Biden Has to Go
The alternative is awful. But there's just no getting around genocide - it must be punished.
A small but (justifiably) frustrated group consisting primarily (but not exclusively) of center-to-far left leaning Muslim activists online have started a social media campaign in recent weeks in response to President Biden’s unwavering and maniacal support for Israeli genocide against the Palestinians. The campaign, dubbed “Abandon Biden,” has been variously used by its exponents i) as an attempt to coax the Biden administration to rein in its current level of support for Israel, ii) a threat to Democrats that the “Muslim vote” is not theirs by default and must be earned, iii) a push for liberal politicians and media personalities more broadly to show greater empathy for Palestinian loss of life and demonstrate even-handedness in public deliberations over the Middle East, and iv) an angry rejection of Biden and conscientious pledge to vote for a non-Biden candidate in the forthcoming election this November.
This article is an attempt to tease out the considerations of a potential “Abandon Biden” move. It argues that such a move is indeed warranted, and that in order for it to have any success, it will need to grow far more muscular and be prepared to become politically adversarial in ways that Muslims have yet to embrace.
Should Muslims Risk Trump?
Before going too far, I suppose I should start by addressing the elephant in the room that arises anytime abandoning Biden is given serious consideration, namely, the possibility of yet another Trump presidency. It is important here to note upfront that predicting political outcomes is not a trivial task and is predicated upon weighing variables with different degrees of certainty. One cannot fully anticipate what the future may bring, and it is not always clear how a politician, even a seemingly predictable and brazen polemicist like Trump, might respond in a given moment.
Given the inherent difficulty in forecasting political outcomes, one makes best-effort judgments based on known variables. A non-comprehensive list of these variables includes presidential vows and policy proposals (a candidate's “platform”), precedent and what the candidate has voted for and promoted in the past, and the political context he will be operating within. In my estimation, far too many everyday voters and experts take campaign promises as suggestive of who candidates really are and what they will invariably stand for once in office. However, this is often not the case. Case in point: in 2006, then-Senator Biden vehemently favored building a large, unimpeachable fence along the southern border. In 2019, candidate Biden was as close to “open borders” as a candidate could possibly be – he spoke of absorbing all asylum seekers, lamented the deportations that took place under Obama, and proposed a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants. Now-President Biden just last month promised to “shut down” the border and enact comprehensive reforms to restrict illegal immigration in exchange for GOP support for a massive Ukraine military aid bill. In yet another turn of events, reports are out now stating that President Biden is considering unilateral action even without GOP support to further restrict border access.
What does any of this mean for Trump? It means that candidate Trump will undoubtedly be belligerent, obnoxious, and a performative panderer – however, it also means that not all of that rhetoric will translate into actual policy. One can safely predict that Trump will offend segments of the American public, that he’ll make grandiose declarations and embellish his own record in absurd ways, that his ego will remain outsized and insufferable, and that he will also likely pander to ethnonationalist factions in the country. If all of those (likely) events occur, they don’t serve as a reliable indicator of what Trump’s actual presidency will look like substantively.
Just as forecasting future outcomes can be difficult, so too can retroactive hypothesizing. One of the primary points raised against Abandon Biden has been that although Biden is undoubtedly abetting Israel’s genocide, Trump would have been worse. In spite of the intuitiveness of such a judgment, the reality is that it is unclear how the past few years would have fared under a Trump administration, and there are at least a few scenarios where the slaughter of Palestinians would have been mitigated if not altogether avoided. Consider a few:
Possibility 1: Entering a second term, Trump hails his mideast policy an unmitigated success and pushes the Kushner normalization strategy forward. Within the first year of his second term, KSA formally accepts Israel and announces bilateral relations, while MBS becomes an accepted and praised political actor on the world stage. These events severely weaken the resistance and stifle future possibilities of Palestinian statehood, though they also create a context in which violent reprisal by Hamas and other actors becomes implausible.
