This year, in the case of Trump, anyone who has actually done any
substantial reading about Trump would never believe those theories. I
strongly doubt that the ruling class wants to see him as President, any more
than Hillary supporters or those on the left. If Carl's theories about the
ruling class are correct, they need to have a President who is either
aligned with them or whom they can control. Trump is so narcicistic, that he
can't align himself with anyone or anything except his own self interest and
his perception of what that is, varies from time to time. He isn't loyal to
people or institutions, and he lies to and cheats everyone with whom he has
contact. It his his character flaws that are causing Republicans of all
stripes, to run for the hills. Whoever is left in the party leadership who
is still supporting him, must either not understand who he really is or,
must be as deluded as he.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice Dampman
Humel
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2016 1:44 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: applying the Jarvis Logic
additionally, if the vote your conscience or stay at home types really want
to see Trump get into the White House, then why would they engage in this
roundabout, convoluted, smoke and mirrors way of doing it? I would imagine
that those who want to see Trump in the White House are not going to vote
for a third party candidate, but rather, they are going to go to the polls
and vote forTrump. But I guess that is far too simple and direct for the
lovers of conspiracy theories involving the working class, the ruling class,
and mentioning David Duke, Joe McCarthy and Trump in one sentence, theories
so tangled and convoluted the steps are impossible to follow without major
brain hurt.
On Aug 14, 2016, at 10:11 AM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
And, additionally, I think it is unfair to accuse those of us who
vote for a
candidate who is an alternative to the Democratic Party, to be
working
secretly on behalf of Trump or the Republicans. It is an accusation
that
I've read before, made by other people, usually Democratic
operatives. It is
a way of turning people on the left against each other so that
movements
toward real change will be damaged. People who are truly on the
left are at
a real disadvantage because of lack of funds, fragmentation of
organizations, and a concerted effort on the part of government and
those on
the right to demolish us. We all do the best we can to make choices
which
seem correct. It isn't helpful when people who say that they are our
brothers and sisters, attack us for those choices.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 11:31 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: applying the Jarvis Logic
Well Frank, speaking as one who would like to put Donald Trump on
the first
rocket ship to Mars...with a one-way ticket and no oxygen, I believe
those
of us who do not vote for the Other Establishment candidate, do not
want to
stick it to anyone...well, maybe some of the Trump Troops.
Looking back over our past, there appears to me that there is
something
missing in our lives. It is called, democracy. We have been taught
that
this Republic of ours does allow a form of democracy at the grass
root
level. Here is one explanation:
The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the
limits
placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority
rights.
Both forms of government tend to use a representational system -
i.e.,
citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and
form the
government.
In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain
inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even
if it
has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure democracy," the
majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on
the
minority.
But nowhere in my high school civics was the term Oligarchy
mentioned.
And that is what we have lived under ever since George Washington
ascended
to the Office of President of the USA. Currently, and for lo these
many
years, we've been in a tug of war between the Ruling Class, those
seeing
themselves as the Real First Class Citizens, and the vast majority
whose
labor keeps these First Class Citizens in their royal life style.
While
they may not like it, they can well afford to allow us to make
certain
changes in the Law, to improve our working class lives. Just so
long as
they hold onto the controls, they can change any law we have voted
in. Many
of us who still consider ourselves to be of the working class,
understand
that as long as the control is in the hands of those currently in
power, we
will be at their mercy. Far too often we get caught up in the
misrepresentations or out and out lies given to us in an attempt to
keep us
placated. And I can understand the desire to hope for a show of
kindness
from our Masters.
But that has not been the story of our history. We, the working
class are
the ones who have had our heads caved in by police and company
goons, not
the Ruling Class.
It was our people who suffered eviction and starvation and the
illness of
their children and elderly parents, not the privileged Ruling Class.
