Lesser-Evil Voting: Practical Politics or Deadly Diversion
The following debate was conducted in writing, from September 29 to October 5, 2012, by Mark Linsey and Bruce Lesnick. The debate was triggered by the publication of This Progressive Will not Vote For Obama, by Carol Dansereau, which should be read first to fully appreciate the context.
Mark Linsey is a liberal activist and Obama supporter.
Bruce Lesnick is a socialist and long-time political activist.
* * *
BL: Mark, there are several questions I posed previously which you did not answer. They were not rhetorical. I think your answers would be instructive.
There are also several logical arguments I advanced which you ignored and did not counter. Why was that, I wonder?
You are mistaken on one point: I do not advocate not voting, if there is something other than candidates of the "other team" to vote for. I have voted in every presidential election since I was 18 and I plan to vote in this one as well. When I do, I am always true to my principles, guided by Eugene V Debs' famous aphorism, "It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."
But how do you explain how your strategy of voting for the lesser evil—which has dominated liberal thinking for centuries—has gotten us nowhere? We're fighting the same battles we've been fighting for generations. No Democratic or Republican representative of the 1% has done more than put a cheerier face on a rotten system. Getting rid of Nixon didn't deliver us. Getting rid of Reagan didn't do it. Getting rid of Bush didn't do it. You are familiar, I'm sure, with Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. With the long history of lesser-evil voting and zero or negative results to show for it, the burden is on you to show why continuing this behavior is not madness.
You suggest that it's possible to play the game, urge support for one of the two corporate parties, with all of their downsides and shortcomings, while at the same time working to broaden the choice and/or, presumably, to move the Democratic party to the left. Again, since that is exactly the strategy that has been followed by the liberal left for generations without positive results, it should be enough to give one pause. Moreover, when you participate in a game with two rotten choices, you guarantee that in the next round, the choices will be as rotten or worse. It's like buying a used car and accepting the unfair, awful price the car dealer offers rather than walking away. The next time you go back, he'll play you for a sucker again. The prices/deals don't get better unless you are willing to walk away.
Working for or urging support for candidate Tweedledee over candidate Tweedledum is harmful for another reason: it substitutes the illusion of progress for real progress, and as such is tragically disorienting. It's like thinking you can make progress climbing a mountain by climbing to up the stairway inside the chalet at the mountain's base. It feels like you're gaining altitude--you are, in a sense--but you're deceiving yourself and you're not getting any closer to the mountain summit. You have to leave the warm, comfortable illusion, go outside and start making progress up the real, more difficult path.
And what is that real, more difficult path? In The Dorothy Syndrome and its precursor, The Problem is Capitalism, I spell it out:
Two final issues:
(1) This statement of yours jumped out at me: "In spite of the negatives connected to Obama, I see more positives..." It's not entirely clear how you meant that. If you meant, "Despite the drawbacks in voting for Obama, I think there is more to be gained by voting for him than not voting for him," that's one thing. I don't agree, but I can understand the logic. But if you meant, "On balance Obama has done more good things than bad in his first term," one has to wonder how you value the lives of the drone, victims, rendition victims, coup victims, loss of civil liberties, etc. and find these are outweighed by—by what?—lip service to abortion rights, gay marriage and immigrant rights? (I say "lip service" because Obama's position on each of these important issues was extremely week and mostly at the level of talk as opposed to action. If necessary, I can elaborate.)
(1) Let's examine this multi-part question that you continue to dodge:
"Do you have any principles that you won't compromise? Is there any place you will draw the line and say, I cannot vote for a party that does such-and-such or stands for so-and-so, regardless of the decrepitude of their state-sanctioned opponent? In an election where the only two official, "realistic" choices were Hitler and Mussolini, would you urge people to vote for Mussolini, arguing that, 'It's our responsibility to choose wisely and keep moving in the right direction and not get distracted by false choices.'?"
Your only reply so far has been, "I’m not choosing to vote for Mussolini and refrain from going down that path you seem to want to go."
As threatening as it may be to your argument, and as uncomfortable as it may make you, the choices are these:
ML: I thought we were done but you keep pushing scenarios that just don't apply and make it sound like I'm avoid them because it undermines my position. Life is a moral dilemma. There are many problems and I can't tackle them all. It's too much for any one person. I contend that there is no other boat coming for you this election. You are trapped too in a way, like it or not. I'm afraid you are just going to get wet like the rest of us whether you participate or not and apparently you don't care because you have your line in the sand to protect you.
You have helped me clarify my position though and thank you for that. I agree with (not disagree with) the point that real politics happens in the streets (year round). The election just helps expand or contract the boundaries of the publicly perceived playing field. I'll participate in that rather than buy into the notion that it's all the same and not working. For me that's real even though not completely satisfying and I think the boundaries and corresponding effect on public perception do help deal with some moral dilemmas albeit often times not enough to play a role in resolving many others. We don't just stop and say we're done. I wish you had a magic boat to step into. It would be nice. We will continue playing our parts on Nov 7th with a different energy based on what happens next. We will move on.
Mark Linsey is a liberal activist and Obama supporter.
Bruce Lesnick is a socialist and long-time political activist.