Possibility 2: 10/7 transpires exactly as it has under Biden. In response, Trump ratchets up his rhetoric and calls for unrestrained violence against the Palestinians. He demeans millions and trafficks in language that betrays animus towards Arabs and Muslims. A distrust of Trump’s uninhibited promotion of violence results in a massive backlash against Israel’s heavy-handed response. Trump’s public support for Israel becomes a political liability for the rogue state. Under immense public pressure and confronted with a president espousing unvarnished bigotry, the Democrats galvanize support around an immediate ceasefire, while European and Western powers refrain from offering their uncritical backing. Although many Palestinians die, the razing of Gaza is halted after a few weeks.
Possibility 3: Like Possibility 2, the events of 10/7 transpire. By now, Trump has effectively isolated America by severing global alliances, pulling the plug on NATO (which has led some previous allies to strike deals with Russia or China), and rejecting the authority of the UN. These moves undermine America’s traditional leadership role, a requirement for Israeli military impunity. They also lead to an acceleration in Iran’s nuclear program and gulf alliances focused on countering a mounting Iranian threat. Trump’s rhetoric and response to 10/7, predictably caustic and offensive, is responded to with global outrage. Arab countries in the Middle East face overwhelming demonstrations and the credibility of their leaders collapses. An “Arab Spring”-like moment ensues, and militaries take control of domestic politics in order to suppress public sentiment and maintain order. Facing emboldened enemies at their borders and fearing further regional instability, Israel reins in their response and negotiates a hostage exchange after a few weeks, effectively ending the conflict.
In a few of the above scenarios, the outrage Trump’s words and actions produce play a role in paradoxically undermining his desired outcomes. Of course, such paradoxical politics is nothing new under Trump: one sees the potency of political reactions in his general ineffectiveness when it came to a number of his hallmark policy goals during his first term: immigration, border wall, healthcare, and foreign trade. Whether public reaction would have operated as hypothesized in the case of Israel is a matter of speculation. It is not, however, beyond the realm of possibility, and what is (virtually) beyond dispute is that Trump would have produced far greater outrage and opposition had he undertaken the exact course of action and made the same statements Biden has over the past few months.
To be clear, it is also possible, perhaps even likely, that things today would be a great deal worse for the Palestinians under a hypothetical Trump presidency. The point here is merely to challenge the general confidence that he would have definitely been “worse than Biden” – although he may well have been worse than Biden on a great many things, it is unclear that his presidency would have overseen a genocide of the scale Biden has not only been privy to, but played a key part in.
Nevertheless, the question of whether Trump would have been worse is an important one, and a second Trump term, should it come to pass, will not be without consequence. Those consequences notwithstanding, this piece takes for granted that voting out a man who oversaw and abetted an actual genocide (and who continues to do so) more than offsets the risks of a president whose moral failings and political shortcomings pale in comparison. Moreover, it takes the argument of a possible worsening of the genocide into account, but nevertheless supports the idea that “certainty is not overcome by doubt,” i.e., an actual genocide is worse than a potential one.
Recovering Clout with the Dems? What’s the Aim of Abandoning Biden?
A common argument in favor of abandoning Biden relies on a particular political calculation with respect to the Democratic Party: the Democrats have taken the Muslim vote for granted and ignored our concerns with respect to Gaza. In order to therefore “prove” our worth and show that we are a voting bloc not to be ignored, we must abandon Biden and those complicit within the Democratic party temporarily – specifically for the upcoming election – in hopes that we are taken more seriously in future races.
Although the acquisition of political clout is not wholly unmerited, the idea that Biden, or any Democratic party candidate for that matter, should be situationally abandoned presupposes an unwarranted level of loyalty to the Democratic party: we are ultimately “with” them and simply seek to ensure that our political efforts are done collectively and with a modicum of respect. In other words, the general straining over whether Biden should be abandoned itself betrays just how deeply entrenched many have become psychologically to the Democratic party. Far too many have to be convinced, pleaded with, virtually begged to merely cast a ballot for someone other than Biden in spite of the open air genocide of our brothers and sisters. It is not that these Muslims are indifferent or unmoved by Palestinian suffering, but that liberal politics have somehow come to hold an emotional grip on them that cannot easily be dislodged.
Far from renegotiating the terms of our liberal loyalties, Muslims need to reconfigure their relationship to politics entirely. No candidate or party is owed our unwavering and permanent support. Whether we back or oppose candidates should occur on the basis of prudential judgments concerning specific issues that they come out for or against.