I
believe, firmly, that voting for any member of this long entrenched
Oligarchy will only add to our suffering. If the Sun stands still
and the
Cow jumps over the Moon, and Donald Trump is elected, we will
certainly
suffer. But the Ruling Class will take care of The Donald. Trump
will not,
himself, be a great threat to our lives. But what we need to watch
for, is
how the Ruling Class handles their problem. An Oligarchy is not far
removed
from a dictatorship.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/13/16, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I agree with all of this. I hear many more Trump supporters
than ever
before. It seems every time he goes off the deep end, he
gets more
popular.
I also believe that many of the stay home or vote your
"conscience"
types really want to get Trump into the white house out of
some sort
of stick it to everyone else sense of anger, despair, or
revenge.
Frank
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Alice
Dampman Humel
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 8:38 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: applying the Jarvis Logic
Don't bet on it. This is exactly the kind of thinking that
has allowed
Trump to get as far as he has. No one took him seriously
until it was
too late to stop him. And we dare not underestimate the
numbers of
people out there who will indeed vote for him. I hear them
interviewed
on the radio, a neighbor is an ardent Trump supporter, and
I've
listened to him talk, too, so it's not just that the press
is cherry
picking a few crazies for the radio or newspaper. The things
they say
are so completely lunatic, and they say it all with a
conviction and a
straight face. For example, the neighbor is convinced Obama
is a
Muslim. So he probably buys Trump's very purposeful
phraseology that
Obama is the "founder" of ISIS, although Trump, with his
fake
innocence, says he only means that Obama caused ISIS, also
false, BTW,
but if that is what he meant, then why didn't he say so?
It's
perfectly clear what he is doing by choosing those words,
just as his
comments about what the second amendment people could do to
stop Hillary
from ever getting to choose any supreme court justices.
We, in our little insulated bubble of alternative press
articles, of
shared convictions, although not always complete agreement
on every
point, we for get that such people exist, and we can't
fathom how many
of them there are out there who hate the likes of us and
everything we
stand for and hold dear.
On Aug 13, 2016, at 12:20 AM, Carl Jarvis
<carjar82@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I don't know, Miriam. My elder sister is mentally ill and
would make
a great vindictive President. But neither she nor Donald
Trump will
win a spot in the Oval Office. Trump may be a nut case,
clever enough
to build a huge house of cards as well as conning enough Red
Neck
White Supremacists to beat out the likes of Ted Cruz, Jeb
Bush, Doctor
Ben Carson and all those other Losers.
However if we put all the angry White Flat Heads end to end,
they
couldn't elect a dog catcher. Trump will not win! I have
far too
much belief in the working class to believe that they will
vote for
this man who seems to be bouncing off the walls in the
Rubber Room.
Clinton will win by a landslide. Sure, the Mass Media is
going to try
making a race out of it in order to keep them dollars coming
in, but
keep the Faith in Americans. Only other nut cases will want
to turn
the nation over to Trump. And there are simply not enough
of them.
And by the way, if Trump really did win, well...I'll see you
in Canada.
Carl Jarvis
Carl Jarvis
On 8/12/16, Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
But Carl, I know all that and I agree. We do seem to be
talking at
cross purposes. . I'm trying to say that Trump is truly
mentally
unstable. That's different from Paul Ryan whose politics I
despise or
Romney whose politics I despise. Trump is dangerous in a
different
way. But I must admit that it was big banks and government
which
allowed him to do the horrible things he's done. I also
have to admit
that the difference between many of his business actions and
those of
Wells Fargo or Goldman Saks is that he was less skilled and
a lot
cruder. But it's also true that he's devoid of certain
capacities that
are necessary for a public servant. Perhaps Bush was also.
But Bush's
main problem was lack of intelligence. He wasn't
narcisistic,
vindictive, and a woman hater.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From:
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@fre
elists.org> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of
Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 2:25 PM
To:
blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] applying the Jarvis Logic
No Socialist Analysis here, Miriam. Just good old Jarvis
Logic.
First, Washington is seldom out of the Democratic column.
I'd have to
look up the last time we went for a Republican
president...maybe Bush
Senior, And the last Republican Governor only served one
term. Back
in the 60's we did have Dan Evans as a three term governor,
but he was
rather middle of the road. He may have been our last
Republican
senator, too. So we still fly under the flag with the
Jackass on it.
