Stop Me Before I Vote Again

Wait, Chomsky said that? Well who are we to argue?

As a strategy, if you actually believe in something, Lesser Evilism has a track record of abysmal failure. The real world application favors the greater evil. I'm surprised Chomsky hasn't taken note of that. The quantitative data don't lie. Each and every lesser evil campaign has strengthened the greater evil, to the point where the conservatives of forty years ago are significantly more liberal than modern liberals. Nixon would be a better president than Obama; so much so that one could call him the lesser evil...

Jeeeeeeeezus. Noam Fuckin' Chomsky. It's not that I haven't heard a lot of seemingly sharp people who really ought to know better -- like Utah Phillips who, despite years of experience, supported Obama in '08 like every other standard-issue desperate, frightened Liberal -- going for the lesser evil shit, even after seeing the Democrats in action for the better part of 20 years, but, still... fuckin' Chomsky?

I still remember Michael Moore at a Nader/Green Party "super rally" at the arena downtown back in '00 saying "the lesser of two evils is still evil!" (and mind you, I shot that rally and still have the tape)... and then, four years later, totally pussying out with his groveling apology to the Democrats and his admonishment to vote for Kerry no matter what -- but then, that's just Michael Moore. We're talkin' Noam Goddamn' Chomsky here, gang. It's bad enough that he's even expecting us to participate in that phony-assed freak circus, but pimping that lesser evil line -- hell, that's enough to make me give up on Chomsky, except I sorta gave up on him a while back anyway.

Al Schuman sez on 05.23.12 @16:20:
...Each and every lesser evil campaign has strengthened the greater evil, to the point where the conservatives of forty years ago are significantly more liberal than modern liberals. Nixon would be a better president than Obama; so much so that one could call him the lesser evil...

Right on, there, man. I'm sure glad somebody out there is reading those goddamn' cartoons... (;^>

Hell, I'm all for voting for the lesser evil. Now if someone can only tell me which candidate that might be....

Lesser evilism is like digging through a turd for a kernel of corn. That little morsel might be edible, but it's hard to savor considering the circumstances of its discovery.

The Chimperor had a dramatic effect on lots of the big time educating lefties. They reacted like they'd been personally threatened. Maybe it was because he's so patently a full blown cretin; one who is proud to be a cretin and was adored by the wingnuts because of his knack for effortlessly shitting in the liberal punch bowl. Towards the end of his regime, those poor liberals were beside themselves. The big time lefties, though, should have known better.

Perfect cartoon, Mike. It's funny because it's true. I never thought there would be circumstances in which I'd welcome the return of Dick Nixon. But there it is, in damning detail.

Glen Ford explains how the lesser evil system works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PAIuTM3cK9I#!

Like the part at 10 minutes in. Little reminder that the leviathan isn't unbeatable. Stop quivering at Zardoz.

The Mahatma of MIT would have us believe electoral politics is real. He should enjoy the same credibility as professional wrestling promoters.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I have no problem with the lesser of two evils strategy (I don't subscribe to it myself,mind you).

It utterly baffles me how into it people get, though. They can happily say, "The most important task is to get this objectively awful President another 4 years in office!" and be completely surprised that the sentiment doesn't excite people.

Really, if no viable candidate is going to speak out against CIA death panels, that could just as easily be an argument for ignoring Presidential politics as it could be for ignoring CIA death panels.

Christopher, I think the excitable people are that way because they're very poorly individuated. They have no experience and perhaps no grasp of what it means to reject peer pressure. The most they can bear is to choose Coke when 51% of their peer swears by Pepsi.

I don't know about you folks, but I'm drinking a toast to Cory Booker, Eddie Rendell, and Li'l Stevie Rattner for showing us all --- or at least those among us who needed to see it --- who's buttering the Democrats' bread. The outer limit of debate is now criticizing private equity even if, (especially if) you have no intentions of doing anything about it.

Mike,

Geez, it's just Noam Chomsky.

I get lesser of two evilism, I don't find it relevant. I believe that not voting, not playing one's more or less inconsequential role in this insane joke, is more important in whatever political calculus can be wrung from the act of voting than choosing the lesser of two evils, but if pressed on a hypothetical where you stipulate voting, I get it. Chomsky could mean it the same way. Then again, the guy's pretty old. He's spent who knows how many hours cataloging the worst of it, he may well have finally cracked.

In evaluating any large group tactic or strategy, it's worth considering whether or not it comes close to the desired outcome. There's no shortage of hair-splitting available, not to mention ontological maundering, but Lesser Evilism is sufficiently broad to allow for a few general questions. I don't want to open a door for efficacy fetishism, or instrumentalist fundamentalism, but somewhere along the line it's pertinent to ask:

Does it yield less evil? No. Over time, it's obviously counterproductive.

Are there other options? Many, including non-participation, which frees up resources, energy, time, what-have-you for productive activities, or simply pursuing a pleasant pastime.

Is the stated intent aligned, at all, with repeatedly demonstrated outcomes? No, it isn't. The stated intent is invariably traduced by the outcomes.