* * *
Mark Linsey: As
a progressive, I both like and don't like [Dansereau’s] essay because I
share [her] point of view but not [her] conclusion. I find it
interesting and provocative but unhelpful. [She] bring[s] up many
different issues which are very important and truly do deserve public
discourse. Where [she] lose[s] me is the notion that somehow not voting
is the way out or a good thing that will change the course we are on.
This essay has no chance in my opinion of making what you and I both
agree on should happen, happen. The election and voting isn't between
complete good or complete bad. Drone attacks or no drone attacks. Civil
liberties being trampled or no civil Liberties being trampled. The
election doesn't resolve these. The choice is simpler than that. It
merely decides whether Obama will lead this country or will Mitt Romney?
That's the choice and it's unhelpful to obfuscate that.
"How can you ignore the suffering of those maimed and killed in Obama’s wars and drone attacks?"
I don’t. I factor that in alongside the fact that most of the wars you are referring to were already in progress when he got elected and many more wars that Mitt Romney will likely lead us into intentionally or unintentionally with his idiotic rhetoric. I don't like it.
"How can you act as if the utter destruction of basic rights like due process is not a big deal?"
I don’t, but I honestly believe that after the election which will be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 when I wake up on November 7, you, me, your kids and the rest of the world will be better off with Obama as president than if Romney is elected. Let’s imagine fighting for basic rights under Romney and think about how effective you will be with the public believing there was a mandate for Conservative changes.
“As signs of run-away global warming surround us, how can you support a President who is willfully and forcefully pushing Big Oil’s agenda?”
I don’t but remember, my only choice for President is between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. I also factor in that more than half this country doesn’t even believe in evolution. That’s a huge problem and I pity anyone who believes that our educational system will be better off with Romney as President or we will be closer to dealing with the problems of Global Climate change. I also factor in all the things that Congress has filibustered or not even allowed to come up for vote
I could go on and on with each point but I'd rather stand side by side with you fighting the very issues you are pointing out while Obama is President than if Romney were running the show.
So now to your point that Obama may be the greater evil. “That dog don’t hunt.” I have an active imagination but facts are facts. More people will have healthcare, more students will have help going to college, more women will have choice, we'll be further along with solutions to climate change, etc...... AND... We will be in a better position to fight those bigger battles you are addressing. So I like your points but you’ve offered no alternative. Not voting! Hahahaha that's a funny solution to the serious problems you bring up. Exercising your right to vote is only the first of many things that Progressives must do. If you don’t vote. Shame on you.
We must keep this simple. Vote in the only election we are actually having. Then you've earned the right to ask "why are the two candidates we are told to choose from so completely unacceptable? And what are we going to do to change that?" It's our responsibility to choose wisely and keep moving in the right direction and not get distracted by false choices of doing nothing is better. Sure I wish we could solve those issues with this election but that's not a real choice we have and not what you are voting on. Those important questions and hard work come after you vote. Keep it real. VOTE!
I don’t. I factor that in alongside the fact that most of the wars you are referring to were already in progress when he got elected and many more wars that Mitt Romney will likely lead us into intentionally or unintentionally with his idiotic rhetoric. I don't like it.
"How can you act as if the utter destruction of basic rights like due process is not a big deal?"
I don’t, but I honestly believe that after the election which will be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 when I wake up on November 7, you, me, your kids and the rest of the world will be better off with Obama as president than if Romney is elected. Let’s imagine fighting for basic rights under Romney and think about how effective you will be with the public believing there was a mandate for Conservative changes.
“As signs of run-away global warming surround us, how can you support a President who is willfully and forcefully pushing Big Oil’s agenda?”
I don’t but remember, my only choice for President is between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. I also factor in that more than half this country doesn’t even believe in evolution. That’s a huge problem and I pity anyone who believes that our educational system will be better off with Romney as President or we will be closer to dealing with the problems of Global Climate change. I also factor in all the things that Congress has filibustered or not even allowed to come up for vote
I could go on and on with each point but I'd rather stand side by side with you fighting the very issues you are pointing out while Obama is President than if Romney were running the show.
So now to your point that Obama may be the greater evil. “That dog don’t hunt.” I have an active imagination but facts are facts. More people will have healthcare, more students will have help going to college, more women will have choice, we'll be further along with solutions to climate change, etc...... AND... We will be in a better position to fight those bigger battles you are addressing. So I like your points but you’ve offered no alternative. Not voting! Hahahaha that's a funny solution to the serious problems you bring up. Exercising your right to vote is only the first of many things that Progressives must do. If you don’t vote. Shame on you.
We must keep this simple. Vote in the only election we are actually having. Then you've earned the right to ask "why are the two candidates we are told to choose from so completely unacceptable? And what are we going to do to change that?" It's our responsibility to choose wisely and keep moving in the right direction and not get distracted by false choices of doing nothing is better. Sure I wish we could solve those issues with this election but that's not a real choice we have and not what you are voting on. Those important questions and hard work come after you vote. Keep it real. VOTE!
Bruce Lesnick: Mark, your argument is a classic example of sophistry: It sounds sensible and erudite but it makes no logical sense.
You write, "Vote in the only election we are actually having. Then ask why are the two candidates we are told to choose from so completely unacceptable? And what are we going to do to change that?"
