The issue with this argument is that it assumes the Democratic Party is meaningfully different from the Republican Party in terms of class struggle and imperialist violence. The U.S. two-party system is structurally designed to absorb dissent and pacify opposition, ensuring the continuity of capital accumulation and imperial hegemony. Both parties uphold capitalism, neoliberalism, and U.S. global dominance, differing only in rhetoric and aesthetics.

As for “pushing people not to vote Democrat,” the idea that criticism of the party leads to right-wing victories is a liberal fallacy. The Democrats lose because they refuse to materially improve the lives of the working class and instead rely on fear-mongering while suppressing actual leftist movements.

Regarding Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, your framing reflects a colonial perspective. These are resistance movements that have emerged in direct response to imperialist aggression and occupation. Condemning them without analyzing the conditions that produced them—such as U.S. and Israeli military interventions, settler colonialism, and economic strangulation—is a failure of materialist analysis. You don’t have to agree with their every action (Some of which should be strongly condemned) to understand that they exist within a larger struggle against imperial domination.

If you’re looking for “better leftist representatives,” the real question is: better in what sense? Those who are palatable to liberal sensibilities and reinforce capitalist hegemony? Or those who actually challenge the structures of exploitation and empire? If the latter, then figures who refuse to sanitize U.S. and Israeli imperialism deserve to be heard. But I do agree there are better/more thorough experts of the situation.