Carl,
Each time you express these same thoughts, it seems to me like you're doing
so in order to justify your vote for Stein. You don't need to do that. You
don't need to justify voting for Jill Stein. You can vote for her while
still recognizing what a terrible person Trump is and that he might really
be a threat. On the reverse side of the coin, those people who choose to
vote for Hillary, shouldn't feel that they need to justify their vote by
talking up what they perceive as her good points. They can just as well say
that she's really a terrible candidate, but they feel that Trump would be
worse for the country because of the people who will be part of his
administration, coupled with a Republican majority in congress which is
predicted. The choices are difficult. The situation is really, really bad.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 11:11 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: applying the Jarvis Logic
After coming to the realization that I was hearing the same drooling idiocy
from very vocal Humanoids, I stopped listening to the Shock Jocks talk
performances. Sure, there's a bunch of them dropping out of the Sycamore
trees, but they are simply that, very obnoxiously vocal buffoons. I seldom
hear a rational point made on these shows.
And if I listen too long, I begin getting paranoid. If I were to believe
for one moment that these lip flapping empty heads are in enough numbers to
actually elect Trump, then I have been sadly fooled into placing my
confidence in the working class folks. But I know far too many rational
people who do not fill the airwaves with anger and fear. Many of them will
turn out and vote for Clinton. Some of them will vote for Stein or one of
the other less known candidates. But none of them plan to vote for Trump.
Unless the Republican Party does a mighty make over, Trump will demonstrate
his mistrust in All Americans who are not on his private list of like minded
Billionaires.
And yes, as he spews out his poison, there are those who will lap it up like
dogs eating their own vomit. But these people have always been around.
They always vote for the White, Super Right champions.
While Trump has managed to stir them up, he does not have the ability to
unite them.
My personal problem is back to the fact that I can't bring myself to vote
for one more, "lesser of two evils". Hillary Clinton has the blood of too
many innocent people on her hands. I voted for Obama the first time around,
but he also lost my support when he went bravely forward following the War
Path cut by George Bush.
I am confident that those millions of American working class voters, the
ones who go quietly about their business, will be herded into voting for
Clinton. Herded by the same people who helped put Trump on the Republican
ticket. Allowing the Commercial Media to run wild, mocking Trump while at
the same time providing him a free platform to spin his web of deceit.
Since they have come to regard American Citizens as Consumers, they play up
Trump, and bend backward to give the impression that this is going to be a
cliff hanger. It's the world's biggest two ring circus, probably proving
that there really is a sucker born every minute.
And perhaps I also am a sucker. But for now I will hold to my belief that
despite my railing and pawing the ground, our American Public is wise enough
that they will close the door on Trump.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/13/16, Alice Dampman Humel <alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Don't bet on it. This is exactly the kind of thinking that has allowedfrom ever getting to choose any supreme court justices.
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*MY right one.
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,have been radically diminished.
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
cities, will be pie in the sky.
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
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
function.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,an individual.
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
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
politicians."resistance.
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
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
"lesser evil"
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
provisional.prefer, or not voting at all.voting strategy or LEV. Simply put, LEV involves, where you
can, i.e. in safe states, voting for the losing third party
candidate you
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
change.seriously.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
"moral"Another point of disagreement is not factual but involves theimportant consideration than feeling good about ourselves.
ethical/moral principle addressed in 1), sometimes referred to
as the "politics of moral witness." Generally associated with
the religious left, secular leftists implicitly invoke it when
they reject LEV on the grounds that "a lesser of two evils is
still evil." Leaving aside the obvious rejoinder that this is
exactly the point of lesser evil voting-i.e. to do less evil,
what needs to be challenged is the assumption that voting
should be seen a form of individual self-expression rather than
as an act to be judged on its likely consequences, specifically
those outlined in 4). The basic moral principle at stake is
simple: not only must we take responsibility for our actions,
but the consequences of our actions for others are a far more
While some would suggest extending the critique by noting that
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
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
backlash decades to follow.protecting.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
Others supporting LEV, however, can hardly be reasonablywith the establishment.
accused of having made their peace
Their concern, as alluded to in 6) and 7) inheres in the
awareness that frivolous and poorly considered electoral
decisions impose a cost, their memories extending to the
ultra-left faction of the peace movement having minimized the
comparative dangers of the Nixon presidency during the 1968
elections. The result was six years of senseless death and
destruction in Southeast Asia and also a predictable fracture
of the left setting it up for its ultimate collapse during the
opposition can posture as the "reasonable"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
be materializing.posed by the far right.alternative. A Trump presidency, should it materialize, will
undermine the burgeoning movement centered around the Sanders
campaign, particularly if it is perceived as having minimized
the dangers
A more general conclusion to be derived from this recognition
is 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
elites.self-expressionFinally, it should be understood that the reigning doctrinalelectoral cycle.
