Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.
If you choose the lesser of two evils voting path, then what’s next? Pushing the lesser evil to do better? Or not pushing the lesser evil for fear the greater evil might win next time? If our lesser evil guy / gal says he or she will work for, say, single payer health care, and becomes an Elected, do we keep pushing for single payer, or mostly / only keep kind of quiet, because we’re more afraid of greater evil than the perceived lesser evil of not getting what we were promised?
Clearly I’m in high cynical, or just realistic, mode. Presidential election year politics tend to push me even further that direction. Our political / corporate / media meld very successfully turns each election cycle into drama for the consumption of the masses – that’s us. We’re the audience to be entertained and distracted, encouraged to cheer or jeer (both sides are needed for the drama to work), based on lesser-evildom framing.
Of course, not everyone actually goes along with this game. There are probably lots of people who do “go along,” but know what they’re “going on” with, and try to make it at least somewhat better. And, there are people who seek reforms, if not rebel and revolt. These folks, especially on the rebel and revolt end of things, are generally not favored by the media, by legacy parties, and certainly not by the Elites who buy elections. Well, except as used as a foil, or a scary distraction.
Some recent reading got me thinking about all of this. Again.
David Swanson, at OpEdNews:
Hopelessly Devoted
You’d never know it from watching television, but there are many thousands of people in the United States who take peace, justice, environmental protection, and government of the people so seriously that they don’t censor themselves whenever the president is a Democrat.
Obviously Swanson is writing on the Left side of things, looking at a book by Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank, a collection of 56 essays from prior to Obama’s election through the “quite recent,” entitled, Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion. Drawing on the essays, he provides a lengthy list of “charges against Obama” through a “Declaration of Independence like list of grievances,” ranging from accepting “massive funding from Wall Street” to “sabotag(ing) efforts to protect the earth’s climate” to “dramatically escalated drone killings.”
I think he’s largely correct in saying “you’d never know” about the people who “don’t censor themselves,” and you certainly wouldn’t know about their actual arguments, if you relied on MSM.
Swanson also wrote Elections: What Are They Good For?, which includes a discussion of the evil / lesser evil framing. It seems to me that We the People have largely accepted that framing as something we can’t change, that’s just the way it is, and furthermore, anyone who thinks differently is naive, impatient, and probably unpatriotic, since loyalty to one side of the Duopoly is tantamount to being a “good American.”
Swanson writes:
… lesser-evilism inverts representative government even when there’s no election anytime soon. People make themselves the servants of their public servants. Organizations ask the government what they should rally their members to demand of the government. Pressuring elected officials from the Good Party is forbidden or heavily restricted as supposedly assisting the Bad Party. …
What to do, Swanson asks, then beings his answer with this:
… first of all, we focus on the other 729 days in every two-year period. …
I advocated for increased activism, which you’d think would make sense … especially if you’d elected less evil office holders. Shouldn’t you try to end war when you’ve elected someone you fantasize might do it, and not exclusively when you believe there’s no chance?
Of course there are those who do keep pushing. During Obama’s term, for example, the environmental activists have been visible with the Keystone Pipeline protests. Immigration reform activists have been vocal, along with the LGBT communities. And, of course, there’s the Occupy / 99% movements, which are focused on the need for a changed system, not just who gets the larger measure of evilist power every few years.
There are others who make more direct decisions, like Rob Kall:
I’m Dumping the Democratic Party, Personally
I’m switching my voting registration from Democrat to independent. I’m doing it to send a message … that I’m not happy with the way they operate, … with their leadership and … with their pseudo-liberalism and the pro-corporatist policies that they have embraced. I’m changing to independent because the two party system is killing America and killing democracy. …
I realize that many of my liberal and progressive friends will continue to be Democrats, continue to work on Democratic campaigns and I respect that decision. …
The most persuasive arguments that have converted me have been my observations of the lies and failures to fulfill promises that Obama and the Democrats engaged in, and conversations about lesser of two evilism. …
… I’ve become a real believer in bottom up approaches and processes. The two party system is VERY top-down. Joining any party gives more power to the top of that party. Remaining an independent retains YOUR power. Now, if there were ways to join together and wield independent power. That would be something.
