2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumChomsky on voting for Clinton
I have no idea if the people considering Johnson know who Chomsky is or care what he says, but it couldn't hurt to spread this around if you know such people.
I've put the bullet points first and the preamble last.
https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-for-lev-lesser-evil-voting/
1) Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites.
2) The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will be (if in a contested swing state) to marginally increase or decrease the chance of one of the major party candidates winning.
3) One of these candidates, Trump, denies the existence of global warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take us to a catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his rallies, stated his openness to using nuclear weapons, supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and regards the police in this country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood while having done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order. Trump has also pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare safety net despite pretenses.
4) The suffering which these and other similarly extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a Clinton presidency.
5) 4) should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a vote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, swing state.
6) However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration.
7) Often this charge will emanate from establishment operatives who will use it as a bad faith justification for defeating challenges to corporate hegemony either in the Democratic Party or outside of it. They will ensure that it will be widely circulated in mainstream media channels with the result that many of those who would otherwise be sympathetic to a left challenge will find it a convincing reason to maintain their ties with the political establishment rather than breaking with it, as they must.
8) Conclusion: by dismissing a lesser evil electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clintons defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.
****
Preamble:
Among the elements of the weak form of democracy enshrined in the constitution, presidential elections continue to pose a dilemma for the left in that any form of participation or non participation appears to impose a significant cost on our capacity to develop a serious opposition to the corporate agenda served by establishment politicians. The position outlined below is that which many regard as the most effective response to this quadrennial Hobsons choice, namely the so-called lesser evil voting strategy or LEV. Simply put, LEV involves, where you can, i.e. in safe states, voting for the losing third party candidate you prefer, or not voting at all. In competitive swing states, where you must, one votes for the lesser evil Democrat.
Before fielding objections, it will be useful to make certain background stipulations with respect to the points below. The first is to note that since changes in the relevant facts require changes in tactics, proposals having to do with our relationship to the electoral extravaganza should be regarded as provisional. This is most relevant with respect to point 3) which some will challenge by citing the claim that Clintons foreign policy could pose a more serious menace than that of Trump.
In any case, while conceding as an outside possibility that Trumps foreign policy is preferable, most of us not already convinced that that is so will need more evidence than can be aired in a discussion involving this statement. Furthermore, insofar as this is the fact of the matter, following the logic through seems to require a vote for Trump, though its a bit hard to know whether those making this suggestion are intending it seriously.
Another point of disagreement is not factual but involves the ethical/moral principle addressed in 1), sometimes referred to as the politics of moral witness. Generally associated with the religious left, secular leftists implicitly invoke it when they reject LEV on the grounds that a lesser of two evils is still evil. Leaving aside the obvious rejoinder that this is exactly the point of lesser evil voting-i.e. to do less evil, what needs to be challenged is the assumption that voting should be seen a form of individual self-expression rather than as an act to be judged on its likely consequences, specifically those outlined in 4). The basic moral principle at stake is simple: not only must we take responsibility for our actions, but the consequences of our actions for others are a far more important consideration than feeling good about ourselves.
While some would suggest extending the critique by noting that the politics of moral witness can become indistinguishable from narcissistic self-agrandizement, this is substantially more harsh than what was intended and harsher than what is merited. That said, those reflexively denouncing advocates of LEV on a supposed moral basis should consider that their footing on the high ground may not be as secure as they often take for granted to be the case.
A third criticism of LEV equates it with a passive acquiescence to the bipartisan status quo under the guise of pragmatism, usually deriving from those who have lost the appetite for radical change. It is surely the case that some of those endorsing LEV are doing so in bad faith-cynical functionaries whose objective is to promote capitulation to a system which they are invested in protecting. Others supporting LEV, however, can hardly be reasonably accused of having made their peace with the establishment. Their concern, as alluded to in 6) and 7) inheres in the awareness that frivolous and poorly considered electoral decisions impose a cost, their memories extending to the ultra-left faction of the peace movement having minimized the comparative dangers of the Nixon presidency during the 1968 elections. The result was six years of senseless death and destruction in Southeast Asia and also a predictable fracture of the left setting it up for its ultimate collapse during the backlash decades to follow.
The broader lesson to be drawn is not to shy away from confronting the dominance of the political system under the management of the two major parties. Rather, challenges to it need to be issued with a full awareness of their possible consequences. This includes the recognition that far right victories not only impose terrible suffering on the most vulnerable segments of society but also function as a powerful weapon in the hands of the establishment center, which, now in opposition can posture as the reasonable alternative. A Trump presidency, should it materialize, will undermine the burgeoning movement centered around the Sanders campaign, particularly if it is perceived as having minimized the dangers posed by the far right.
A more general conclusion to be derived from this recognition is that this sort of cost/benefit strategic accounting is fundamental to any politics which is serious about radical change. Those on the left who ignore it, or dismiss it as irrelevant are engaging in political fantasy and are an obstacle to, rather than ally of, the movement which now seems to be materializing.
Finally, it should be understood that the reigning doctrinal system recognizes the role presidential elections perform in diverting the left from actions which have the potential to be effective in advancing its agenda. These include developing organizations committed to extra-political means, most notably street protest, but also competing for office in potentially winnable races. The left should devote the minimum of time necessary to exercise the LEV choice then immediately return to pursuing goals which are not timed to the national electoral cycle.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)1) Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites.