You apparently see no connection between supporting the current charade, decade after decade, generation after generation, and always indefinitely postponing the question, "what are we going to do to change that?" You admit the game is rigged, but you add legitimacy to the corrupt process and reinforce the chains holding us in place by urging others to play the game anyway, and by the gamekeeper's corrupt rules no less.
Do you have any principles that you won't compromise? Is there any place you will draw the line and say, I cannot vote for a party that does such-and-such or stands for so-and-so, regardless of the decrepitude of their state-sanctioned opponent? In an election where the only two official, "realistic" choices were Hitler and Mussolini, would you urge people to vote for Mussolini, arguing that, "It's our responsibility to choose wisely and keep moving in the right direction and not get distracted by false choices."?
Do you not see that playing their game strengthens their hand? The choice we're given every four years is false and narrow. With this you say you agree. As much as choosing which party of the 1% will rule for the next four years, the perverted, stunted, censored, overly narrow electoral process promotes an illusion of democracy and provides a fig leaf to cover the dictatorial rule of the 1%.
What of the argument that party x will provide us with more crumbs than party y? That's the same logic that robber barons of old and modern captains of industry use to keep out unions: "Accept my company union and you get a 50 cent an hour raise. Vote for that other union and kiss you job goodbye." But those who refused to accept the phony choice, who fought for and won a real union got a $5 an hour raise! The correct term for offering you a little of something you want in order to prevent you from fighting for all of what you deserve is "sucker bait." That is the game that the Democrats and Republicans expertly play and that you so blithely endorse.
Imagine slaves getting to vote every four years for which of two hand-picked, sadistic plantation owners should be their slave master. Imagine the slaves pretending that this process was somehow democratic or that it brought them even a baby step closer to ending slavery. Imagine the plantation owners laughing every four years as they manipulated the slaves into validating their own oppression, getting the slaves to vote for awful candidate A by putting forward as the only allowed alternative even more abhorrent candidate B. This is the dead-end logic you are embracing.
It's not just that voting for the Democrats or Republicans doesn't help bring us closer to a just and rational world; it hurts, delays and derails the process. It's as if your football team were given the choice each play of handing the ball off to one of two players on the other team. But hey, one of the two opposing players promises not to block as hard as the other. Accepting this choice in any way, shape or form puts you always on defense, fighting to minimize the damage as one or another member of the opposition drives the ball deeper into your territory and away from your goal. The rational, effective thing to do is to give the ball to a member of your own team, even if the opponents appear to be bigger and stronger. Take the offense and start driving the ball toward the other end of the field.
If you're a mouse, you should not vote for a party of cats to be your leader. Period. Even if one promises to be nicer than the other. The same goes for Americans who make up the 99% refusing to vote for a party owned, controlled and beholden to the 1%. It's a matter of principle, like refusing to cross a picket line.
But does this mean that the only other course is to boycott the elections altogether? No! I wrote a separate essay on just this question. Please see The Dorothy Syndrome.
You write, "Vote in the only election we are actually having. Then ask why are the two candidates we are told to choose from so completely unacceptable? And what are we going to do to change that?"
You apparently see no connection between supporting the current charade, decade after decade, generation after generation, and always indefinitely postponing the question, "what are we going to do to change that?" You admit the game is rigged, but you add legitimacy to the corrupt process and reinforce the chains holding us in place by urging others to play the game anyway, and by the gamekeeper's corrupt rules no less.
Do you have any principles that you won't compromise? Is there any place you will draw the line and say, I cannot vote for a party that does such-and-such or stands for so-and-so, regardless of the decrepitude of their state-sanctioned opponent? In an election where the only two official, "realistic" choices were Hitler and Mussolini, would you urge people to vote for Mussolini, arguing that, "It's our responsibility to choose wisely and keep moving in the right direction and not get distracted by false choices."?
Do you not see that playing their game strengthens their hand? The choice we're given every four years is false and narrow. With this you say you agree. As much as choosing which party of the 1% will rule for the next four years, the perverted, stunted, censored, overly narrow electoral process promotes an illusion of democracy and provides a fig leaf to cover the dictatorial rule of the 1%.
What of the argument that party x will provide us with more crumbs than party y? That's the same logic that robber barons of old and modern captains of industry use to keep out unions: "Accept my company union and you get a 50 cent an hour raise. Vote for that other union and kiss you job goodbye." But those who refused to accept the phony choice, who fought for and won a real union got a $5 an hour raise! The correct term for offering you a little of something you want in order to prevent you from fighting for all of what you deserve is "sucker bait." That is the game that the Democrats and Republicans expertly play and that you so blithely endorse.
Imagine slaves getting to vote every four years for which of two hand-picked, sadistic plantation owners should be their slave master. Imagine the slaves pretending that this process was somehow democratic or that it brought them even a baby step closer to ending slavery. Imagine the plantation owners laughing every four years as they manipulated the slaves into validating their own oppression, getting the slaves to vote for awful candidate A by putting forward as the only allowed alternative even more abhorrent candidate B. This is the dead-end logic you are embracing.
