Senator Bernie Sanders, one of the most prominent figures on the American political left, has long been considered a modern-day Eugene V. Debs, whether or not that label is accurate. Debs, like Sanders now, was arguably the most electorally successful American socialist of his era. Debs successfully garnered 6% and 3.4% of the popular vote in the 1912 and 1920 Presidential elections, respectively. During his 1920 run, Debs campaigned from a jail cell, having been imprisoned for sedition after strongly opposing the First World War.
When I began to develop a political consciousness around the time of the 2020 election, I was drawn to Bernie’s brand of populism. While I disagreed with him on many social issues and on immigration, I sympathized with his apparent opposition to forever wars and concern for ordinary Americans forgotten by the bicoastal elites. Embarrassingly, I even joined the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) as an 8th grader, largely oblivious to the Zionist past of the organization.
However, I recently saw an interview clip that reminded me why I became disillusioned with Sanders and the political left in the first place. In the interview, Sanders dismisses the idea of the one-state solution, saying it “would be the end of the state of Israel, and I support Israel.” Similarly, Bernie has also been a strong supporter of NATO, voting in favor of the NATO-backed proxy war in Ukraine and, historically, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Simply put, Bernie Sanders is no Eugene V. Debs.
By the end of 2024, I was thoroughly disillusioned with the political left. While I retained my general ideological beliefs (economic nationalism and moderate social conservatism), I had lost faith in the Democratic Party as a tool for change. The defections of Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. (whose Presidential rally I attended in Phoenix) to the Trump administration further solidified my contempt for the Democratic Party.
While I did not support or vote for Zion Don (I could not vote for anyone as I was 17 at the time of the election), I certainly viewed Trump as the lesser of the two evils. I foolishly believed Trump when he said he would work to end the war in Ukraine and not start new wars in the Middle East. At the time, I viewed Vice President Vance, Director of National Intelligence Gabbard, and Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Joe Kent as evidence that Trump would keep his promises. However, after thus far failing to end the war in Ukraine and two wars in Iran, not to mention the resignations of Gabbard and Kent, I have similarly lost almost all of my faith in the usefulness of the modern Republican Party.
Ultimately, anti-war voters are not asking for much. Most of the non-interventionists I know personally are not demanding perfect alignment on every issue or foreign conflict and are willing to tolerate some ideological differences in exchange for authentic opposition to militarism. However, there is a line that can never be crossed by any politician if they expect the support of anti-war voters. That line is the “power test.” When politicians who are seemingly against forever wars are voted into office, they must not remain silent when Washington pushes for new wars or fail to oppose escalation. Movements can only survive when voters reward courage and punish cowardice at the ballot box.
To avoid being betrayed by politicians, anti-war voters must remain skeptical of those who give flowery speeches on the campaign trail but fail to deliver in office. Rhetoric alone is not sufficient to change the trajectory of our nation in imperial decline. The lesson for anti-war voters is simple: stop judging politicians by their rhetoric and start judging them by what they do once they get into office.
J.D. Hester is an independent writer whose work has appeared in Antiwar.com, Asia Times, AF Post, and other publications. He also writes on his Substack, Hester Unfiltered. He can be reached at josephdhester@gmail.com and followed on X at @JDH3ster.