The horse! It is dead! The beatings can be discontinued.

there may be a miss understanding here

noam so far as i know has always
"respected" the ballot ritual
and last time endorsed the ritual of vote swaps

to help build a progressive electoral organization in safe areas
while generating lesser evil votes in swing states

now this is noam

and he hardly judo chops third party efforts
or boycotts

but much like silver sam webb
he respects those
that believe in the ballot box system
and in particular in the reformation
of the democrat party

as i guess he might respect belief in
an after life

-------------------
the notion we progs can operate more effetively under the dems
is of course nonsense quite the contrary

the state will get it done either way
the dem way or the gop way

some argue a proto fascist element exists in the gop
that could in fact make operating as a pwog here
impossibly harder

this thesis needs a smart bombing
perhaps it could strengthen
the soft pwog support
for acts of extra legal uncivil boldness
by anti duopoly activists
if the damn pea heads realized
fascism isn't coming to amerika

but a movement that can disrupt corporate profit flow and force change
that can happen
if a certain bloc of heads could break decisively with this lesser evil
kow tow inside
the blessed sacramental voting booth

lesser evilism is the biggest and best way to crush break outs from the yankee doodle
prison church of the oppressed and exploited

Not voting is idiotic. As is bashing Noam Chomsky. No wonder that both are popular among a segment of the left.

Not voting is idiotic. As is bashing Noam Chomsky. No wonder that both are popular among a segment of the left.

There's a nice bit of dishonesty for you! The topic at hand is Lesser Evil voting, which demonstrably strengthens the greater evil. Voting can serve other ends too, although it rarely does. And as far as bashing Uncle Noam goes, what can I say? Some will bash, idiotically, and some will simply disagree, sagely or idiotically. The popularity of any of that, or none of it, is sublimely irrelevant.

Any successful movement will have more to do with a way of life and less to do with electoral strategy. On the other hand, write-in "Lesser Evil" and let the talliers figure it out.

I haven't voted since 1972 when I voted for McGovern. Even he has since turned out to be an asshole. In 2008, many of my leftwing friends voted and even campaigned for the wretched Obama. And now after four years of his catering to the super rich and fulfilling with gusto his role as the world's ablest mass murderer, many of these same fools will be voting for him again, maybe campaigning once more for him. I hope the young in OWS don't ever buy into this bullshit of lesser evilism. Cooptation is alive and well, however, so watch out for any opportunists. Not a few leftists, young and old alike, fall all over themselves as soon as some mainstream star notices them.

It isn't just at the polling booth that Americans are faced with overt and implied lesser evils: try eating healthy on hourly wage.

Does it yield less evil? No. Over time, it's obviously counterproductive.

One of the ways lesser evil thinking distorts political debates is that it works under the unspoken assumption that "evil" is a single category.

Basically, you assume every candidate has a net "evil" rating which is determined by adding up all of their various qualities. Repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell -indefinite detention +good supreme court nominations -drone strikes = Obama's overall evil rating.

It's really, really hard to get people to admit that this isn't an actual mathematical equation. Each person is going to weigh different issues differently.

Even I'll admit that Obama's administration is likely to be friendlier to gay rights than Romney's would be. For me, that's a tiny thing that doesn't even come close to mitigating the fact that both candidates are horrible tyrants.

But for somebody else, maybe that is enough to make Obama the lesser evil. It's even possible that electing Obama to a second term will, in fact, further the cause of gay rights even as it contributes to flushing the constitution down the toilet.

The point is that if someone rationalizes voting because they calculate the lesser of two evils, who gives a shit? The point of eschewing voting on the grounds of lesser of evilist rationalizations is asserting that voting is a symbolic act, therefore not voting is as invalid a choice as voting for whomever. If someone thinks voting for the lesser of two evil matters, then they can themselves out voting all day long for all I care, even if it is Noam Chomsky. I'm not all that concerned if Chomsky or anyone else wastes a morning of their own time doing something goofy.

I suspect this election will be positively SMBIVAn. Very low turnout (which the media eminences will lament, of course) and hardly any enthusiasm. None of the efforts to whip up the apathetic liberal faithful will make much of a difference, not the "War on Women," nor any of the other tricks in the bag.

One senses the same apathy and malaise that hung over New Yorkers in the run-up to the TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11 (tm), to which we were all subjected for weeks. But no one seemed to care except the hosts of tedious 10 Years Later programs.

i must say

running an out front vulture capitalist
has its insolent berlusconi aspect
that makes me want to slap the guy

so i'll admit if i had the power
and only the power to elect R or O i'd go with O

but i guess this isn't a spectacle
one evaluates like a ball game or a horse opera
or a martian invasion

and frrankly who'd work out to be worse in the end ?
hell if i know

Any successful movement will have more to do with a way of life and less to do with electoral strategy. On the other hand, write-in "Lesser Evil" and let the talliers figure it out.

Davidly drove a truck through wall with that. Of course he's right. The very last thing that matters is an electoral strategy, and even then it's a formalism; an acknowledgment, nothing more.

I remember that the shrillest pro-Kerry voices in 2004 were progressives who had actually voted for Nader in 2000, but four years later were screaming that anyone who wasn't supporting Kerry was automatically supporting fascism, and Nader was evil for running again (even plain old rank-and-file Democrats were nicer and less shrill about it by comparison).
Of course, they ended up looking stupid when the ketchup guy lost by four million votes and Nader wasn't even a factor.

Sean sez on 05.23.12 @19:25:
The Mahatma of MIT would have us believe electoral politics is real. He should enjoy the same credibility as professional wrestling promoters.

Hey, watch it. If Lou Albano and the Grand Wizard were here, they'd be highly offended by that remark, you pencil-necked geek.

I'm more interested in the Lessor of Evils

I'm more interested in the Lessor of Evils

Nice play on words. It would be great if the electorate could focus more on the leasing aspects and less on the personality and tribal aspects.

@Al Schumann

All the superstition and stupidity of "tribal" behavior and none of the muddy sex in a downpour