But here's the thing about voting for either of the two
protected parties.
At the top, neither has the working classes needs on their
agenda.
Both have succumbed to the gold of the Ruling Class. Both
existing
parties began life as representing the Common Citizen. Both
followed
the tune being played by the Master's Pipers. While my
people were
busy tending to their fields, laboring in the factories, the
mines and
the forests, the Landed Gentry slipped in and took political
control.
They did not do this through joining the existing parties.
Instead,
they bought the spineless, weaklings, and poured money into
advertising promoting these Marionettes, spinning half
truths and bare
faced lies.
They dangled before us the promise of riches and freedom.
And we
bought the fantasy. And to set the hook, the Ruling Class
allowed us
to believe we had choices. We could vote for one of two
hand picked
candidates. Like in the old wrestling matches, one played
the "good
guy" while the other was the "villain". And, depending upon
our mood
of the day, we always went for the, "Lesser of two evils".
Now I am not some hysterical doomer and gloomer crying, "The
sky is
falling in!" But I do read history and look back through the
growing
number of years that I have lived in this Land of the Free
and the
Home of the Brave. And I can see that despite our voting in
the
lesser of two evils more often than we voted in Evil, we
have lost
ground. From the high water mark of the 40's, 50's and
60's, we began
sliding back toward the grim times of Hoover, Coolidge,
Harding and
beyond into the horror days in the 1880's and 1890's.
Have you noticed how we have been cut from the herd? We
used to stand
more or less in solidarity. We had organized labor and
guilds and
fraternal organizations and churches, where we would gather
and
discuss events, and join forces with like thinking people.
And we
would make modest gains, thinking each time that this was
the
beginning of the "good times". But if we did not guard
these gains
constantly, they were slowly dissolved, and we had to mount
another
attack.
We are not being good stewards of democracy. Our public
schools are
in retreat, our Medicare and Social Security are under
constant
attack. Our privacy is no longer private. We've gone over
the list
before, so I'll stop there. Yes, we do still have it better
than our
great grandparents living in the 1880's and 1920's. But
that is a sad
comparison. Compared to the mid 1940's through the late
1970's we are
in far worse shape.
I faithfully voted for the lesser of the two
evils(Democrats) from
1956 until 2012, when I voted for Jill Stein. Oh yes, I did
take time
out to vote once for Ralph Nader. What I have gained from
my loyal
support is nothing. So far I have lost about $58 thousand
on the
property we believed would be a retirement cushion, an
probably 80 or
90 thousand dollars on the house we live in, if we put it on
the
market now. Our children are all living at a less affluent
level than
we lived at their ages. Their children's education is going
to
bankrupt them. I'm not saying that there are improvements,
but even
such areas as women's rights are being whittled away. And
I weep for
our Gay, Lesbian, bisexual and transvestite citizens who are
under
constant attack by mad dog, mindless murderers.
When I was a boy, I could hop a bus to down town Seattle at
the age of
9, take a several block walk to the YMCA for my weekly
swimming
lesson, and return home well after 9:00 P.M. with never a
thought for my
safety.
Today,
little boys are as vulnerable as are little girls.
At 81, I am constantly receiving calls from scam artists
trying to
sneak their hands into my bank account. My heart breaks for
those who
are my age but no longer have the ability to understand when
they are
being fleeced...until well after the fact.
I keep thinking that we should put as much effort into
curbing the
Terrorists living here, as we are putting into drones and
other tools
of murder. But then I think, "if we did as poorly at
stopping
homeland terror, as we do overseas, we'd be better off not
trying."
So Miriam, the bottom line for me is that this corporate
capitalist
oligarchy is not going to get better. At some point we must
stop
supporting the lesser of two evils and begin the hard work
of building
a new system.
Look, if we think Trump is the nation's worst nightmare,
what will the
next monster look like? Remember when we thought that
George Bush the
Lesser was the ultimate bumbling evil one?
So, enough of this. You and I will each do what we believe
is in the
best interest of our People. We each feel that we are on
the right track.
