Get Updates!
Membership
By Wa’el Alzayat, CEO of Emgage Action
Many of you have asked us to share our thoughts on the upcoming presidential elections and how Muslim voters should approach them. Let me first acknowledge that there is no “perfect” approach, because in politics, there are none. Candidates, like all of us, are imperfect beings who are shaped by their own lived experiences and those who support them. Another aspect that is important to note is that presidencies and their agendas are a reflection of the people presidents entrust with key portfolios. People, after all, are policy. Given the diversity of our community, we naturally care about many issues. Even as we collectively and overwhelmingly prioritize a ceasefire in Gaza, we also care about issues that are particular to our lived experiences, heritage, or geography, just like any other American.
Clearly, our community has a very difficult decision to make. On the one hand, the Biden administration has enabled a year-long Israeli war on Gaza. Following Hamas’ attacks on Israel, which Emgage Action condemned for its targeting of civilians, the administration provided unconditional support to Israel’s most right-wing leader to date, Benjamin Netanyahu. The results are before us: Gaza has been completely destroyed, tens of thousands of civilians have been killed, including many children, and a population of two million has been destitute. The violence, as we have warned, has spiraled out of control to involve a number of regional countries and actors, and the reputational damage to the United States has been profound. In his bid to widen the war and escape accountability, Netanyahu has fought to bait Iran into the war and by extension, the United States. Over the past two weeks, Israel has killed over a thousand people in Lebanon. This is heartbreaking and it must stop.
At home, our national fabric has been torn, and our students have become targets of smear campaigns and even violence. A young Palestinian child was killed, other students shot. Incidents of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are on the rise, all under a Democratic administration. The divisions this war has created has made the once unthinkable possible, which brings me to Donald Trump.
Muslims do not need to be reminded of who Donald Trump is. The man who rode an anti-Muslim hate-train to the White House, who banned our loved ones, who broke-up families, and who blessed Netanyahu’s expansionism by recognizing Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. During this nightmare in Gaza, Trump has been busy promising, should he be re-elected, to give Netanyahu even more of what he needs to “finish them.” Beyond Gaza, Trump and the brain-trust of Project 2025 have their sights set on destroying our pluralistic democracy. No more separation of church and state, no more equal protection under the law, and the Department of Education that funds our public schools will be eliminated. Believe it when Donald Trump promises to deport those who champion Palestinian rights, when his son-in-law suggests building condos over the graves of Palestinians in Gaza, and when his former and likely future ambassador to Israel says that U.S. support for Israel’s annexation of the West Bank is “based first and foremost on biblical prophecies and values.”
But what about third-party options? Surely those who have proclaimed support for a Gaza ceasefire deserve our votes. If the U.S. was a parliamentary system like some countries, then this could be an acceptable option. In many European countries, for example, small parties can be kingmakers by securing concessions from bigger parties in exchange for joining their coalitions. We saw this recently in France. But under our current system, there are no such possibilities.
No third-party candidate has a viable pathway to victory. We know that either Harris or Trump will become president, and neither will need the support of third-party candidates or their supporters after Election Day. Unless the intention is to reelect Trump, then a vote for a third-party candidate, especially in a swing state, will achieve just that. Voting for third-party candidates siphons crucial votes in battleground states where every vote matters. In 2016, votes for third-party candidates helped Trump carry Michigan by only 11,000 votes, Wisconsin by 23,000, and Pennsylvania by 44,000. The 2024 elections might come down to even smaller margins. I’ve heard some argue that, indeed, we should support Jill Stein or Cornell West to “teach Democrats a lesson”. If Donald Trump wasn’t the likely beneficiary of such punishment, I can understand the sentiment, if not the reasoning. But to willingly help someone who has promised to harm Muslims at home and abroad is reckless and dangerous. This is the same candidate that is funded by pro-settler donors who are pushing for Israeli annexation of the West Bank, vowed to give Netanyahu what he needs to “finish” the Palestinians, and has promised to deport pro-Palestinian students and activists who he refers to as “jihadists”. And that’s not all. If elected, Trump has promised to reinstate the Muslim Ban and use Title 42 to turn away asylum seekers from predominantly Black and Muslim countries, what he calls “infested” countries.
There is a certain privilege that is required to accept another four years of Trump. His devastating policies had and will have a very deep impact on many, including immigrants, refugees, communities of color, the poor, and Palestinians, should he be reelected. Clearly, what Trump has in store for many of us, not to mention our pluralistic democracy, is not something we should so readily enable.
Perhaps most importantly when seeking to “teach lessons”, is to make sure that we learn from previous ones. In 2000, Muslim leaders urged the community to vote for Bush-Chenny. The Gore-Liberman ticket was viewed as inherently pro-Israel because Liberman was Jewish. The former senator was indeed a strong supporter of Israel, but so were many of Bush’s top advisors. Another rationale was the proclaimed socially conservative agenda of the Republican party, especially in regard to gay marriage and school vouchers. The argument, it went, was to vote according to our “values” and to secure a Muslim voting bloc to show our power. Despite plenty of signs regarding the ascendance of neoconservatives in the Republican party and their focus on White Christian values, the community went with Bush in an election that came down to a few votes. The rest is a history that is yet to leave us. One that witnessed the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, waterboarding, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Countering Violent Extremism, and the list goes on. It allowed a cottage industry of Islamophobia to sprout and armed White Supremacy to flourish, as long as their automatic assault rifles were aimed at Muslims. Only when they turned their guns on the rest of America, most infamously on January 6, did our country finally wake up to their danger. Abroad, it taught other dictators and demagogues how to kill Muslims with impunity by labeling them “terrorists”. Russia, China, and India all got in on the act and reframed their oppression of Muslims as counterterrorism. Even Arab dictators discovered that they could actually receive Western funding and support if they did the same. One can argue that the global phenomenon of rising anti-Muslim authoritarianism, including figures like Trump, are connected to previous elections and the evil forces they unleashed.
In politics, punishment is only effective if you are able to reap the benefits of the results rather than be squashed by them. Should Trump win and pursue the policies he has said he will pursue, Muslim Americans and their civic, religious, and cultural institutions will be in great jeopardy, regardless of whether they voted for a third-party candidate or stayed at home. And if Harris wins, she would have won without their support, and therefore, will have less of an incentive to tackle historically difficult issues like Israel-Palestine. The current fight before us is not between Republicans, Democrats, or third parties. It is within the Democratic Party, where there is a clear contest for its future orientation and positions on key issues, including foreign policy. From a Green New Deal to universal healthcare to freedom for Palestinians, this fight is not even on the radar of the Republican party, and there is yet to be a viable third-party alternative. This fight is happening in the Democratic Party where the Muslim community has made the majority of its political investments over the past 20-plus years. From running for office, to serving in government, to volunteering for campaigns, to serving at nonprofits, Muslims have engaged and become part of the “big tent” Party. The question before us is whether we want to give up the fight now or double down until we get the change that we deserve.
We will continue to engage with many of you across the country, as we have always done, to listen to you, and hear your concerns and hopes during these challenging times, and for the future. Our teams in states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are already engaging voters to ensure that they show up on Election Day, irrespective of how they ultimately decide to vote. We respect those who are taking a different approach. What matters most is that we vote. And we pledge to work with all those who care about our community and democracy after the elections, irrespective of how they voted.
We will continue to update you on our activities and our views on the choices before us, including letting you know of our recommendation for those who seek to earn our votes.
