Votes without values never wins
Want to support my work? Join the email list to receive each post directly to your inbox, for free! If you can afford it and want to show additional support, consider becoming a paid subscriber for just $5 a month. Or if you'd rather send one time support, click here.
I have a complex relationship with institutions for a self-proclaimed anarchist.
As a lawyer, much of what I do, at least on face value, can be seen as a commitment to the American legal system as it currently exists. When I was sworn into the Wisconsin bar, I took an oath to uphold the U.S. and Wisconsin Constitutions, and to respect the courts and the judicial process. I’ve been trained to navigate a system that is designed to be inaccessible, and to ostensibly profit from that inaccessibility. Don’t get me wrong, lawyering and advocacy are real and necessary skills that not everyone naturally has, in the same way that I don’t have the skills to be a doctor, and I’ve killed almost every plant I’ve ever grown (except for my bizarrely stubborn basil plant). Anyone who tells you that building any system of government is easy is either ignorant, a dictator, or both. But the fact remains that the people who most frequently become responsible for literally writing the text of our laws are also lawyers, and have both financial and professional incentives for making it as complicated as possible, far beyond the already necessary complexity of writing functional legislation.
I’ve worked in Democratic politics as well, helping run campaigns to try and get good people into office against impossible odds in rural Indiana and increase political diversity there. Even when I didn’t always agree with the candidates, I did the work because I believed it was better than the alternatives.
And trust me I know what it sounds like to say that even with whatever extent I can still claim an identity as a Roman Catholic – the granddaddy of institutions – I am also highly opposed to massive institutions making unilateral decisions for large groups of people. The irony is not lost on me, that much I can promise you.
Perhaps it is the fact that I am so deeply entrenched in many of these institutions that ultimately led me to the conclusion that the majority, if not all, of them, do little more than to serve the interests of the people who run them. Much like how you cannot become a billionaire without massively exploiting the people who work underneath you, you cannot get into positions of power in most institutions while actually caring about people more than you do your own personal advancement.
In the United States we are seeing an active collapse of our political and legal institutions. The very Constitution that I swore to uphold is in crisis. Every day for the past two months we have been absolutely bombarded by the Trump/Musk administration’s decimation of the systems and procedures we have been attempting to navigate for the past 248-odd years. A lot of us are struggling just to maintain even footing amidst the rubble, much less figure out how we’re going to fight back. Some of us see this as an opportunity to not only push for a return to “normal” but to dream of and fight for something better than the very conditions that got us to this point in the first place. Unfortunately, that is not the case amongst a large number of the people with power in what remains of our institutions, and yet again I find myself trying to avoid being struck by Apollo’s Dodgeball as I warn people of the potential consequences.
In a recent NOTUS article, Rep. Sarah McBride (D-DE), whose status as the first transgender person elected to Congress has put her on the front lines of the battle for trans rights was quoted as saying:
“We have to create more space in our tent. If, for instance, we want to have a majoritarian coalition — not just electorally, but specifically on issues around trans rights — that, by necessity, is going to have to include people who have a range of thoughts,”[...]
“A binary choice between being all-on or all-off is not constructive for anyone,” McBride continued. “It impedes the very needed path toward winning electorally, winning hearts and minds and, most importantly, winning progress.”
Now I will note that I do not envy Rep. McBride’s position. In an ideal world she would be like any other Representative, who could focus on the needs of her constituents, but instead she is being forced to represent all trans people in a political environment that is increasingly hostile.
Her stance is a seemingly reasonable take for those who value moderation above everything else. Incremental progress is important, and nothing to be sneezed at. But Rep. McBride’s comments echo much of the false narrative that has spread in the post-election era, that trans people are the reason Kamala Harris lost the election. That we pushed too hard. We were too loud and too demanding. We were too unreasonable with our pronouns and our bathrooms and our sports. Since the election was called, the left has been looking for a scapegoat, and very quickly found it in trans people.
Let me be clear, once again, that available data does not support this claim. Looking at research released by Data For Progress in October of 2024 shortly before the election makes quick work of that myth. In its polling, the organization found that voters consistently preferred candidates with pro-trans stances, but trans rights didn’t even crack the top 14 priority issues for the overwhelming majority of voters.
While 52% of voters said they trusted Democrats (generally considered more pro-trans) over Republicans (generally considered more anti-trans) on transgender issues, 80% of voters thought both parties needed to refocus and spend more time on real priority issues like the economy, jobs, and inflation. Amongst all likely voters, however, 52% said that they were more likely to vote for a candidate who supports transgender rights over one who rejects them (31%), and 57% said that they were more likely to vote for a candidate that said that there is too much legislation targeting a small minority population than a candidate that said we need new laws to restrict “biological boys” from competing in girls’ sports (34%).
Trans people have been louder in recent years, that’s true, though not because we suddenly came into existence (the modern American trans rights movement is decades old), but because there was a massive increase in direct attacks on the rights we gained by engaging with the institutions we were told we needed to in order to attain those rights. Pre-bathroom bans, there was nothing inherently illegal about a trans person using public facilities that align with their gender identity so long as they did not engage in an activity that would be illegal for anyone to engage in. Certainly non-passing trans people faced violence and the assumption of criminal activity, but the core act was generally not illegal. Name and gender marker change processes that have existed for decades, with each state having a standard for how to update your documentation, are suddenly becoming more and more restrictive, if not banned. Athletes who were already following all of the rules in place to ensure fairness were suddenly being banned from competing at all. They started banning us from classrooms, libraries, writing drag bans in ways that could prevent even non-drag trans artists from giving public performances outside of age restricted settings. They started banning our medical care, and claiming that the youth in our community were being abused for being affirmed.
