In my state of residence I am designated on the voter rolls as a “U,” which stands for unenrolled, meaning that I am not registered with any organized political party, like Democrat, Green, Independent, Libertarian, Republican, Socialist, etc. My reason for choosing this status is because of my deep desire to remain free of political affiliation and its attendant implied obligation to conform. Thus, I have worked (even though I could not vote at the time) on the campaign of John B. Anderson and his National Unity Party platform. Ronald Reagan’s victory (1980) did not get in the way of me continuing to wear my “Don’t blame me, I voted for Anderson” T-shirt for some time to come.

In 1992, I voted for William Jefferson Clinton largely because of his soaring talk about hope and domestic policy proposals. His failing moral character and inaction in the face of the bloodletting in Rwanda (where I worked off and on for a year), however, proved to be a deal-breaker and so in 1996 I voted for Ralph Nader (Green Party).

In the year 2000, I voted for George Walker Bush, largely because of Albert Gore’s lackluster campaigning and his choice of running mate in Joe Lieberman, who was too much AIPAC-y and not enough J-Street-y, if you get my drift.

The choice in 2004 was clearly John Kerry, a familiar personality in the Massachusetts politics and in lawyers’ circles, with oodles of international in his background, running against an incumbent who proved that not all that glitters is brilliant. Alas, Kerry’s gentlemanly temperament could not withstand the onslaught of derision by his swift-boat fellow Vietnam veterans, who torpedoed his prospects of winning the White House.

In 2008 and again in 2012, I voted for Barack Obama, a newbie in the U.S. Senate with zero governing experience. In 2016, I voted for the Green-Rainbow Party, wishing to signal a break from the Clinton hegemony over the Democratic Party.

In 2020, I voted for Joe Bidden and would have voted for him again in 2024 had he remained in the race.

The evaluative criteria that I use when making my selection are three: I vote for the candidate whose articulation on the issues is based on fact-based information and knowledge; I vote for the candidate based on her character, demeanor and overall appeal; and most importantly I vote for the candidate who in my estimation will take me (the nation) to a place better than the here and now, closer to that more perfect union that the Constitution promises. Therefore, in November of this year I will be voting for the Harris-Walz ticket.

Little or no actual governing experience should not be a deal-breaker – to wit neither Barrack Obama (D) nor Donald J. Trump (R) went into office with prior governing experience. Harris has been a state Attorney General (running California’s law enforcement machinery) and Walz has been a two-term governor. Besides, presidents govern not in a vacuum and all by themselves. There is an office, a context, and a cadre of people that advise and execute the policies that the Congress enacts into law or execute policies that the law empowers the presidents to do on their own.

For me, the choice of vice-president is an important one, too. For one thing, this person presides over the Senate and in the case of a tie vote he or she breaks the tie. He is the second in command and the nation must have some level of comfort with the person who will step in and discharge the duties of the presidency when the circumstances dictate. Trump’s recent assertion that the choice of a VP does not matter and that the people will be voting just for him is as much narcissistic as it is nonsensical: Remember that he has said also something to the effect that ‘if Biden gets re-elected and something happens to him you will end up with Ka-mala!’

The Harris presidency will be a continuation of the Biden domestic policies and their extension, improvement and expansion. On foreign policy, the European and Pacific alliances will be nurtured and strengthened. Ukraine will get the benefit of continued US support (hopefully with less restriction on delivery and use of certain weapons systems). On the Middle East, the Harris foreign policy vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will have two choices – either follow the Biden administration’s perverse support for Netanyahu or follow more in step with the Clinton administration’s vision of bringing about a two-state solution. The very first step in this regard should be for the Harris administration to reaffirm the commitment of the United States to immediate implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (1967). Lest you are too old to remember or too young to have lived it, this resolution emphasized “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security.” It called for the withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the June 1967 War. Forget about Oslo!

The Harris administration should therefore de-recognize the annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel; move the U.S. Embassy back to Tel Aviv (renouncing the Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel); call for the dismantling of all Israeli settlements in the West Bank;  effectuate an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza and withdrawal of all Israeli forces from the enclave; and seek the establishment of a United Nations mandate or trusteeship system over the West Bank and Gaza in the interest of fostering democratic institutions of self-government with an eye toward the holding of national elections and creation of a real independent Palestinian state. In this process, the Palestinians may trade some West Bank settlements in return for a slice of the Negev desert that will connect physically Gaza to the West Bank, in the interest of a unitary, integrated and contiguous territorial state.  

The Americans of Iranian descent privileged to vote in this election should not bank on the idea that one ticket or the other would be better for Iran. I have learned over the years that the U.S. policy (or non-policy) toward Iran is pretty much the same regardless of what party is in power. Ideologically, the Democrats push for policies that are inherently destabilizing of Iranian social and political structures and therefore resisted brutally if need be by the theocracy in power. The Republicans, on the other hand (especially under Trump), are transactional and thus are more apt to make conditioned deals with the clerics as long as Israel is okay with them and these may not necessarily be in the national interest of Iran as defined objectively.

While in the past the foreign policy stance of a candidate was important to me, especially when it came to the US-Iran relations, this time around I am voting for the ticket that has a better chance of improving our American lives and do so with compassion, civility, and dignity. Trump has shown a clear disdain for such attributes, as well as possessing none of them. My father used to say of the incomprehensible appeal of demagogues such the one ruling Iran – dar avam faribi manteghi nehofteh keh dar mantegh ham vojoud nadarad (“in demagoguery resides a logic that is alien to reason itself). Were he alive today, he would marvel at Trump's capacity at avam-faribi.

Back in the day, I tried to find a Persian equivalent of the term “carnival barker” that many journalists and politicians, some even Republican, used to refer to Trump during 2016 campaign. My father was very fond of the term hochigari or hochibazi, referring to people who would make hey out of nothing with vitriol. My copy of Haim’s New Persian-English Dictionary (Tehran: Farhang Moaser, 1990) translates howchee as “hooter” and “bawler.” Wanting to make sure that this “hooter” has no connection with the hooter as in Hooters (!), I went to my American Heritage College Dictionary (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1993): It defines the term as one who makes a loud raucous cry, especially of derision or contempt, or shout down or drive off with jeers. The same source equates the tern “bawler” with one who barks, or cries out vehemently, or wails.

If you ever sat thorough Trump’s rants and grievance-filled diatribes, you will certainly agree that the man as a politician is a hochigar. Personality-wise he is more of an ignorant buffoon, a ridiculous but amusing person, a clown, suited more now than seven years ago, for a job as MC of a circus than running a country. 

I resolved at times to go with a “third-party” candidate because I could not stand the choices offered by the two major parties. In my state, that is not much of a declaration, considering that it is heavily Democrat, my vote was a waste with little consequence. In many states a voter does not have that luxury of wasting her vote.

A vote for a third-party candidate in a swing-state will not result in the election of your candidate, but that vote can affect the outcome of the election in favor of Trump or Harris. So, the calculus that should guide you besides the candidates’ policy proposals personality profiles ought to be which is the better of the two bad choices and the one that registers in your mind as better of the two is the good choice.

Just remember, if you choose to sit it out all together or vote for a third-party candidate you could be putting the hochi-in-chief back in the White House and that is a bad thing.