2) The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will be (if in a contested swing state) to marginally increase or decrease the chance of one of the major party candidates winning.
3) One of these candidates, Trump, denies the existence of global warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take us to a catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his rallies, stated his openness to using nuclear weapons, supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and regards the police in this country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood while having done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order. Trump has also pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare safety net despite pretenses.
Imperialism Inc.
(2,495 posts)of the voting argument is sound even for those who do.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Too bad the it is not possible anymore to have a healthy discussion of the bigger picture. I know very few liberal/progressive people who do not accept Chomsky's reasoning that we cannot do anything to enable the election of Trump. Practically everybody agrees on that.
The sad part is that we cannot have an honest discussion here of what happens if we are able to elect Hillary, and how we might be able to make some progress in that instance because any question seems to be interpreted as a violation of the "no bashing" rule.
Folks, it is not enough to block Trump, even if we all agree that is the very most important job for the next 60 days.
Response to BlueStreak (Reply #3)
Post removed
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)I have criticized 100% of them. It is our responsibility to push those we support as well as to defend against those we do not support.
yardwork
(61,622 posts)I'm fed up with being called a bully for supporting the Democratic candidate. Go someplace else if you want to act like that.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)wins. Achieving various objectives will take decades.
It seems to me your "honest discussion" will be just like we have seen for the last eight years from some folks here vis-a-vis Obama, and that is, "how terrible he is that he didn't achieve every possible progressive objective his first two years in office and how terrible it was for him to compromise on anything. He's an evil wolf in sheeps clothing"
I really wish folks who feel their mission in life is to tear down Democrats would spend some time researching what Democracies are like in the rest of the world and throughout time. It's rare for change to happen quickly and compromise is part of that system of government. You almost never get everything you want on any subject.
One thing is sure though, if you tear down the folks closest to your point of view who have a chance to govern, you are shooting yourself in the foot with a bazooka. That is true of any Democracy anywhere.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)They helped elect a GOP Congress and stopped all progressive progress and ultimately gave us the sequester and all the bad stuff forced on Obama in order to stop the GOP from destroying the economy by refusing to raise the debt ceiling...I am so sick of such people..support the president and /or other Democrats because there is no one else and never will be who can stop the evil GOP.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Trying to have the cake and eat it too.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)CBHagman
(16,984 posts)...namely Garry Wills' "The Curse of Political Purity." It's from the last election but is even more relevant, given the possible electoral results of division of the country into voting blocs who variously make up Clinton, Trump, Stein, Johnson, and McMullin supporters.
[url]http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2012/06/18/curse-political-purity/[/url]
The etherialists who are too good to stoop toward the lesser evil of politicsas if there were ever anything better than the lesser evil therenaively assume that if they just bring down the current system, or one part of it that has disappointed them, they can build a new and better thing of beauty out of the ruins. Of course they never get the tabula rasa on which to draw their ideal schemes. What they normally do is damage the party closest to their professed ideals. Third parties are run by people who make the best the enemy of their own good and bring down that good. Theodore Roosevelts Bull Moose variant of his own Republican Party drained enough Republican votes to let the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, win. (His voters, believing he would not send our boys to war, saw the prince become a frog in World War I.) George H. W. Bush rightly believes he was sabotaged by the crypto-Republican Ross Perot, who helped Bill Clinton win. Ralph Nader siphoned crucial votes from Al Gore to give us George W. Bush.
All these brave independents say that there is not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties, and claim they can start history over, with candidates suddenly become as good as they are themselves. What they do is give us the worst of evils.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)100 +
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)rules.
You can summarize the points you want to include, but you shouldn't have such a long quoted passage. The general rule is about 4 paragraphs.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)At which point you would find yourself having a hard time enumerating good things about Trump.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It's something that makes the horseshoe theory look more valid to me. Neither end of extremists are aiming at workable solutions as much as they are for revenge.
Ignoring solutions in favor of revenge. Totally ruled by emotions. When I realized that, my eyes opened.
Monk06
(7,675 posts)is so important
First you carefully explain your thesis. Then anticipate and carefully explain all possible objections to it. Lastly answer all those objections giving them the same effort at justification that you would give your own views.
Traditionally this has been called the Socratic method although it is in fact Plato that refined it
Chomsky is the best and clearest thinker in the English speaking world due to his mastery and discipline in philosophical discussion using prose anyone can understand
I met him personally in a Philosophy seminar 33 years ago Quite by accident since I was at my convocation and was invited by a former professor.
There were a few young turks among the grad students and faculty in the department known for their pedantry and combative nature
They were all on their best behavior when he walked in and nobody interrupted him when he was talking
Nobody who valued their reputation that is
George the Retiree
(50 posts)Not the time to be chic!
anamnua
(1,112 posts)Is he for Hill or not?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That appears to be the gist of it.
johnp3907
(3,731 posts)That seems to be as far as he'll go. And when Hillary is in office he'll rail against her like Cornel West rails against Obama.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Seems like the same point could have been made much more concisely.
Response to Imperialism Inc. (Original post)
johnp3907 This message was self-deleted by its author.