Despite all the chaos of this past election season and the constant bickering between the Democratic and Republican parties, you may have recognized an all too familiar name on the ballot — Jill Stein. Stein was the Green Party candidate for president in 2012, 2016 and now 2024, receiving 469,501 votes in 2012, 1.4 million votes in 2016, and, as of recent data, over 700,000 votes in the most recent election. While her voter turnout has never been enough to put the Green Party on the electoral map, her supporters remain loyal, viewing her as a different kind of politician, a selfless one. However, the beacon of morality she portrays herself as is nothing more than a mirage.
Stein, a Harvard-educated doctor, ran her recent campaign on three main platforms — people, planet and peace — yet her actions, character and words suggest these are not actually her core values. Stein’s recent campaign centered around a critical issue largely overlooked by both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump — the concern youths have with the plight of the people in Gaza. According to polls from the Pew Research Center and as of April, “Younger Americans are more likely to sympathize with the Palestinian people than the Israeli people” and “Democrats and Democratic leaners sympathize far more with the Palestinians than the Israelis (47% vs. 7%).” Stein understood this and used her “Pledge to Stop Genocide” campaign to sway young progressives who had been largely displeased by the Biden-Harris administration’s support of Israel to abandon the Democratic vote in favor of either supporting her or abstaining from voting altogether. However, while Stein may claim to be for Palestinian liberation, she is certainly not antiwar like her campaign suggests.
Stein has sympathized with Vladimir Putin several times throughout her political career. For instance, in 2015, along with retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who would eventually become Trump’s national security adviser, she attended a dinner celebrating the 10th birthday of the Russian TV network RT, a network riddled with anti-Ukraine propaganda, where she shared a table with none other than President Putin. Stein’s 2016 campaign was heavily promoted by RT in general, and Stein continues to deflect when questioned about her appearance at the dinner. Although this was before the invasion of Ukraine, Putin had still established himself as a war criminal who committed countless atrocities, such as the war in Chechnya and the annexation of Crimea. Therefore, someone who prides themself on their morality should have declined this invitation without a second thought.
Additionally, in a Zeteo video released in September, while being interviewed by Mehdi Hasan, Stein continuously called Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal but refused to directly ascribe that label to Putin. Hasan repeatedly asked Stein if she considered Putin a war criminal and after dodging the question many times, she finally said, “’In so many words, yes he is. […] If you want to pull him back, if you are a world leader, you don’t begin your conversation by calling someone a war criminal.’” Stein should not have needed to be pressured into this answer. If she was a true pacifist she would have immediately responded “yes” the first time the question was asked.
This is something Stein frequently does. She will make a vaguely conservative statement, walk back on it and then pretend like her leftist supporters are out of line for questioning her. For instance, in an interview with The Washington Post, she stated that people had “real questions” about vaccines — their corporate and government regulation and potential side effects. Stein’s willingness to question government agencies, like the Food and Drug Administration, while refusing a call to action as a public figure can prompt average citizens to become conspiracy theorists — rather than advocate for people to get vaccinated and help solve a public health crisis, Stein chose to give only a vague statement. After receiving backlash, she was quick to make a statement that she had always been pro-vaccination and that “criticism of her on the issue is akin to the ‘’birther’ controversy that hounded President (Barack) Obama,’” which can be considered out of touch, to say the least, and white tears to say the most.
She is also not as progressive or anti-two-party system as she claims, given that she works alongside the GOP. In 2016, many suspected Stein of acting as an election “spoiler,” a third-party or independent candidate propped up by a party whose participation in an election potentially affects the outcome by drawing votes away from a major candidate with whom they share some ideological overlap. Stein received roughly 1 percent of the popular vote in 2016, and while this number seems low, CNN analysts have suggested that if “Democrats managed to capture the bulk of third-party voters in some of the closest contests — Wisconsin (10), Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16) and Florida (29) — [Hilary] Clinton would have defeated Trump by earning 307 Electoral College votes, enough to secure the presidency.”
While Harris lost by a large enough margin that Stein’s votes would not have made a difference, Stein still accepted funds from the GOP-backed “Badger Values” super PAC to try and swing Wisconsin votes away from Harris. Additionally, Trump has repeatedly praised Stein, stating in two recent rallies, “’ Jill Stein, I like her very much. You know why? She takes 100% from them’” and “’I love the Green Party. Jill Stein … she may be one of my favorite politicians.’” If Stein was truly against the two-party system, she would do her best to separate herself from both parties and refrain from accepting funds backed by them. As she uses the GOP to her advantage, she is further legitimizing their place in a system she claims to seek to abolish.
Personally, I understand the deep frustration many Americans have with the two-party system, as it can feel like two candidates simply are not enough to capture the wide scope of the country’s political views. However, we are simply not in a stable enough political climate to abolish this system, and this past election was certainly not the time to try. Although some cite their reason for voting for a third-party candidate as a way to help the party gain visibility, build momentum and sometimes secure federal funding for future elections, this simply can not apply to Stein, given that she vanishes between election seasons and capitalizes on the most significant moral dilemmas when the time comes. I do not mean that she halts her activism, but rather, she does not try to garner momentum for a presidential campaign for all four years. It seems to me then, that the only reason to vote for her would be virtue signaling, to prove you are somehow, like her, morally superior.
I am also not trying to say that Stein is uniquely corrupt but rather that she is just as corrupt as any Republican or Democratic politician and not some ethically sound outlier. I’ve seen peers and people on social media claim moral superiority for voting “against genocide” and challenging the system by supporting Stein, but I fail to see how supporting her is any different than not voting at all. If Stein truly wants radical change, she needs to do more than rely on her critique of mainstream parties because her questionable past makes her appear as a conservative in disguise. To actually prop the Green Party up, she must actively earn the trust of the American public by proving she can be both effective and accountable in driving real change, even outside of election season. Otherwise, she does not deserve a place on the 2028 ballot.
Jordan Ori is a junior majoring in English and is a Pipe Dream Opinions intern.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.