Probably we could poll this list and find a whole bunch of
different
positions, by people who are as committed to the working
class as we are.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/12/16, Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
OK. First, the point is, Is Washington in the Democratic
column, the
Republican column, or a swing state. If it traditionally
votes for one
of the parties, all of its electoral votes will go to that
party. It
doesn't matter that some folks may vote for the other party.
Their
votes don't count. It doesn't matter. They may as well stay
home or
vote for any alternative. All of the electoral votes will go
to the
party for whom the majority of people always vote.
That being the case, we can all imagine the slide toward
hell with
Hillary as President. But would you please, for just a few
minutes,
try to imagine the consequences of Trump being President.
Try reading
Never Enough which is on BARD or The Making of Trump which
is on
Bookshare, because the usual socialist analysis which you
are applying
to this situation is inapplicable in the case of Trump. It
isn't a
question of his politics, nor of the stuff you hear on TV.
If you are
still thinking that it doesn't make any difference because
the ruling
class rules both parties, then you are still not
understanding what
kind of a person Trump is and how he functions. I'm not
telling you
who to vote for. I'm saying that you have to stop applying
your usual
analysis to this situation. I, personally, am voting Green
because I
live in New York and have the luxury of voting my
conscience. I want
to support any movement which has a chance of challenging
the status
quo and moving us away from the two corporate parties. But
if I were
living in a swing state as Joe is, I'd vote for Clinton
because if
Trump wins the Presidency, life for us, and particularly for
people
more vulnerable than you or I, will become radically worse,
very fast,
plus, the opportunity to build a humane alternative to what
we have,
will have been radically diminished.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From:
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@fre
elists.org> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of
Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 11:07 AM
To:
blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: An Eight Point Brief for LEV
(Lesser
Evil
Voting)
Miriam,
Washington State currently has a Democratic governor an two
Senators
who are both Democrats and Women. I think the state
legislature is
still more Democrat than Republican. But I know of many
folks who
plan to vote for Trump as a demonstration of their
frustration over a
wide range of grievances. But all that being said, my
decision to not
vote for Trump or Clinton is based on my belief that we are
in for
hard times under either.
Voting for Clinton will only buy us eight more years of a
slow
disintegration of our "middle class". I fully expect
Clinton to walk
away with victory in her grubby little hands, and once in
office I
expect to find her "agreeing" with her campaign promises,
but
explaining why, "now is not the time". There will be no
15 dollar and hour minimum wage, no expansion of Medicare or
Social
Security, TPP will probably pass, and very likely a new
sudden
collapse of our struggling economy. And of course with her
strong
love of Persons of Color, we can expect her to shed tears as
she does
nothing to curb the growing Prison Slaves. With her bent
toward an
even stronger military, her promise of rebuilding our
bridges and
highways will, along with rebuilding our public education
and our
inner cities, will be pie in the sky.
Clinton is pronounced as the candidate with proven
experience. This
is absolutely the Gospel Truth. She knows how to survive
within a
highly cutthroat system. And she knows how to look the
Public in the
eye, and lie.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/12/16, Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Carl,
I'm not voting for her either. But I live in New York, a
state that
will vote Democratic. If your state always votes Democratic
or
Republican, except in landslides, which this election won't
be, those
points don't apply to you.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From:
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@fre
elists.org> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of
Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 1:09 AM
To:
blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: An Eight Point Brief for LEV
(Lesser
Evil
Voting)
Miriam,
My old clock just struck ten P.M. and I am feeling rather
mindless.
So as I struggle off to bed I will pause long enough to
thank you for
the points you made...or pointed out, and I will try hard to
think of
how I will disagree with some of them. I believe that my
position of
digging in my heels may not be the right one, but it is *MY
right one.
I simply can't vote for Hillary Clinton. I'll blame my
father's
successful indoctrination when I was but a wee innocent lad.
For now, Good Night.
Carl Jarvis(Yawn!)
On 8/10/16, Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
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@fre
elists.org> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of
Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 11:02 AM
To:
blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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@fre
elists.org> [mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of
Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:48 AM
To:
blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
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-voti
n
g
/
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 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