It's not just that voting for the Democrats or Republicans doesn't help bring us closer to a just and rational world; it hurts, delays and derails the process. It's as if your football team were given the choice each play of handing the ball off to one of two players on the other team. But hey, one of the two opposing players promises not to block as hard as the other. Accepting this choice in any way, shape or form puts you always on defense, fighting to minimize the damage as one or another member of the opposition drives the ball deeper into your territory and away from your goal. The rational, effective thing to do is to give the ball to a member of your own team, even if the opponents appear to be bigger and stronger. Take the offense and start driving the ball toward the other end of the field.
If you're a mouse, you should not vote for a party of cats to be your leader. Period. Even if one promises to be nicer than the other. The same goes for Americans who make up the 99% refusing to vote for a party owned, controlled and beholden to the 1%. It's a matter of principle, like refusing to cross a picket line.
But does this mean that the only other course is to boycott the elections altogether? No! I wrote a separate essay on just this question. Please see The Dorothy Syndrome.
ML: Maybe to you. But sorry... I can multitask. You offer me nothing but utopian ideas I can't use on November 6th. I can
not like something, see that it's the only game in town, participate,
and still try to work to change it. I sincerely believe giving more
people access to healthcare for instance does bring us closer to a
rational world. Supporting and institutionalizing science brings us
closer to a rational world. I'm not compromising my principles any more
than going on to work while the fire truck rushes to the fire. We all
have a part to play and we can't do it all.
Sorry but not voting makes no sense to me in this multidimensional world I live in, even in a rigged election as you say..... especially when one choice provides such clear benefits and allows a better environment for the evolution of ideas such as yours.
You are still not providing a clear and viable alternative. You seem lost in good ideas for the future but can't connect them to action today. If you want to substitute my action you must replace it with another action that is as useful. Not just an idea. A third Labor party is unlikely to happen as you describe. One day everyone is going to see the light.... all at once and we start over with a third labor party that everyone will now vote for? Plus you and Carol not voting is going to inspire others to that end. Not in my lifetime. Sorry.
Seems to me you are just taking your ball and going home. Sometimes I do that too when I give up but not today. In spite of the negatives connected to Obama, I see more positives and that is what I need to vote in this election for the head and shoulders clearly better of the two flawed candidates. I choose to help create a place for a future "Workers party" by not letting the "I got mine... you go get yours" people of America believe they are winning the war of ideas. That I can do something about and I'm proud to be voting. Seems like I'm also voting for you. I can just imagine how much more of an uphill battle you find if Romney is elected.
Sorry but not voting makes no sense to me in this multidimensional world I live in, even in a rigged election as you say..... especially when one choice provides such clear benefits and allows a better environment for the evolution of ideas such as yours.
You are still not providing a clear and viable alternative. You seem lost in good ideas for the future but can't connect them to action today. If you want to substitute my action you must replace it with another action that is as useful. Not just an idea. A third Labor party is unlikely to happen as you describe. One day everyone is going to see the light.... all at once and we start over with a third labor party that everyone will now vote for? Plus you and Carol not voting is going to inspire others to that end. Not in my lifetime. Sorry.
Seems to me you are just taking your ball and going home. Sometimes I do that too when I give up but not today. In spite of the negatives connected to Obama, I see more positives and that is what I need to vote in this election for the head and shoulders clearly better of the two flawed candidates. I choose to help create a place for a future "Workers party" by not letting the "I got mine... you go get yours" people of America believe they are winning the war of ideas. That I can do something about and I'm proud to be voting. Seems like I'm also voting for you. I can just imagine how much more of an uphill battle you find if Romney is elected.
Even Noam Chomsky gets it. See: Noam Chomsky: If I were in a swing state, I’d vote for Obama
BL: Mark, there are several questions I posed previously which you did not answer. They were not rhetorical. I think your answers would be instructive.
There are also several logical arguments I advanced which you ignored and did not counter. Why was that, I wonder?
You are mistaken on one point: I do not advocate not voting, if there is something other than candidates of the "other team" to vote for. I have voted in every presidential election since I was 18 and I plan to vote in this one as well. When I do, I am always true to my principles, guided by Eugene V Debs' famous aphorism, "It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."
But how do you explain how your strategy of voting for the lesser evil—which has dominated liberal thinking for centuries—has gotten us nowhere? We're fighting the same battles we've been fighting for generations. No Democratic or Republican representative of the 1% has done more than put a cheerier face on a rotten system. Getting rid of Nixon didn't deliver us. Getting rid of Reagan didn't do it. Getting rid of Bush didn't do it. You are familiar, I'm sure, with Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. With the long history of lesser-evil voting and zero or negative results to show for it, the burden is on you to show why continuing this behavior is not madness.
You suggest that it's possible to play the game, urge support for one of the two corporate parties, with all of their downsides and shortcomings, while at the same time working to broaden the choice and/or, presumably, to move the Democratic party to the left. Again, since that is exactly the strategy that has been followed by the liberal left for generations without positive results, it should be enough to give one pause. Moreover, when you participate in a game with two rotten choices, you guarantee that in the next round, the choices will be as rotten or worse. It's like buying a used car and accepting the unfair, awful price the car dealer offers rather than walking away. The next time you go back, he'll play you for a sucker again. The prices/deals don't get better unless you are willing to walk away.