It bears repeating that Islam is “neither left nor right.” It should surprise no one that a tradition spanning fourteen hundred years, contributed to by thousands of theologians and intellectuals throughout the ages, and tethered to divine writ, does not conform to the latest liberal or conservative fashions. Cultivating a critical distance between politicians and parties we have supported in the past and the principles which inform how we live our lives, morality and ethics, and our duties to God is sorely needed. And even as we discover the occasional ally, we must recognize the fickle nature of partisan politics, that policies and platforms are often a reflection of special interests, money, and political expediency, not principle.
The principal reasoning for “abandoning” Biden, therefore, has little to do with “sending a message” to the Democrats, and far more to do with punishing genocide enablers. Joe Biden, by any reasonable measure, is a war criminal. In a just society, he would be imprisoned and spend the remainder of his natural life rotting in jail. Short of that, he deserves our utmost scorn. We should do everything in our power to ensure that he faces humiliation, ridicule, and mockery. The brutal murder of Palestinians should be the legacy for which he is remembered long after he dies.
Is the “Muslim Vote” Enough?
Probably not. No formal studies have been done on the number of eligible Muslim voters by state, and the Census does not collect data on religious affiliation, so it is difficult to determine exactly how many Muslims live in each state and what electoral effect they are capable of having. In recent years a few Muslim advocacy organizations have worked to produce studies assessing Muslim participation in certain states, such as Emgage and the ISPU. Emgage’s report entitled Impact 2020 studied twelve states where Emgage mobilized a “Million Muslim Vote” campaign in 2020. According to the report, 71% of eligible Muslim voters in the states studied actually voted, a tad higher than the 66% turnout among the general population for the same election. Moreover, the report stated that Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have a registered Muslim voter population over 100,000, Michigan and Virginia both have over 200,000, and Texas boasts the highest Muslim voter population of the studied group with over 300,000 registered Muslim voters.
ISPU’s “Understanding the American Muslim Voter” reports that 78% of eligible Muslim voters register to vote. The report further notes that 15% of those eligible to vote express little interest in voting, while 26% of the community is ineligible to vote, mostly due to being non-citizens. The potential (likely) inaccuracies of these studies notwithstanding, if the ISPU and Emgage numbers are taken for granted, and we assume: a) all registered Muslims cast a ballot in the upcoming election, b) they uniformly vote for a non-Biden candidate, and c) they all voted for Biden in 2020, the question before us is whether Muslims, on their own, would have been able to swing the 2020 election in Trump’s favor in any of the Emgage studied states. Given that 2020 was a historically close race, an absolute shift with the aforementioned assumptions leads to the following swings:
Georgia, with a disparity of 12,000 votes, would have gone Trump (16 electoral votes)
Michigan would have barely gone Trump (16 electoral votes)
Pennsylvania would have also swung in Trump’s favor (20 electoral votes)
This would have given Trump 284 electoral votes, which is just over the 270 electoral votes needed to secure victory.
Although some may see this as representing the strength of the “Muslim vote,” consider the sheer number of unlikely assumptions needed in order to barely swing a historically close race:
That every eligible Muslim voter actually votes
That Muslim voters vote with a greater level of uniformity than any demographic or faith group in electoral history
That the margins of the 2020 presidential election will repeat themselves in identical fashion
That the reported numbers in the Emgage study represent reasonable approximations and have not been embellished in order to play up the Muslim vote or their own organizational success
And so on. Given the near impossibility of all of those factors aligning, the likelihood of Muslims swinging an even close election on their own is unlikely (though not impossible), and certainly not something that presidential candidates will pander to as part of their campaigns.
This picture is complicated further when you consider that some studies report that a majority of American Muslims either blame Hamas for the current genocide or implicate “both sides” as bearing responsibility. It is also likely that at some point between now and November that things in the region will settle down. The momentum to replace Netanyahu with Benny Gantz has picked up steam, and broad dissatisfaction over Netanyahu and his administration's response to 10/7 remain palpable. Recent reports also state that Hamas and Israel are making progress over a hostage release deal.
