As we approach another high-stakes presidential election, Jill Stein has reemerged on the political scene, this time with the potential to tip the scales toward Donald Trump yet again. Her latest campaign is capitalizing on the anger that many Palestinian and Arab Americans feel, but it’s essential to recognize that Stein’s role as a spoiler is not new — and it’s dangerous.
We’ve seen the consequences of this playbook before. In 2000, Ralph Nader’s Green Party candidacy helped elect George W. Bush, leading to the Iraq War and countless other disasters. In 2016, Stein’s Green Party candidacy helped siphon crucial votes away from Hillary Clinton in swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. These states, with a combined total of 46 electoral votes, handed the presidency to Trump.
The math is clear: had Stein voters in those states backed Clinton, we would have a vastly different political landscape today. Instead, Clinton lost by narrow margins that Stein’s candidacy exacerbated. The stakes are just as high this election, if not higher. Will we let this happen again?
The notion that Stein is propped up by Republicans aiming to pull votes from Kamala Harris is not far-fetched. We’ve seen the consequences of this playbook before. MAGA-aligned donors have funneled money into third-party candidates, hoping to fracture the Democratic vote in key battlegrounds. Most recently, former KKK leader David Duke endorsed Stein. Stein may claim that she offers a meaningful alternative, but in reality, it threatens to divide the progressive vote, weakening the only viable option to defeat Trump.
Stein’s assertion that “there is very little policy daylight” between Harris and Trump is not only misleading but dangerously ignorant. Trump’s plans include tax cuts for the rich, the militarization of immigration enforcement and Project 2025 — a sweeping effort to dismantle government institutions. Trump continues to champion policies that would devastate working families, strip away healthcare and jeopardize programs like Social Security and Medicare. A Harris presidency, in contrast, offers a real agenda to lower costs for families, tackle climate change and provide crucial tax credits for middle-class Americans.
Stein would have voters believe there’s no difference between a Harris presidency and a Trump dictatorship-in-the-making. This is a dangerous fiction. Trump’s blatant disregard for democratic norms, his packing of the Supreme Court with far-right justices and his inability to accept the results of a free and fair election make him a direct threat to American democracy. Harris, while imperfect, stands in stark opposition to Trump’s authoritarian vision.
Perhaps Stein’s most cynical ploy in this election is her attempt to harness the Israel-Palestine conflict to gain votes. Many Arab American voters, especially in Michigan, are disillusioned with the Biden administration’s handling of the crisis. Stein sees an opening here, but her actions reveal her true motivations. When Palestinian human rights lawyer Noura Erakat was offered the VP slot on Stein’s ticket, it was with the condition that Stein would drop out if the Democrats secured a ceasefire and an offensive arms embargo. Stein refused, demonstrating that she is more interested in maintaining her candidacy than achieving meaningful change.
Stein has no real plan for advancing the Palestinian cause. She has no pathway to win the presidency, no support in Congress and no track record of organizing the kind of local races needed to build lasting political power. The Green Party has only ever had a handful of state-level representatives and currently has none. Stein’s campaigns are vanity projects that siphon off votes from candidates who could actually govern.
Many people are understandably frustrated with Harris’s perceived alignment with Biden’s policies on Israel and Palestine, but it’s important to consider the context. As the sitting Vice President under President Biden, a self-proclaimed Zionist, it’s unrealistic to expect Harris to openly contradict him on such a critical issue. We need to recognize that Harris and Biden are distinct individuals with different personal backgrounds, experiences and potential approaches to policy.
It’s crucial to remember that people’s views also evolve over time, as do political realities. Barack Obama, for example, did not support gay marriage in 2008, but by 2015 he was instrumental in its legalization. It’s premature to assume that Harris will never diverge from Biden’s stance on Israel and Palestine just because she hasn’t done so yet.
As Erakat aptly put it, “If voting Harris is your position — own it loudly and connect it to your self-imposed accountability. Make a pledge — don’t vote and disappear. Vote, take the front line and sacrifice. Make good on your theory of change.”
I plan to do just that. If Harris wins and we see no meaningful change within her first 100 days in office, you can join me in the streets protesting. I’ll continue writing, speaking out and demanding justice for Palestinians, and I encourage others to do the same.
At a time when democracy itself is on the line, we cannot afford to indulge the fantasy that all candidates are the same. Jill Stein may seem like a voice for the disaffected left, but her candidacy only serves to fracture the progressive vote and pave the way for Trump’s return to the White House. We cannot allow history to repeat itself.
Contact Tejas Varma at varmat@oxy.edu
This article presents political demands which are undemocratic and irresponsible. It is the right and responsibility of each American to vote as they see fit for a candidate with whom they are ideologically aligned. Democrat voters have repeatedly made their expectations clear with the Harris campaign regarding US enablement of grievous human rights abuses in Israel and Harris refused to bend her foreign policy agenda in response these criticisms. It is well within the rights of voters to make demands of their party’s candidates and Harris should not expect blanket support from democrats by simply not being Donald Trump. Harris’ refusal to make concessions to her constituency is turning young democratic voters away, and Jill Stein should not be made a pariah for taking a harder stance against what is becoming one of the most horrific mass exterminations in recent memory.