Hi Miriam,
I did read the earlier post. It does not help me, if by saying "help
me" I am suggesting I might see value in going with the lesser of two
evils. We are in this insane presidential race exactly because we
have continued to go with the Lesser of Two Evils. At some point in
time we will need to agree that this method is not gaining us anything
but a slower slide down the Razor's Edge. I have come to a place that
I cannot believe Clinton's promises anymore than I do Trump's. Now I
am at an age where my energies are diminished to a point of
ineffectiveness, my only avenue open is resistance.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/10/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I posted a much more cogent article on this subject before this one. It had
to do with strategic voting for the lesser of two evils and I think it's
important to read it and not to dismiss its arguments lightly.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:48 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil
Voting)
How long, oh Lord, how long do we continue voting for the lesser of two
evils, and ending up with Evil? Personally, I think we've come too far
down
this gilded Freeway to turn it back into an old country lane. But you
know?
if folks want another attempt to work with the lessor of two evils, then
Hillary Clinton is your wish come true.
I know I'm getting old when 9:40 PM. Tuesday evening feels like midnight
Friday.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/9/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
important consideration than feeling good about ourselves.
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
While some would suggest extending the critique by noting that thewith the establishment.
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
Their concern, as alluded to in 6) and 7) inheres in the awarenesselectoral cycle.
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
1. Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression orpretenses.
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
with it, as they must.
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
important consideration than feeling good about ourselves.
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/h
ttps:/ /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
While some would suggest extending the critique by noting that thewith the establishment.
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
Their concern, as alluded to in 6) and 7) inheres in the awarenesselectoral cycle.
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
1. Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression orpretenses.
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
4. The suffering which these and other similarly extremist policies andwith it, as they must.
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
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