Working for or urging support for candidate Tweedledee over candidate Tweedledum is harmful for another reason: it substitutes the illusion of progress for real progress, and as such is tragically disorienting. It's like thinking you can make progress climbing a mountain by climbing to up the stairway inside the chalet at the mountain's base. It feels like you're gaining altitude--you are, in a sense--but you're deceiving yourself and you're not getting any closer to the mountain summit. You have to leave the warm, comfortable illusion, go outside and start making progress up the real, more difficult path.
And what is that real, more difficult path? In The Dorothy Syndrome and its precursor, The Problem is Capitalism, I spell it out:
- Capitalism, the system that puts profits before human needs, is the root cause of the big problems we face today, from war, racism, poverty, inequality, and injustice, to destruction of our environment and the planet. Replacing capitalism with a rational, democratic system is a prerequisite to solving the problems we face.
- The working class—working people, the 99%, if you will—is the only sector of society with the power and numbers to challenge the corporate dictators—the 1%--for political power and replace capitalism with something better. To accomplish this, working people need to be aware of their power, be aware of their separate class interests, be organized and educated, be conscious of who their allies and enemies are, and willing and able to defend their democratic right, as the majority, to remake the country in their own image.
- Both the Democratic and Republican parties are institutions of the 1%. Supporting either party does not help working people to find and use their power as a class, nor to assert their own class interests. On the contrary, support for either party of the 1% muddles and confuses who is who and what needs to be done, sacrificing clarity and real progress for an illusory, feel-good, empty-calorie brand of phony progress.
Two final issues:
(1) This statement of yours jumped out at me: "In spite of the negatives connected to Obama, I see more positives..." It's not entirely clear how you meant that. If you meant, "Despite the drawbacks in voting for Obama, I think there is more to be gained by voting for him than not voting for him," that's one thing. I don't agree, but I can understand the logic. But if you meant, "On balance Obama has done more good things than bad in his first term," one has to wonder how you value the lives of the drone, victims, rendition victims, coup victims, loss of civil liberties, etc. and find these are outweighed by—by what?—lip service to abortion rights, gay marriage and immigrant rights? (I say "lip service" because Obama's position on each of these important issues was extremely week and mostly at the level of talk as opposed to action. If necessary, I can elaborate.)
(2)
I have the highest respect and admiration for Noam Chomsky. I think
he's a national treasure. I have long been aware of his position on
voting for Democrats in so-called swing states. I simply do not agree,
for the reasons outlined above. (This is not the only issue on which I
would differ with Chomsky.) In addition to the arguments offered above,
one should note that the same "swing state" policy of the Green Party's
David Cobb in 2004 greatly disoriented and practically destroyed the
party, a blow from which it is still struggling to recover.
But ironically, if you agree with Chomsky, and Washington being a solidly Democratic state, you should be urging people to vote for a left alternative to both of the corporate candidates in WA, and publicly declaring your own intention to do the same.
But ironically, if you agree with Chomsky, and Washington being a solidly Democratic state, you should be urging people to vote for a left alternative to both of the corporate candidates in WA, and publicly declaring your own intention to do the same.
ML: I
did not answer many of your arguments because they were hypothetical
and did not reflect what our choice in this election looks like to me.
I’m not choosing to vote for Mussolini and refrain from going down that
path you seem to want to go. You and I are not far apart in view of what
a better party looks like but in my estimation we do not yet live in a
world where that party is ready for prime time. I am making different
choices based on what I believe is possible. You want to stand above the
two party game and pretend it’s outcome doesn’t matter because of the
larger more important one you think you are playing in. That’s fine and
your prerogative. I haven’t come to the same conclusion. I believe
voting for one of the two parties does matter. I see the potential to
undo many years of hard work to get where we are on many fronts if
Romney/Ryan get elected and/or Republicans continue to hold a majority
in the House. I am unwilling to give that up. I don’t accept that
playing their game strengthens their hand. The President WILL select new
Supreme Court Justices and there will be a big difference in all our
lives if a President Romney adds another Scalia to the bench. I accept
that “Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't
vote.”
I get your point of the corruption of both parties and I support your thoughtfulness of trying to figure out how we can change all that. Choosing to not play the game everyone else is playing just marginalizes your effectiveness and does not have to represent your only non crazy alternative. Maybe you are right but it doesn’t ring true for me and I don’t agree your logic is flawless.
[Regarding voting]
That’s good that you do not advocate not voting. What I really want is for Conservatives to observe and experience that their path is on the wrong side of history. I want people to reject the notion of I got mine (somehow magically on their own) now you all go get yours (on your own). I want people to realize that “We all do better when we all do better.” I want to vote so that those ideas win on November 6th. I know that big changes won’t necessarily happen if Obama wins. It’s not about him. It’s about us and solely not voting for him doesn’t change me or other life choices any more than voting for him. Losing to Romney though, will change me. It will demoralize me. It will make me question my sanity and I will lose hope that there is anything I can do to make a difference.
[Regarding the lesser-evil strategy not having gotten us anywhere.]
