Excerpt: "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."
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. (photo: Getty Images)
An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting)
By John Halle and Noam Chomsky, Noam Chomsky's Website
09 August 16
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 Hobson's 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 Clinton's foreign policy
could pose a more serious menace than that of Trump.
In any case, while conceding as an outside possibility that Trump's 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 it's 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.
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. 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 Clinton's defeat the left will
undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to
achieve.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. (photo: Getty Images)
https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-for-lev-lesser-evil-voting/https:/
/chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-for-lev-lesser-evil-voting/
An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting)
By John Halle and Noam Chomsky, Noam Chomsky's Website
09 August 16
reamble:
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 Hobson's 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 Clinton's foreign policy
could pose a more serious menace than that of Trump.
In any case, while conceding as an outside possibility that Trump's 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 it's 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.
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. 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 Clinton's defeat the left will
undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to
achieve.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