So far, Evilism has prevented that “something” from happening in a consistent manner. But every time someone or some group challenges Duopoly claims of “representative democracy,” from my perspective, that’s a good thing. And even as torturously slow and difficult as it is, it’s better than accepting lesser evilism as the only “good” option.
( Comic via American Extremist)
I agree with this. “Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss.” – Pete Townsend said that this has a double meaning. You can take it as the new person who is the leader is very much like, or identical to, the person who used to be the leader. It also can mean that the People have been in charge all along. Just like the old saying, “If the People will lead, the leaders will follow.” Allowing our politicians to divide us and define us is the cement that holds the 2-party duopoloy together.
I’m afraid Pete Townsend has a point there. Whatever they are, the forces that shape what choices we have for leaders will nearly always be present the next time we’re presented with a choice. How we choose doesn’t seem to change very much, either.
What astounds me is the oft-made claim from people that voting outside of the two party duoply is a “wasted” vote, as if somehow, voting within the duopoly, i.e. supporting the corruption, is not…huh?
If you’re voting your own conscience it can *never* be a wasted vote.
The DSCC will spend god knows how much getting Joe Manchin re-elected in West Virginia this year; never mind that he “hasnt decided” whether to support Obama for re-election or not. The DSCC will also be pulling hard for Tester in Montana. Either or both are strong candidates to flip to the GOP officially if they do win re-election.
And in the next cycle, they’ll send us letters begging for money for the “crucial” re-elections of other “Democrats,” warning us against the “Dangers” of the party they will either join officially or already belong to unofficially.
Pass.
Just got a call from those clowns today. I told them that when they stop doing the same things the Republicans did, I’d consider helping.
Did you read the piece by Greg Sargent yesterday on the DNC balking about putting money in on the Walker recall efforts?
The Dem party is outdoing itself on the unimpressive meter, not sure what Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is thinking, assuming it’s her actual decision. Remember Tim Kaine in 2010?
Is it possible that the DNC is worried about upsetting the balance in Wisconsin with national monetary involvement, or is the DNC balking because they want Walker to win?
Maybe they’re worried that labor will start asserting itself more. That would certainly play havoc with the Wall Street gravy train they’ve got going right now.
Or an arsonist, a racist, a poopyhead, or just the people responsible for everything bad that happens since if The Other Guys ™ gain power. Of course, few of the people who cast such blame accept it themselves when their “lesser evils” do virtually the same thing TOGs would have done. And frankly, I wouldn’t expect anyone who would make such a cowardly argument would. People who want to play it safe are quite often worried about not being blamed, and going with conventional wisdom does the trick as far as they’re concerned.
I have NEVER voted for a Democrat or Republican in ANY election. Now it was intensely difficult not voting for Obama in 2008 when you have a grandfather and three great-uncles who were part of the Deacons for Defense in the 1960s, numerous family members that were civil rights activists in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, as well as having two parents that were Black Panthers back in the day. Yep it was INTENSELY difficult not to vote for the first black POTUS. LOL!
But I just don’t have any love or respect for Democrats and Republicans in general. Oh I’ve met some good local politicians in my life. But I wouldn’t vote for them unless they were 3rd party. And I really could care less what hardcore two party supporters and voters think about my so-called “wasted” vote. I’ll tell ya what a wasted vote is:
1. Voting for 1st black President thinking he would different when he’s beholden to Wall Street.
2. Voting for said 1st black President’s opponent thinking he will be different when he’s beholden to Wall Street.
Wow! Looky there. Wall Street in both statements. Maybe I’ll vote for them. They know how to get things done.
Yes, why not get rid of the middleman?