You are partly right here. But first of all I don’t agree we’ve gotten nowhere. I think that gaining civil rights for minorities is somewhere, Women voting is somewhere, getting rid of “Don’t ask don’t tell” is somewhere. Healthcare access for a few million more people is somewhere. These aren’t the opposite to drone attacks and wars that haven’t ended soon enough. They are each facts that reside in their own dimension. I can’t believe how long and how hard fundamental things like those have taken. It’s hard to believe that an election can still affect Roe v Wade but it does. You’d think basics should be just understood like healthcare is a right for all but it’s not and big battles are won and lost in this corrupt system of the 1%’s fighting it out. I also think that there’s nothing new and novel about voting for loser candidates who have not done their minimum homework which is to build a winning platform, up and down the political spectrum and sell that message effectively. So you tell me how voting for someone you know is going to lose will make a difference. Quite possibly like a house that’s been on the market for too long, after enough time, no one even notices it anymore.
[Regarding walking away from a bad choice.]
Yes bargaining is sometimes strengthened when you are willing to walk away but I don’t know about you... my track record is mostly either just walking away and not getting what I want, or waiting long enough till I find the deal I can afford. It’s usually obvious who has the upper hand in most negotiations. There is a reason why mediation is often so successful when nothing else works. Mediators first try to balance the power before proceeding with negotiation and you have the agreement upfront from both parties that resolution is desirable. If the balancing of power isn't available, I find it less stressful and more productive to take the less desirable but palatable deal and move on if I really want something or resign myself to not having it. I don't kid myself that after walking away from a final offer, the car dealer is going to come to my house and hand over the keys saying you win. Life just doesn't work that way very often.
[Regarding the illusion of progress vs. real progress.]
Sometimes you just have to rent a helicopter to get to the top of the mountain. Maybe voting and politics won’t be the method that changes things. Maybe it will be some outside event like a true world economic collapse, nuclear event, visit from aliens, or maybe just some high school kid’s science project that virally opens our eyes to a different way. I agree with you that this process sucks and sure seems crazy. It is what it is but it's the only game in town today.
[Regarding capitalism as the root of the problem, and educating and mobilizing working people as the solution.]
I agree with this 100% as a theory and would like to see it played out but It’s not in the general public awareness enough for this to happen yet. Maybe it’ll happen in our buying habits.... our choice for transportation..... our choice for entertainment..... our choice for what to read.... or choice for teaching our kids.... and maybe the politics will follow not lead these changes.
[Regarding whether voting for one of the corporate parties clarifies or muddles the road forward.]
I contend that changes as you describe comes from learning and observation on a daily basis. Where does learning occur? I suspect it doesn’t come close to the voting booth on the day of the election. But the chooser of the next supreme court justice does and more learning will occur after that becomes known.
[Regarding Bruce's 3 points and whether it is consistent to agree with them and still urge support for the Democrats.]
Sorry but I don’t completely agree with each and every point and find your argument to be lacking in some aspects.
[Regarding Bruce's critique of Mark's statement, "In spite of the negatives connected to Obama, I see more positives..."]
I meant it in both contexts plus intertwined with the alternative option of a Romney win so there’s quite a clear contrast.
[Regarding Noam Chomsky.]
Just watched the debates and OMG what a terrible debate it was. I agree this sucks. After November 6th one of these to men will be our president. I read what Chomsky said and can see your point but you’d have to agree that if in a swing State his decision to vote for Obama was a testament (from someone who does not like Obama) that there is still a difference. Difference enough to vote for him. Well I don’t take anything for granted and I hope you are right that Washington is a solidly Democratic State but I’m not willing to take that chance. I couldn’t sleep with myself if Romney won and I didn’t vote for Obama.
Well here we are. Good discussion. We can talk more privately but I wanted to reply to your considered response and not just leave you hanging. I suspect neither of us has changed the other's mind. I appreciate your engagement and that your heart is in the right place.
I get your point of the corruption of both parties and I support your thoughtfulness of trying to figure out how we can change all that. Choosing to not play the game everyone else is playing just marginalizes your effectiveness and does not have to represent your only non crazy alternative. Maybe you are right but it doesn’t ring true for me and I don’t agree your logic is flawless.
[Regarding voting]
That’s good that you do not advocate not voting. What I really want is for Conservatives to observe and experience that their path is on the wrong side of history. I want people to reject the notion of I got mine (somehow magically on their own) now you all go get yours (on your own). I want people to realize that “We all do better when we all do better.” I want to vote so that those ideas win on November 6th. I know that big changes won’t necessarily happen if Obama wins. It’s not about him. It’s about us and solely not voting for him doesn’t change me or other life choices any more than voting for him. Losing to Romney though, will change me. It will demoralize me. It will make me question my sanity and I will lose hope that there is anything I can do to make a difference.
[Regarding the lesser-evil strategy not having gotten us anywhere.]
You are partly right here. But first of all I don’t agree we’ve gotten nowhere. I think that gaining civil rights for minorities is somewhere, Women voting is somewhere, getting rid of “Don’t ask don’t tell” is somewhere. Healthcare access for a few million more people is somewhere. These aren’t the opposite to drone attacks and wars that haven’t ended soon enough. They are each facts that reside in their own dimension. I can’t believe how long and how hard fundamental things like those have taken. It’s hard to believe that an election can still affect Roe v Wade but it does. You’d think basics should be just understood like healthcare is a right for all but it’s not and big battles are won and lost in this corrupt system of the 1%’s fighting it out. I also think that there’s nothing new and novel about voting for loser candidates who have not done their minimum homework which is to build a winning platform, up and down the political spectrum and sell that message effectively. So you tell me how voting for someone you know is going to lose will make a difference. Quite possibly like a house that’s been on the market for too long, after enough time, no one even notices it anymore.
