Performative Voting: Voting “Against” “Aid” When “Netanyahu” Says he Doesn’t Want It

Do Congressional Votes Matter when they don't Change Policy? Another Sheepdogging to Rebrand the Democrats as not Genocidal?

Lots of people today are excited because a hundred Democrats “voted” “against” “aid” to “Israel” in an amendment by Massie.

Common Dreams reports on a “seismic shift” —

Which is funny because Common Dreams has also reported on how “Netanyahu” has been urging a shift from “aid to partnership” —

So perhaps not so much of a “seismic shift”. See: “Plans to End Aid to Israel — and Replace it with Something Worse.”

“My” congressman, Glenn “AIPAC” Ivey — who I’m considering running against — gave a long statement for his alleged reasons for his yes vote. He didn’t note his likely actual reasons: the proposed shift to “partnership” — or that it’s a way of rebranding himself along with other Democrats.

This seems calculated to be enough to suck people into the duopoly, so the Democrats can pretend to not be a genocidal party without actually changing policy.

People are being led back into the duopoly — sheepdogging — it’s happened again and again.

I’ve always been wary of whether politicians vote their actual views. This was clear to me during the Iraq war “authorization” vote in 2002, with politicians like Pelosi — who also voted for the amendment — helping the invasion to happen while technically voting against “authorization”. I later got a chance to question her:

All the Democrats who went along with the Iraq invasion of course went along with the Gaza genocide. Talking up performative votes now is another form of complicity.

I think I was always sensitive to such manipulations because I remember when I was a kid reading some magazine in the library in Jamaica, Queens, about the ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty.

Carter was trying desperately to get a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

This is back in the day when major decisions were sometimes actually done by treaty and votes. I was sympathetic to Carter in things like this — I don’t think I was even aware that the US Empire basically carved Panama out of Colombia to get the canal built. It seemed a good reform to my young self.

Regardless, there was significant coverage of Sen. Edward Zorinsky who was on the fence. It was widely reported that most of his constituents in Nebraska didn’t want the treaty, but that Zorinsky would vote for it if and only if the Carter administration really needed his vote to get them over the top.

The suspense around this was significant since the treaty would be voted on with a roll call vote and Zorinsky would be the last to vote.

Carter barely got to two-thirds and Zorinsky was off the hook and with great relief voted against the treaty even though he apparently would have voted for it if Carter really needed his vote.

It would be foolish to think that Ivey and Pelosi and so many of these 100 wouldn’t make their votes available for imperial Israel when they are needed.

Also see: