On The Lesser Evil

[Richard Nixon]

What is your opinion of voting for the "lesser evil". In other words supporting among the capitalist-bourgeouise/social democrat candidates the least worse one?

[IcarusAngel]

Every time you settle for the "lesser evil" you get an even worse evil every four years.

My solution to end capitalism is basically to abolish property.

By the way have you seen this yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5-ojv5-b3U

(first posted here on rev left by leviathan I believe.)

Professor chang proves that "free-market" countries build themselves up from government intervention and research.

Why is that?

[Dean]

What is your opinion of voting for the "lesser evil". In other words supporting among the capitalist-bourgeouise/social democrat candidates the least worse one?

It's generally hard to find a genuinely "lesser" evil. Obama by and large represents incredibly militant foreign policy, and his domestic policy is markedly neoliberal.

He and McCain were both explicitly opposed to my interests, and I voted accordingly.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

While I am a leftist, I can recognize when theorists of other stripes have decent arguments. I've yet to see one for this type of "lesser evil" voting or "strategic voting."

Statistically speaking, one vote doesn't matter. Some people will disagree, but these are people who don't know how mathematics works. From a game theoretic perspective, an entirely selfish person will have a difficult time justifying voting.

Most of us aren't crazy Randians. We value other people to a certain degree. Thus, a certain Kantian type reasoning is sometimes employed to justify voting. I am not a Kantian, but I have some appreciation for it.

To get the best result for everyone, basically, we all vote. It's kind of a Roussean "General Will" so to speak. However, how do we choose to vote for? Given democratic principles, we're supposed to vote for the best candidate. Well, we might know the best candidate has no chance of winning.

Should we give a vote that doesn't matter, statistically, because the candidate won't win. So then we all are voting based on "what we think most people will vote." It becomes a ridiculous guessing game where who they hell knows what people actually believe and people gradually seem to move towards believing in who they vote for. We end up with a population made up of horror-film worthy combination of various political ideologies that, if anything, make the system worse than any one of those ideologies would be alone. We have people who honestly believe that the truth is always somewhere in the middle and we end up with inefficiency all over the place.

Really people, if you believe in voting, vote for the best candidate. One problem is people say "vote for who will represent you best." No, you should vote for the best candidate. Otherwise, you have to vote for yourself as far as I'm concerned.

Just vote for the most qualified person. More often than not, there isn't anyone worth having. If voters give you a hard time, fight back. Tell them that choosing between a punch and a kick is pointless. Yeah, them joining the non-voters won't help much. But over time, things change.

The whole electoral system is so utterly confusing from a moral standpoint that I've only voted once, and I felt no pride for doing so. There were two votes involved, and my votes lost in both cases by a considerable margin. I really was bored and went with my Dad for something to do.

I doubt I'll vote again anything soon. I just don't feel write doing something I'm not convinced about simply because everyone else does it. The benefits of voting are so indoctrinated into people, including the highly educated, that I find it irritating when I'm looked at like I'm an idiot despite the fact that their explanations for the importance of voting are terrible. All I've ever gotten is slogans.

I didn't really provide that much useful information. I'm just studying political science and philosophy at university, a fairly liberal institution. I'm so sick of idiots talking about voting and complaining about how "look at how nobody votes."

[mollymae]

Can't stand that way of thinking. I mean I understand the reasoning behind it, but people fought so hard and some even died so that we could have a vote in this representative democracy, and voters throw it all away by voting for someone they don't even like.

[Dimentio]

Can't stand that way of thinking. I mean I understand the reasoning behind it, but people fought so hard and some even died so that we could have a vote in this representative democracy, and voters throw it all away by voting for someone they don't even like.

I understand that thinking.

Imagine like this.

We have candidates A), B) and C)

A and B have 49,8% each of the electorate.

C have 0,2%.

You prefer C more than A and B, and B more than A. But if you vote on C, there is a risk that your vote in fact would be a vote for A. In proportional systems like that in Sweden, the cost of that is not so high since every party which gets above 4% in the national elections would be represented, but in majoritarian systems like the USA where the winner in a district claims the entire district, the cost is very high. That is why majoritarian systems tend to develop a bias towards two-party systems, while societies which have proportional representation tend to have at least five parties represented in their national legislatures.

[Bob George]

I never vote for, I always vote against. Like the above post demonstrates, voting for a minor candidate who represents your views more so than either of the major candidates, can essentially become a vote for the major candidate you like the least. In the example of someone like myself (a right-wing libertarian) a vote for the Libertarian candidate is a vote that otherwise would have gone to to Republican candidate, which means you are taking away a vote from the Republican and essentially giving the victory to the Democrat. Which is exactly want you don't want. So you have no choice but to go Republican (or Democrat if you're that way inclined).

[mollymae]

I know. That's why some people blame Nader for Bush's win in Florida in '00. But I still think that if some voters took half an hour out of their day to consider third party candidates, our citizens would be represented better, if only by a bit.

[#FF0000]

I'm of the opinion that it's a bankrupt tactic that has never, ever worked.

[¿Que?]

