Hmm...
I thought I'd been pretty forward with my belief that this nation has
undergone a non violent coup. We are under the control of that
Industrial/Military Complex that Ike warned us about. But as for our
transition to more war-like posture? This nation has never shrunk
from a good fight...or a bad one. Like any Empire before us, and as
the most overpowering Empire in history, we are violent and sneaky to
the limit. Lying and double talk are the way to the top.
My heart breaks for all those who must try to exist in future years.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/14/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Does it occur to you that we may already be living in a military
dictatorship? A soft one, to be sure, but something different from what we
had, or knew we had, before 9/11. We didn't have militarized police and
swat
teams before 9/11. We didn't have government spying on all of our
communications back then. We didn't bomb nations or send troops in before
some kind of congressional action before then. We didn't have presidential
campaigns with no mention of war and peace before then. Once upon a time,
pentagon waste was discussed in news reports. Never, in the past, did a
group of military figures make public statements criticizing our
President's
military policy in specific countries. There's a sea change. And part of
it
has to do with our government's preparations for global warming. Not a
change in the use of fossil fuels, but a preparation for what to do with
masses of climate refugees.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2016 11:48 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: applying the Jarvis Logic
Good Sunday Morning, Frank and anyone who can't escape from their
computers.
Part of me, the fantasy part, thinks that Donald Trump is Joe McCarthy
reincarnated.
But in truth, Donald Trump is not our biggest problem. He is just the
visible face of a Corporate/Military, greed driven Empire gone mad.
The Empire uses the Donald Trumps, the Joe McCarthy's and the David Dukes
to
stir up a rabble whose purpose is to distract our attention.
Stirring us up and turning us against one another and against the
government, they then offer us a "lesser than two Evils" candidate.
It's tricky, but the Ruling Class has a very long history of deceiving the
working class in order to keep it in line. If all goes according to plan,
and they do have a plan, we will occupy ourselves with pulling the rank and
file behind Hillary Clinton, thus avoiding what we've come to believe is a
crazy tyrant. And once we have won, placing the Establishment's first
Queen
on her throne, we will breathe a sigh of relief. And the world will
continue on a slow slide into the bowels of Hell.
But as I've said before, when the cow jumps over the moon, and when pigs
fly, Donald Trump could conceivably win an election, despite measures which
the Ruling Class believes will keep that from happening. And if Trump did
win? Well, it could be a disaster of the sort that propelled Adolph Hitler
into command of Germany's dream that there was an Empire waiting for them.
It's a very fine balance, using eternal war to expand profits, and holding
the lid down tightly in order to keep the pot from boiling over.
I believe that a Trump victory would be as much a disaster as a Jill Stein
victory. Either one would cause the Ruling Class to take desperate
measures. And after the dust settles, we would go forward as an Empire led
by a military dictatorship.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/14/16, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Miriam and Carl, take a look at who Trump attacks and who he doesn't.and sisters, attack us for those choices.
He finds allies in some third party candidates. I also think he
(Trump) is behind the movement to attack anyone who votes for Clinton
as a "party loyalist", which seems to be all the rage to do these days
by some on the left. In both cases, Trump benefits.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam
Vieni
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2016 10:12 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: applying the Jarvis Logic
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
Trump Troops.
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
Looking back over our past, there appears to me that there ison it.
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 everpopular.
before. It seems every time he goes off the deep end, he gets more
I also believe that many of the stay home or vote your "conscience"from ever getting to choose any supreme court justices.
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
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@fr
e 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
But here's the thing about voting for either of the two protectedattack.
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
We are not being good stewards of democracy. Our public schools areconstant attack by mad dog, mindless murderers.
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
When I was a boy, I could hop a bus to down town Seattle at the agesafety.
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
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@fr
e 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@fr
e 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@fr
e 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@fr
e 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
