I agree and with history as a lesson including the election of Hitler in 1933
we must take this threat seriously and we must understand there are reactionary
votters.
----- Original Message -----
From: Alice Dampman Humel
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 8:37 AM
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> 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> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 2:25 PM
To: 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> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 11:07 AM
To: 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> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 1:09 AM
To: 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> 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@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.
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:
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
