by David Saslav
Chomsky and Waller omit some key points in their June 15 defense of "Lesser Evil Voting (LEV)." I have attempted here to summarize their eight points as best I can, then supply the missing corollaries here. Interestingly, the entirety of the Chomsky brief could have been put forward just as easily in 2000 as in 2016 or 1968, so little has changed.
The main takeaway, I believe, should be "LEV will kick the can down the
road for another long period of time," not "Expect far more meaningful
progress under a Clinton administration, overflowing with gratitude to the
left for throwing its support to Clinton in key swing states in November 2016."
The Eight Points made by Chomsky and Waller may be (somewhat inexpertly) summarized
as follows:
1. All votes should be cast "for" something, not against someone
or some entrenched system.
2. Swing states will determine whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton becomes
our next president.
3. Donald Trump has some really unacceptable views...
4. ...that are sure to harm more people than Hillary's would.
5. Therefore everyone to the left of center politically must vote for Hillary
in all swing states...
6. ...or risk being accused by Democrats of inflicting Trump on those he will
surely harm in his first term...
7. ...and providing further ammunition for hegemony-dependent centrists (and
their servile media outlets) to further repress third-party left-leaning candidacies
in 2020...
8. ...therefore swing-state LEV by progressives is the only option in 2016
that will not harm its own cause.
However...
1. Swing-state LEV does nothing to increase the likelihood of eventually establishing
a federally-funded, third-party alternative to the hegemonic two-party center.
2. Those voting for viable third-party candidates in tightly-contested swing
states may in fact not be participating in narcissism or self-aggrandizing
moral grandstanding; but rather taking a longer-term-view that the damage
and human suffering causable within any single four-year period may be less
than anticipated by the centrists and center-left, and certainly less than
the long-term corrosive effects which the entrenched two-party choke-hold
wreaks - regardless of which "LEV demagogue" gets installed to ensure
its long-term continuation.
3. Furthermore, "appeasement" of the center through Swing State
LEV is by no means a guarantee that the resulting victorious centrists (in
this case, Democrats) will require any less "political lebensraum"
in 2020, or guarantee any left-leaning or Sandersesque progress in the intervening
years.
4. The next opportunity to quell progressives' efforts to establish a lasting
third party standing for long-term political infrastructural change, using
the LEV bullwhip, will look and sound very similar to this one, regardless
of who represents the two major entrenched parties in the 2020 presidential
election; it will never be the "right time" to abandon the practice
of swing-state LEV and get around to effecting the far more important task
of ending our country's slide into eternal two-party turpitude.
5. One need look back no further than the first Clinton term (when Hillary
tried and failed to do what Obama quasi-successfully pulled off for the healthcare
system) or the first two years (2009-2010) of the Obama presidency (when the
established hegemony was at its weakest due to the economic collapse, the
left-leaning mandate for "Change We Can Believe In" was at its strongest,
and Democrats controlled Congress - and nothing occurred of any lasting consequence
to the body politic).
6. Many traditional non-swing-states are now looking "more purple than
red" due to Trump's penchant for alienating anyone within earshot
7. Many traditional swing states may actually become clear majority blue states
in 2016, for the exact same reason
8. Conclusion: Advocates for systemic change to the American body politic
and its corrosive two-party stranglehold should be strongly encouraged to
identify and vote conscientiously for left-leaning alternative candidates,
especially if a viable and federally-funded progressive third party results
in 2016.
If you find David Saslav's work valuable, please consider helping us
Legalese
Feel free to insert a link to this work on your Web site or to disseminate its URL on your favorite lists, quoting the first paragraph or providing a summary. However, DO NOT steal, scavenge, or repost this work on the Web or any electronic media. Inlining, mirroring, and framing are expressly prohibited. Pulp re-publishing is welcome -- please contact the publisher. This material is copyrighted, © David Saslav 2016. All rights reserved.
Have your say
Do you wish to share your opinion? We invite your comments. E-mail the Editor. Please include your full name, address and phone number (the city, state/country where you reside is paramount information). When/if we publish your opinion we will only include your name, city, state, and country.
About the Author
David Saslav is a software professional residing in Silicon Valley. (back)