[Regarding walking away from a bad choice.]
Yes bargaining is sometimes strengthened when you are willing to walk away but I don’t know about you... my track record is mostly either just walking away and not getting what I want, or waiting long enough till I find the deal I can afford. It’s usually obvious who has the upper hand in most negotiations. There is a reason why mediation is often so successful when nothing else works. Mediators first try to balance the power before proceeding with negotiation and you have the agreement upfront from both parties that resolution is desirable. If the balancing of power isn't available, I find it less stressful and more productive to take the less desirable but palatable deal and move on if I really want something or resign myself to not having it. I don't kid myself that after walking away from a final offer, the car dealer is going to come to my house and hand over the keys saying you win. Life just doesn't work that way very often.
[Regarding the illusion of progress vs. real progress.]
Sometimes you just have to rent a helicopter to get to the top of the mountain. Maybe voting and politics won’t be the method that changes things. Maybe it will be some outside event like a true world economic collapse, nuclear event, visit from aliens, or maybe just some high school kid’s science project that virally opens our eyes to a different way. I agree with you that this process sucks and sure seems crazy. It is what it is but it's the only game in town today.
[Regarding capitalism as the root of the problem, and educating and mobilizing working people as the solution.]
I agree with this 100% as a theory and would like to see it played out but It’s not in the general public awareness enough for this to happen yet. Maybe it’ll happen in our buying habits.... our choice for transportation..... our choice for entertainment..... our choice for what to read.... or choice for teaching our kids.... and maybe the politics will follow not lead these changes.
[Regarding whether voting for one of the corporate parties clarifies or muddles the road forward.]
I contend that changes as you describe comes from learning and observation on a daily basis. Where does learning occur? I suspect it doesn’t come close to the voting booth on the day of the election. But the chooser of the next supreme court justice does and more learning will occur after that becomes known.
[Regarding Bruce's 3 points and whether it is consistent to agree with them and still urge support for the Democrats.]
Sorry but I don’t completely agree with each and every point and find your argument to be lacking in some aspects.
[Regarding Bruce's critique of Mark's statement, "In spite of the negatives connected to Obama, I see more positives..."]
I meant it in both contexts plus intertwined with the alternative option of a Romney win so there’s quite a clear contrast.
[Regarding Noam Chomsky.]
Just watched the debates and OMG what a terrible debate it was. I agree this sucks. After November 6th one of these to men will be our president. I read what Chomsky said and can see your point but you’d have to agree that if in a swing State his decision to vote for Obama was a testament (from someone who does not like Obama) that there is still a difference. Difference enough to vote for him. Well I don’t take anything for granted and I hope you are right that Washington is a solidly Democratic State but I’m not willing to take that chance. I couldn’t sleep with myself if Romney won and I didn’t vote for Obama.
Well here we are. Good discussion. We can talk more privately but I wanted to reply to your considered response and not just leave you hanging. I suspect neither of us has changed the other's mind. I appreciate your engagement and that your heart is in the right place.
BL:
(1) Let's examine this multi-part question that you continue to dodge:
"Do you have any principles that you won't compromise? Is there any place you will draw the line and say, I cannot vote for a party that does such-and-such or stands for so-and-so, regardless of the decrepitude of their state-sanctioned opponent? In an election where the only two official, "realistic" choices were Hitler and Mussolini, would you urge people to vote for Mussolini, arguing that, 'It's our responsibility to choose wisely and keep moving in the right direction and not get distracted by false choices.'?"
Your only reply so far has been, "I’m not choosing to vote for Mussolini and refrain from going down that path you seem to want to go."
As threatening as it may be to your argument, and as uncomfortable as it may make you, the choices are these:
A.
No, you do not have any absolute principles; there is no line you will
not cross. As long as someone has a "D" in front of their name on the
ballot, you will urge support for them, regardless of any crimes or
atrocities they may have committed, regardless of any abhorrent
positions they may hold, so long as their state-sanctioned opponent is a
little bit worse. In this case, if Mussolini were the Democratic
candidate and Hitler were the Republican, you would urge support for
Mussolini, and for the same reason that you now urge support for Obama:
because "It's our responsibility to choose wisely and keep moving in the
right direction and not get distracted by false choices." [My emphasis.]
Or,
B. Of course you have principles and of course there is a line you will not cross. It's just that Obama's war-making, trashing of civil liberties; support for the murderous coup in Honduras; extra-judicial assassination of US citizens and others; continuation of extraordinary rendition and torture by proxy; illegal, Congressionally opposed invasion of Libya; drone bombing of civilians in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere, record-breaking persecution of whistle-blowers; record-breaking deportation of undocumented workers; record breaking cash accepted from Wall St, and his consequent, unsurprising political subservience to Wall St's agenda--it's just that all these things don't add up to a moral dilemma for you, and you are comfortable proclaiming that the line has not yet been crossed!
