, procedures, amnesties, security. But Trump will not even agree on facts, so we can’t even have an honest discussion about these things. And migrants and refugees are human beings in need of help. But for Trump, immigrants are vermin. That’s not politics; that’s dehumanization. If your guy will not deal honestly and in good faith, and focuses on dehumanization rather than humane solutions, you are responsible for that when you vote for him. And you have no valid gripe over being judged for it when your support contributes to him being elected. Although we have fallen short time and again over the years, until now the United States was considered a leader in human rights and due process. Now, we are becoming a pariah. That’s not because of a mere political change; it’s due to a sharp change in values from the administration.
When Judge Haywood asks his German housekeeper Frau Halbestadt about whether Germans knew of the atrocities carried out by the Nazis in Judgment at Nuremberg, you can tell from the look on her and her husband’s faces that they were in some part complicit. Still, and maybe because she was concerned about consequences, instead of just denying it she has to frame it in the context of Hitler having done “some good things.” That is a tell. She did support Hitler, and instead of admitting that and atoning for it, she rationalizes it. You might be surprised to hear this, but Nixon did a few good things too. More than you might think. But he still used the power of the executive branch to punish his perceived enemies and to undermine the 1972 election so that Democrats would not nominate any of the strongest candidates against him. He did support the EPA and the Equal Rights Amendment; and he used illegal campaign contributions to pay fascists like Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy to attack democracy while interfering with legitimate criminal investigations that could politically damage him.
When Nixon’s wife died, a good friend said to me after watching the former president break down in tears at her funeral, “did you see that? I guess he is not completely evil.” My response: “even Hitler loved dogs.” The problem of evil in the world is that it is not all-encompassing all the time. Hitler was reportedly very fond of animals and was kind to them. That’s nice, but it does not make up for the Holocaust. People have a hard time processing how anyone who is not pure evil can do evil things when we have example after example of people doing that all the time. When Luigi Mangione assassinated the CEO of United Healthcare, we heard a lot of people in the media scold people who sympathized with the shooter saying, “Thompson was a husband and a father.” He was. And so was John Wayne Gacy. Putting aside whether the mere act of being a husband and father makes one a good person, being good on occasion does not make you a good person. But that is the implication here.
Judgment at Nuremberg (United Artists; Stanley Kramer, dir., 1961)
What does this have to do with the issues Trump supporters tend to give as their reasons for voting for him? It is the “Hitler did good things too” excuse. It says, regardless of how bad this person is making other people’s lives, I am not responsible because I supported him to lower taxes. It gives them an out when it comes to the evil stuff. And on top of it, in time they will typically claim that the evil stuff was overblown by people with some kind of agenda (compare this with the conspiracy theorist’s secret cabal and the fascist’s Other). As Christopher Hitchens said, the revisionism always comes when his supporters start to say, “what did Nixon really do anyway? And it probably wasn’t that bad.” That’s how Nixon’s reputation was revived in the 80s. Frau Halbestadt is guilty of this as well when she can’t just admit that Hitler did evil things, that that was just what they said he did.
When people ignore the cruel and evil things that politicians like Trump say they will do and then vote for him, buyer’s remorse after the election is too late. There is no honest way for Trump voters to say they had no idea he would do any of the things he has already done, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t regret their part in putting him in office. Many of those voters - the ones with regrets - will do as Frau Halbestadt did and claim that Trump does good things too and that is why they supported him. Voters who abstained and regret it now will make the excuse that there was no good alternative at the time. Abstainers have to stop making the perfect the enemy of the good, and those who vote for the Trump figure have to start considering the real impact of cruel rhetoric that they would prefer to believe is puffery.
This brings us to harm reduction in voting. What does that mean? To be uncharitable, you might consider it a more positive spin on the “lesser of two evils” approach to voting. Folks see that they have a binary choice, and they would prefer a different one.1 Some, but not all, of these folks think there is little to no difference between the choice. Others see there are differences, but they tend to be minor, although not unimportant, ones in the grand scheme of things. Some hold their nose and pick the lesser of the evils. Others abstain or vote for a minor party candidate. The dilemma is presented as if there are no real consequences for abstaining if you are principled (or disgusted). This is something the right wing has encouraged for decades - this is why they engage in so much false equivalence. They know they can carve out more progressive-minded voters this way because conservatives will not take the bait.
The term “harm reduction” has its origins in public health rather than electoral politics. Developed during the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, it was a progressive challenge to the “war on drugs.” While the “war on drugs” pretended to be about saving people from the scourge of drug addiction, it failed in this task but succeeded in strengthening institutionalized racism. The “harm reduction” approach, on the other hand, accepted the reality of drug use, and sought to provide services that would mitigate the worst effects of drug addiction. Most notably, this involved setting up needle exchange programs that could provide heroin addicts with clean needles, which could prevent the spread of HIV.
