Carl,
The points in that article that I found useful were that:
1. They applied to people who live in states where the vote could go either
way, not to people in states where the majority of people always votes for
one party or the other because in those states, all of the electoral votes
go to the majority party, no matter what you do as an individual.
2. But where your individual vote may have meaning, a Trump presidency with
all of its repercussions will do the most damage to the most vulnerable
people, minorities, the poor, LBGT people, and the disabled. So it is
incumbent on you to prevent a Republican Presidency. In a swing state,
making what feels like a moral choice may make you feel comfortable, but its
effects will have hurtful consequences.
3. Voting for Hillary doesn't imply that you support her or what she stands
for, and it doesn't prevent you from allying yourself with activists who are
working toward the goals that are meaningful. It is only a practdical step
to take in order to allow some space for the social movements in which you
believe, to function.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 11:02 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil
Voting)
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.posed by the far right.
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 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 thatelectoral cycle.
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 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
A more general conclusion to be derived from this recognition is thatelectoral cycle.
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