If Netanyahu is replaced by Gantz in the coming months, Biden’s administration will likely take credit and use it to its advantage with dissatisfied left-wing constituencies. The failure of stopping a genocide will be likened to a blip on the radar, an unfortunate misstep in an otherwise pristine political resume, and superior to the alternative in Trump who would have done little to remove Netanyahu, let alone pressure him to limit civilian casualties in Gaza.
In light of these (and other) factors, it is unlikely that the 'Muslim vote' alone, as part of a strategic and organized Abandon Biden movement, will be sufficient to displace Biden or galvanize the necessary support to make it effective when it counts in November.
How Can Abandon Biden Work?
Is it possible for Abandon Biden to become politically effective given these limitations? Yes – at least I think so. Plenty of minorities have learned to use the system to punch above their weight on the national stage, and the Abandon Biden camp can learn from their successes to become a thorn in the side of the Democratic Party and potentially swing the upcoming election.
In order to do so, however, Abandon Biden will have to build a coalition broader than the narrow group of disaffected Arabs and Muslims that currently promote it online. It must appeal and speak to Biden’s base and convey in graphic detail why Biden’s genocidal conduct has rendered him unfit for office. A few potential actions that can facilitate this:
Solicit funds. Far-left patrons aligned with Cornel West and Jill Stein are natural candidates here. But so too are megarich GOP donors eager to see a Biden loss and willing to make an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” bargain. Though such donations will surely scandalize many leftists and potentially damage the credibility of the movement in front of some, it will also enable a great deal of outreach and activity that is simply impossible with the current resource limitations.
Abandon Biden must be prepared to ramp up its activity in the heart of election season, namely, September and October. Advertising, canvassing, signage, and more needs to be done in left leaning districts in swing states. Highway billboards reading “GENOCIDE JOE” with photoshopped pictures of Joe Biden’s hands stained with blood, pictures of Gaza in ruins, and children and families killed. The full weight of the atrocities Biden has underwritten and actively endorsed need to be brought to bear.
Disruptive protesters at Biden and Harris campaign stops must continue and be a nuisance for his team. Ideally, this would extend to other key figures – Antony Blinken, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, etc.
Op-eds should be written for major publications pushing for candidates that backed a ceasefire and discuss why the genocide of the Palestinians and ethnic cleansing of Gaza is a war crime that should not be forgotten at the polls.
A well-organized media and PR team should be prepared for interviews and help broaden the public conversation concerning Abandon Biden
All the while, Abandon Biden volunteers and organizers should be prepared for intense scrutiny from Biden loyalists and anger from (some) insecure Muslim activists who will cast them as useful idiots for right-wing islamophobes. It is also likely that by that point the passion for Gaza and Palestine will have attenuated a great deal, and that many people distraught today by the genocide of Gaza will have reconciled themselves to this “policy error” of the Biden administration and regard it as something akin to bad tax policy, but not fundamentally disqualifying, especially in the face of a far-right menace like Donald Trump.
Ultimately, Abandon Biden will only be able to accomplish something meaningful if it maintains its righteous passion and resolve in the months ahead. A growing chorus maligning the movement as playing into Trump’s hands will need to be ignored, and to those and others criticizing the movement, the simple facts of Palestinian genocide will need to be called upon time and again to remind those who are keen to forget or overlook the unspeakable atrocities that our brothers and sisters continue to suffer. We ask Allah to come to their aid swiftly. Ameen.
Other notes:
The New York Times is in hot water. Over the past few days, it has come to light that the lead journalist covering the alleged 10/7 “mass rape” story is a dogged Zionist ideologue with no journalistic experience of note and likely contrived the entire thing. Of course, the Times is not alone here when it comes to their coverage of Palestine. The mainstream media has little interest in representing Palestinians with a modicum of decency or even-handedness. Instead, they remain loyal servants of the military industrial complex and special interests. There are many good reasons to be mad, but even better reasons to stop listening to them. Cancel your membership if you have one and tune them out going forward.
Great conversation between Dr. Ovamir Anjum, Imam Omar Suleiman, and Wadah Khanfar on Gaza and Ummatic Sentiment.
As Ramadan approaches, I will be stepping back and focusing on worship for the next month or so. May Allah make it a blessed month for us all and make it a means for us to gain closeness to Him. Ameen.
Allah Knows Best.