Harm reduction focuses on what real-world consequences will fall on people based on the collective decision we make at election time. It does not tend towards opting-out - as the lesser of two evils perspective inevitably does - but on who is likely to do the least harm to people, particularly vulnerable populations.
There is legitimate criticism that voting is not harm reduction, but that is not what I am suggesting. I am arguing for using a harm reduction approach when you cast your vote. What’s the difference? The idea that voting is harm reduction tends to do at least two things: (1) it provides the voter with a disincentive to do anything other than vote and (2) it gives the impression that voting is the singular way we accomplish harm reduction. Employing a harm reduction approach to voting is different in that it is the way we understand how our vote, even where we do not like any of the choices, makes real-world differences in the type or degree of impacts upon vulnerable populations.2
Arab Americans for Trump is a useful illustration of the failure of a group of voters to take harm reduction into account. This group was committed to opposing Harris and the Biden Administration for perceived and actual support for genocide in Gaza. A serious issue if there ever was one. Their electoral answer was to support Trump, someone who anyone with internet access can easily determine is much more hostile to the Palestinian cause. The group has recently changed its name to Arab Americans for Peace after expressing shock that Trump has appointed persons hostile to the Palestinians to Mid-East diplomatic positions and is now supporting the relocating the 2.2 million displaced Gazans to Jordan or Egypt while the US takes over their land and develops resorts and casinos on it.
A lesser of two evils approach to the 2024 election might have steered the group into advising Arab Americans to not vote for either major party candidate. A harm reduction approach would have steered them to support Harris. Why? Because even if you assume Harris has been in complete support of Biden’s policy regarding Gaza (and she wasn’t), you would have to conclude that Harris would favor humanitarian solutions and aid to Gazans, be tougher on Israel than Trump, and never even consider forcing Gazans into a diaspora so we could turn their home into a playground for the rich. An honest and good faith consideration of how Harris and Trump would likely approach the Gazan situation would produce a conclusion that Harris would be better for Gazans than Trump.
But, we can also call that a wash for the sake of argument. Let’s say we cannot discern any different consequences for Gaza depending on who you vote for. What then? Well, there are other issues and while many of them are not as serious as Gaza is for Gazans, they are life and death for other people. In just the past three weeks, Trump has closed experimental medical trials, told the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children that they would lose their funding unless they removed any mention of LBQTQIA+ from their materials and to start deadnaming trans kids, and has started deporting alleged undocumented persons (including Puerto Ricans, who are US Citizens) who have committed no crimes. That would seem like a lot to begin with, but it’s just a small sample of what he has already done.
These three examples alone will kill people. Patients losing access to their medical trials might never recover. It is well established that deadnaming trans kids leads to suicides. And we know that many deported folks who left their home countries because of violence there will return to dangerous situations. While some of the specifics of what Trump has already done may not have been anticipated, the general outline of what he is doing was laid out in writing by the Heritage Foundation (Project 2025) and Trump, while disingenuously saying he knew nothing about it, would trumpet its policy suggestions at every campaign rally - not to mention it was well-reported in the media. If you never saw a story about it, you either don’t pay any attention to any news or you only pay attention to right wing echo chamber propaganda.
It is surprising the number of Trump voters who seem to regret voting for him only three months after they cast their votes. But I am skeptical it’s a real phenomenon. They seem mad at him for things that somehow impact their families, particularly related to the federal funding freeze. A lot of Republicans were disgusted with Trump on January 6, 2021 but they voted for him again anyway. And that was a coup attempt. If you read what conservatives are saying on Reddit and other places on the internet, even when they are mad at Trump they still don’t tend to blame him. There is clearly some kind of cognitive dissonance at work here.
There was a time I thought that what motivated Trump supporters to continue to double-down on him after being shown he was conning them was the old saw that it's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. Now, I am starting to think that - for an increasing number of them - it is shame. People will focus on imaginary good things an evil person does rather than admit they supported them and were wrong to do so.
In any case, it is important in future elections that we focus on harm reduction where we have disagreements with both major party candidates. We have to consider the impacts on other people when we vote, especially those who need help or are otherwise vulnerable.
Almost all of us prefer a different one, but I bet we all have very different ideas about who that different one would be. It’s naive to think that there is one grand consensus choice out there that the two party system is blocking. However, the two party system is blocking preferences from being accurately represented in government, that’s for sure.
Another criticism of “voting is harm reduction” is that it complicates the ability of left parties to build electoral support. This criticism comes largely from Canada, which has a parliamentary system. The US does not, and supporting left parties in this country has a bigger tendency to create harm than harm reduction because minor parties necessarily act as spoilers in a two-party presidential republic such as ours - at least where both major parties can capture about 45% of the vote in any election.