system recognizes the role presidential elections perform in
diverting the left from actions which have the potential to be
effective in advancing its agenda. These include developing
organizations committed to extra-political means, most notably
street protest, but also competing for office in potentially
winnable races. The left should devote the minimum of time
necessary to exercise the LEV choice then immediately return to
pursuing goals which are not timed to the national
1. Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal
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
"lesser evil"be (if
2. The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will
globalin 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
policieswarming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantlingpretenses.
of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India
and other developing nations as called for in the Paris
agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take
us to a catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to
deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for
the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American
protestors at his rallies, stated his "openness to using
nuclear weapons", supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S.
and regards "the police in this country as absolutely
mistreated and misunderstood" while having "done an
unbelievable job of keeping law and order." Trump has also
pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on
the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare
"safety net" despite
4. The suffering which these and other similarly extremist
where aand
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
winvote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, "swing"
state.
6. However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump
whobased
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
andwill use it as a bad faith justification for defeatingwith it, as they must.
challenges to corporate hegemony either in the Democratic Party
or outside of it.
They will ensure that it will be widely circulated in
mainstream media channels with the result that many of those
who would otherwise be sympathetic to a left challenge will
find it a convincing reason to maintain their ties with the
political establishment rather than breaking
8. Conclusion: by dismissing a "lesser evil" electoral logic
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-v
oti
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
provisional.prefer, or not voting at all.voting strategy or LEV. Simply put, LEV involves, where you
can, i.e. in safe states, voting for the losing third party
candidate you
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
change.seriously.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
"moral"Another point of disagreement is not factual but involves theimportant consideration than feeling good about ourselves.
ethical/moral principle addressed in 1), sometimes referred to
as the "politics of moral witness." Generally associated with
the religious left, secular leftists implicitly invoke it when
they reject LEV on the grounds that "a lesser of two evils is
still evil." Leaving aside the obvious rejoinder that this is
exactly the point of lesser evil voting-i.e. to do less evil,
what needs to be challenged is the assumption that voting
should be seen a form of individual self-expression rather than
as an act to be judged on its likely consequences, specifically
those outlined in 4). The basic moral principle at stake is
simple: not only must we take responsibility for our actions,
but the consequences of our actions for others are a far more
While some would suggest extending the critique by noting that
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
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
backlash decades to follow.protecting.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
Others supporting LEV, however, can hardly be reasonablywith the establishment.
accused of having made their peace
Their concern, as alluded to in 6) and 7) inheres in the
awareness that frivolous and poorly considered electoral
decisions impose a cost, their memories extending to the
ultra-left faction of the peace movement having minimized the
comparative dangers of the Nixon presidency during the 1968
elections. The result was six years of senseless death and
destruction in Southeast Asia and also a predictable fracture
of the left setting it up for its ultimate collapse during the
opposition can posture as the "reasonable"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
be materializing.posed by the far right.alternative. A Trump presidency, should it materialize, will
undermine the burgeoning movement centered around the Sanders
campaign, particularly if it is perceived as having minimized
the dangers
A more general conclusion to be derived from this recognition
is 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
elites.self-expressionFinally, it should be understood that the reigning doctrinalelectoral cycle.
system recognizes the role presidential elections perform in
diverting the left from actions which have the potential to be
effective in advancing its agenda. These include developing
organizations committed to extra-political means, most notably
street protest, but also competing for office in potentially
winnable races. The left should devote the minimum of time
necessary to exercise the LEV choice then immediately return to
pursuing goals which are not timed to the national
1. Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal
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
be (if2. The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will
globalin 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
policieswarming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantlingpretenses.
of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India
and other developing nations as called for in the Paris
agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take
us to a catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to
deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for
the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American
protestors at his rallies, stated his "openness to using
nuclear weapons", supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S.
and regards "the police in this country as absolutely
mistreated and misunderstood" while having "done an
unbelievable job of keeping law and order." Trump has also
pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on
the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare
"safety net" despite
4. The suffering which these and other similarly extremist
where aand
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
winvote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, "swing"
state.
6. However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump
whobased
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
andwill use it as a bad faith justification for defeatingwith it, as they must.
challenges to corporate hegemony either in the Democratic Party
or outside of it.
They will ensure that it will be widely circulated in
mainstream media channels with the result that many of those
who would otherwise be sympathetic to a left challenge will
find it a convincing reason to maintain their ties with the
political establishment rather than breaking
8. Conclusion: by dismissing a "lesser evil" electoral logic
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
