I have spent the last several nights staying up way too late to watch the Democratic National Convention (DNC). After my brief stint in local politics and becoming friends with several Maine politicians, it made watching this year’s convention different than prior years—starting with the fact that several friends were delegates. I never could have imagined that one day I would know several people who were delegates, but here I am. (By the way, one of them will be doing a guest piece in the coming days about their time at the DNC)
If the purpose of the convention is to lock in the nominee—a coronation if you will—and to create a positive buzz around the candidate while generally letting us know the candidate’s platform and policies, this year’s DNC was a resounding success. The Dems created an event that felt far more inclusive than I recall and delivered an energy that brought a spirit of hope for many. From stars like Oprah to former presidents and first ladies—to even having former Trump administration members speaking—there was almost something for everyone.
Except there were voices missing and for a number of voters, it was those who were not allowed to speak at the main stage of the DNC that threatens to mar the overall success of the convention and possibly derail Kamala Harris’s chances at winning.
For some voters, the only issue of concern is the United States putting our foot on Benjamin Netanyahu’s neck and securing a permanent ceasefire to stop the genocide in Gaza—like yesterday. Along with the United States ending our support of Israel and discontinuing our funding of Israel, and stopping the flow of American-made arms into Israel that are being used to kill and maim the people of Gaza.
For those voters, there is no support of Harris that can be offered until those things occur, and the campaign’s decision to not allow any Palestinian-American speakers was the final insult for them. They would rather Harris lose and Trump regain power rather than settle for the lesser of two evils—since at this point, we all know that there is no path to the Oval Office for a third-party candidate.
In the ideal world, we would make that ceasefire happen immediately and do all we can to make amends to the people of Gaza. The uncomfortable truth is that we don’t live in the ideal world and in a country where unconditional and unwavering support for Israel has been baked into the American psyche and government for more years than I have been alive, it’s going to be a process to make that change. It also will require more than a sitting president to move that needle.
While it can start with a president, it will also need to be a mind-shift that filters down to all levels of government in this country including Congress. Otherwise, in my humble opinion, we are engaging in fanciful thinking that will only lead to frustration.
There is more than the presidency on the ballot this year, as 468 seats in Congress are also up for grabs this year, including all 435 House seats and 33 Senate seats. Imagine what we might accomplish if we elected a Congress that supports sea change when it comes to Israel? After all, it is Congress that keeps approving the funding requests for Israel. I’m just saying.
It’s a little simplistic to lay this all at the feet of a president when there are plenty of people in Congress who are happy to continue the status quo. Given that many people who end up the U.S. Congress start in their local state houses, it also means looking at who we are electing in our respective statehouses.
What I am trying to say is this: The president wields a great deal of power but there are others involved and at the moment we need to focus on all the players in this system if we want actual change.
Change in this country is rarely a quick process, it’s a long-fought battle that in many cases takes decades to achieve.
I was recently talking to a friend who is a 60-year-old transman. A man who when he came out over 40 years ago, it was not legally sanctioned to be gay or trans. A man who remembers the world before when gay marriage and gay rights were still debated; when gay acceptance—much less openly gay or trans lawmakers—simply wasn’t a thing. I, too, remember those days. I remember a classmate in high school who was deep in the closet because in the 1980s, it wasn’t safe to be a gay boy in America’s third largest city. I remember the time when pride parades were not socially acceptable, family-friendly, corporate-sponsored events but rather subversive acts to fight back.
My friend is petrified of what a second Trump term will mean for him and others in the LGTBQ+ community, considering Project 2025. As the mother of a queer child, I am petrified. She is coming of age in a world that was unimaginable to me even 30 years ago. She is relatively free to date and love whom she chooses and walk down the street with that person and not fear for her life—for now.
Thirty-three years ago, I was married to a white man, and I remember how hard it was for us to find an apartment in Chicago. Calls to see apartments that mysteriously were no longer available when we arrived an hour later to see them. I remember trying to file discrimination complaints and not having them taken seriously.
I remember the looks of disgust and the taunts of my son’s father being called a nigger-lover for being with me. This was in 1991 in Chicago. Yet in 33 years, we have reached a place where interracial marriage and gay relationships barely raise eyebrows, even within conservative enclaves.
That progress and cultural shift did not happen overnight, it took decades of work, especially in the case of interracial marriages, which while legalized in 1967—thanks to Loving v. Virginia—still took many years to be normalized and accepted. The same with civil rights; the movement started in the early 1950s, but took many years to result in changes and legal protections. But people didn’t give up; they stayed in the work knowing there would be losses and setbacks. They were realistic and knew it was a long game.
I fear that in today’s nonstop world, our expectations are not aligned with the reality of what it means to fight the status quo. It means accepting that both/and can be true. It means accepting the messiness of facing the possible prospect of our first female president, who is also a Black/Asian woman—a prospect almost no one dared to imagine after Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016 just for being a woman alone.
It would be a win on so many levels but it also means accepting that our first female president isn’t going to necessarily be all that we want on our personal wish list. That to a large degree, our jobs will be to push her into a greater humanity while recognizing that the weight of the world is on her and that as a woman of color, she operates in a space many can never dare to imagine and that even if she were elected and does put her heels on Netanyahu’s neck, she doesn’t exist in a bubble. She is part of a larger interconnected system that also needs change. A system where genocide was baked into the fabric of our country’s formation. Moving away from accepting genocide as the norm is going to take work.
My hope is that she represents change and at least in this first month since launching her campaign, she seems far more receptive to being moved than her predecessors. I expect like others before her, if elected, she will disappoint but I am also not willing to roll back what has become our societal norms and protections because she is not fully aligned with my values.
As for the DNC’s decision of not allowing a Palestinian-American on the main stage, the optics aren’t great. But knowing folks inside the convention, the fact that there was a panel of Palestinian speakers is encouraging. Because many of the delegates are active in their state’s political systems and if they take back what they heard at that panel, I suspect many seeds of change were planted. Again, change requires a system overhaul and some of that change may not yet be visible.
While I will never discourage anyone from following their moral compass, I also know sometimes it’s hard to see the entire picture when we are honed in on the most horrific.
As for me, last night I had a dream that I was out with friends and stopped at a coffee shop where suddenly I was surrounded by a flock of uniformed officers telling me to get down. The next thing I knew, I was face-down on the ground being handcuffed. As they picked me up, I kept asking what I had done and why was I being arrested? They kept telling me, “You know, you dissident.” Eventually I was told that my writing on my blog was why I was being arrested; I was in violation of a law. The dream got fuzzy after that, but I woke up scared that I had been arrested. Obviously, I wasn’t arrested but what I do recall was that Trump was president and somehow, we no longer had freedom of speech.
Once upon a time, such a dream would have seemed far-fetched, but we are teetering on the edge of that very scenario becoming our shared reality. I hope that we as a collective can rally to ensure that regardless of the outcome of this year’s election, we aren’t on the fast track to go backwards and lose what we hold true and dear—including our right to dissent without fearing for our lives and freedoms. Since, if that happens, I am not sure how we can help Gaza, much less ourselves.
If this piece resonated with you, please consider a tip, or become a monthly patron, if you aren’t already. I offer my work freely, to ensure that it is accessible to all but if you have the means to support it, please do so. Remember, I do work with groups and organizations, if you want to work with me, please reach out for details.