So trans people started doing what any demographic in the United States would do in this position. We went to the courts. We went to our legislatures. We protested. We engaged with our institutions in all of the ways that the mythology of American Democracy has told us to.
But according to Democratic politicians and strategists, we instead should have laid down and let the Christian nationalist movement steamroll us. We should have sacrificed our lives and safety on the altar of the institution in order to “save Democracy.”
Because we all know that fascism always stops with one unpopular demographic, right?
Right?
Even if trans people shutting up (which I will never advocate for) would have changed the outcome of the election (again, it wouldn’t have), it still begs the question of whether that would have been the morally right thing to do. That answer is simple: no.
The even bigger question that comes into play then, is how do you effectively and strategically engage with a political system that you do not believe in, while keeping your core values in tact?
And I think that question accurately sums up my struggles as someone who is attempting to protect people from harm using the institutions of the present while simultaneously working to build a future where we are not inherently reliant on said institutions.
We must find an answer, because at least right now, we are not ready as a society to build something better from scratch. We are still caught in the web of capitalist hyper-individualism and cultural isolation. We are still struggling to understand how to build functional communities that yes, tolerate and encourage diversity of thought, but do not do so at the cost of the health and safety of others. I believe we can get there, and I also believe that we are in fact in a moment of political change that is driving us closer to that goal than ever before. Still though, we are not there yet.
But that does not mean that we should allow needless suffering until we reach that ideal. I agree with Rep. McBride that incremental progress is, in fact, progress. But I do not think that that means allowing people to think that the bare minimum is in fact enough. The problem with this approach, where the left abandons trans people in search of moderate votes is that it does nothing to encourage progress. Instead it forces trans people (and sets a precedent for all other marginalized people) to accept scraps of acceptance and be grateful. This approach says that our right to engage in the democratic process in the same way as any other group is conditional based on what appeals to white cisgender/heterosexual moderates. This approach only allows trans people the right to engage when we are useful to the very institutions that have done very little to provide the protections that are implicitly promised as a part of engaging with them. Yes, it may garner the Democratic party more votes, but it does not go hand in hand with social progress, even of the incremental type. It’s not enough to just “bring people into the tent” if we’re not actually fighting for anything.
Votes without values is what got us in this mess in the first place.
Republicans, and more specifically the Christian nationalist movement that has consumed whatever reasonable parts of the Grand Old Party may have once existed, have become so good at controlling our institutions because they have never made pleasing everyone the priority. They are not actually focused on “bringing people into the tent,” but instead have over the past several decades been presenting themselves as the party of “strong values.” Even though their actions defy the vast majority of their values based statements, they still give the impression of being strong in their convictions.
Organized Christian nationalism treats the government like it treats its churches. Politicians play the role of the pastor telling “hard truths” to “guide the soul of America.” Americans buy into the charisma and charm not because the majority of Americans hate their minority neighbors, but because the Christian nationalist project stands for something beyond simply getting the most votes and then floundering every time they get into power. Americans are drawn to conviction, it’s baked into our cultural DNA. American folklore is full of stories of unwavering perseverance in the fight for what is “right.” From John Henry’s standoff with the railroad machine to the mythologization of the Founding Fathers to the stories we tell of the heroes of the Civil Rights movement, to be “American” is to stand up for one's beliefs. Our great leaders are not always the ones who are the most popular in their time, but the ones who stood up during difficult moments and drew a line in the sand. The Christian nationalist movement has done an incredible job of weaponizing this cultural impulse, and twisting it to suit its needs.
Instead of once again asking “what position is going to get the most votes,” perhaps it is finally time for the American left to ask “what do we actually believe in, and how do we fight for it?” When you do what you think is right because you believe in it, rather than because it will put you in a position of power, voters see that as leadership, and will follow. The era of “win elections, and figure the rest out later” is over. We are now in an era that demands a sense of strong moral direction from the outset. Otherwise, there will be no one left to build something better when our institutions do finally, and fully, collapse.
If you like my work, don’t forget to subscribe to my free email list, share this piece, and if you can, consider upgrading to a paid subscription for just $5 a month. Your contributions help me continue to do this work independently. You can find more of my ramblings on Bluesky under katdene and on TikTok under chucklelemon.
Kat (they/them) is a queer lawyer, activist, and theorist focusing on the intersections of law, queerness, religion, and politics, with the occasional bit of theology, political theory, and legal theory thrown in for good measure. Originally from rural southern Indiana, Kat earned their B.A. in Political Science in 2019 before continuing on to earn their J.D. in 2022, both from Indiana University- Bloomington. A former Equal Justice Works Fellow for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Kat has spent their professional career fighting for the separation of church and state and LGBTQIA+ rights. Outside of work you can find them at a ballet or contemporary dance class, sipping on dirty shirleys at their local gay bar, or playing video games with their cat, Merlin.