B. Of course you have principles and of course there is a line you will not cross. It's just that Obama's war-making, trashing of civil liberties; support for the murderous coup in Honduras; extra-judicial assassination of US citizens and others; continuation of extraordinary rendition and torture by proxy; illegal, Congressionally opposed invasion of Libya; drone bombing of civilians in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere, record-breaking persecution of whistle-blowers; record-breaking deportation of undocumented workers; record breaking cash accepted from Wall St, and his consequent, unsurprising political subservience to Wall St's agenda--it's just that all these things don't add up to a moral dilemma for you, and you are comfortable proclaiming that the line has not yet been crossed!
You,
and all who cling so desperately to the "lesser- evil" boat are
trapped. Either you must change course, admit you were wrong and climb
aboard another craft going in a different direction, or you're compelled
to go down with the ship, sinking deeper and deeper as you urge support
for ever more right-wing lesser-evil choices.
(2) I asserted that the lesser-evil strategy, which has been practiced for generations, has gotten us nowhere. You responded, "But first of all I don’t agree we’ve gotten nowhere. I think that gaining civil rights for minorities is somewhere, Women voting is somewhere, getting rid of “Don’t ask don’t tell” is somewhere. Healthcare access for a few million more people is somewhere."
Here you are giving credit where it is absolutely not due. Union rights, the eight hour day, the ending of Jim Crow, women's suffrage, ending the Vietnam War—in fact, every major progressive milestone you can point to in American history—was won by huge mass movements, in the streets, independent of the two major parties. These victories demonstrate the very opposite of your point: that real politics happens in the streets, and that lesser-evil voting is a sideshow, a distraction and a diversion. Scratch beneath the surface historically of any of these great movements and you'll find that the role of both corporate parties was to try to defuse, disrupt, disorient and emasculate the movements, attempting to steer the justified outrage and energy onto the electoral off ramp. In these historic cases, victory was achieved precisely because the politics of lesser-evilism was rejected in favor of mass action. Any laws that were passed at the culmination of these great struggles were mere rubber stamps for what had already been won in the streets.
For the record, I put gays winning the right to serve in the imperial military ("Don't ask don't tell"), and Obama/Romney/Heritage Foundation care in a different category. The US military is used to oppress the 99% around the world as it does the bidding of our 1%. While I fully support LGBT rights, winning the "right" to be part of a destructive, repressive organization is no victory for anybody but the 1%. Obama/Romney/Heritage Foundation care is a sham and a diversion, and as Obama himself said, it can in no way be seen as a step toward single payer Medicare for all.
Onward!
(2) I asserted that the lesser-evil strategy, which has been practiced for generations, has gotten us nowhere. You responded, "But first of all I don’t agree we’ve gotten nowhere. I think that gaining civil rights for minorities is somewhere, Women voting is somewhere, getting rid of “Don’t ask don’t tell” is somewhere. Healthcare access for a few million more people is somewhere."
Here you are giving credit where it is absolutely not due. Union rights, the eight hour day, the ending of Jim Crow, women's suffrage, ending the Vietnam War—in fact, every major progressive milestone you can point to in American history—was won by huge mass movements, in the streets, independent of the two major parties. These victories demonstrate the very opposite of your point: that real politics happens in the streets, and that lesser-evil voting is a sideshow, a distraction and a diversion. Scratch beneath the surface historically of any of these great movements and you'll find that the role of both corporate parties was to try to defuse, disrupt, disorient and emasculate the movements, attempting to steer the justified outrage and energy onto the electoral off ramp. In these historic cases, victory was achieved precisely because the politics of lesser-evilism was rejected in favor of mass action. Any laws that were passed at the culmination of these great struggles were mere rubber stamps for what had already been won in the streets.
For the record, I put gays winning the right to serve in the imperial military ("Don't ask don't tell"), and Obama/Romney/Heritage Foundation care in a different category. The US military is used to oppress the 99% around the world as it does the bidding of our 1%. While I fully support LGBT rights, winning the "right" to be part of a destructive, repressive organization is no victory for anybody but the 1%. Obama/Romney/Heritage Foundation care is a sham and a diversion, and as Obama himself said, it can in no way be seen as a step toward single payer Medicare for all.
Onward!
ML: I thought we were done but you keep pushing scenarios that just don't apply and make it sound like I'm avoid them because it undermines my position. Life is a moral dilemma. There are many problems and I can't tackle them all. It's too much for any one person. I contend that there is no other boat coming for you this election. You are trapped too in a way, like it or not. I'm afraid you are just going to get wet like the rest of us whether you participate or not and apparently you don't care because you have your line in the sand to protect you.
You have helped me clarify my position though and thank you for that. I agree with (not disagree with) the point that real politics happens in the streets (year round). The election just helps expand or contract the boundaries of the publicly perceived playing field. I'll participate in that rather than buy into the notion that it's all the same and not working. For me that's real even though not completely satisfying and I think the boundaries and corresponding effect on public perception do help deal with some moral dilemmas albeit often times not enough to play a role in resolving many others. We don't just stop and say we're done. I wish you had a magic boat to step into. It would be nice. We will continue playing our parts on Nov 7th with a different energy based on what happens next. We will move on.
Comments
Post a Comment