I know. That's why some people blame Nader for Bush's win in Florida in '00. But I still think that if some voters took half an hour out of their day to consider third party candidates, our citizens would be represented better, if only by a bit.
Molly, you need to start giving more thought to why people do the things they do, and not just wish people were a certain way. I noticed you say similar things about unions. Something along the lines of...if only workers would organize. You need to consider that when people act, and especially when they act as social groups (such as voters, unions etc) they are highly constrained (if you will) by their material conditions. So it's not really about trying to change the minds of 300 million people. It's really more about trying to change the material existence of these people, it's about giving them more opportunities to vote third party, such as with the electoral system, getting third parties airtime, allowing third parties in debates, putting third parties on the ballot etc.

[mollymae]

Molly, you need to start giving more thought to why people do the things they do, and not just wish people were a certain way. I noticed you say similar things about unions. Something along the lines of...if only workers would organize. You need to consider that when people act, and especially when they act as social groups (such as voters, unions etc) they are highly constrained (if you will) by their material conditions. So it's not really about trying to change the minds of 300 million people. It's really more about trying to change the material existence of these people, it's about giving them more opportunities to vote third party, such as with the electoral system, getting third parties airtime, allowing third parties in debates, putting third parties on the ballot etc.

*sigh* Maybe you're right.
I think if there were a solution, though, it would have to go beyond simply giving third parties more airtime and attention. Upon seeing this thread I reached for one of my old poli-sci textbooks and reread a chapter about different forms of democracy, arrow's theorem etc. I like the proportional system (which I think is the same basic system Dimentio brought up--correct me if I'm wrong.)

[Richard Nixon]

I'm of the opinion that it's a bankrupt tactic that has never, ever worked.

To give one critical example in the 1932 German Federal Elections would you have voted for the Social Democrats to prevent the Nazis from coming to power?

[Barry Lyndon]

blaming Nader for Bush's victory in 2000 is a blatantly transparent way for the Democrats and their hangers-on to find a scapegoat(conveniently to their left), for their own failures. It is also a way to terrify progressives out of building a real left-wing alternative party at a time when it is so desperately needed. Like others have said, its a toothless threat because the Democrats pursue 90% of the Republicans policies when they are in power anyway, their whole role is to domesticize what remains on the left and make them ask for less and less and less when they should be demanding more, more, and more.

[Jimmie Higgins]

To give one critical example in the 1932 German Federal Elections would you have voted for the Social Democrats to prevent the Nazis from coming to power?

First of all the Democrats/Republicans Tories/Labor are not fascist parties, so it isn't a realistic comparison. When modern establishment electoral parties call their opponents "fascists" generally they are scare-mongering people into supporting a lesser evil: liberals don't want Kerry, but if Bush is Hitler, I guess Kerry is ok. For conservatives, McCain was a looser, but if Obama is a fascist or new-Stalin, then McCain is ok.

The Democrats are the prime example of lesser-evilism as well as telling their voters to "be realistic". The right-wing is organized and has been good at making the Republicans come to them, where as liberal organizations don't hold the Democrats feet to the fire and so the Democrats hare basically just 10 years behind republicans on most issues. The healthcare plan and immigrant reform plans the the Democrats tell people to support are essentially the republican alternatives to single-payer and full amnesty plans. Since the Democrats offer the "realistic" bipartisan compromise to begin with, this allows the Republicans to further push legislation to the right.

The effect of this is that while public sentiment has moved to the left on many issues (aside from abortion) the establishment "common sense" has moved futher to the right.

But its not just a matter of tactics alone or about the Democrats and establishment liberal groups being "spineless" - the ruling class as a whole wants to push in a certain neo-liberal direction and so the main thing about electoral politics is the tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum effect: it keeps popular opinions confined to essentially to two sides of the same coin. You can have fast neo-liberalism (Republicans) or slow neo-liberalism (Democrats). So if two people are giving you bad options, there's always a least worst options, but its still a bad option.

[¿Que?]

*sigh* Maybe you're right.
I think if there were a solution, though, it would have to go beyond simply giving third parties more airtime and attention. Upon seeing this thread I reached for one of my old poli-sci textbooks and reread a chapter about different forms of democracy, arrow's theorem etc. I like the proportional system (which I think is the same basic system Dimentio brought up--correct me if I'm wrong.)
Hey, no worries. TBH I have no idea what arrow's theorem is. I've only studied psychology and sociology. No poli-sci:(.

[mollymae]

Hey, no worries. TBH I have no idea what arrow's theorem is. I've only studied psychology and sociology. No poli-sci:(.

Oh, heh. Now that I look at the wiki page of arrow's theorem I think my textbook simplifies it a bit (of course, it is "introduction to politics" at community college :rolleyes:), but it's basically the idea that within a democracy, the outcome of an election depends very much on the method of counting the votes, so there's no "true" outcome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_theorem

[anticap]

I never vote for, I always vote against. Like the above post demonstrates, voting for a minor candidate who represents your views more so than either of the major candidates, can essentially become a vote for the major candidate you like the least. In the example of someone like myself (a right-wing libertarian) a vote for the Libertarian candidate is a vote that otherwise would have gone to to Republican candidate, which means you are taking away a vote from the Republican and essentially giving the victory to the Democrat. Which is exactly want you don't want. So you have no choice but to go Republican (or Democrat if you're that way inclined).

Never mind that the Democratic Party more closely resembles the Libertarian Party than the Republican Party does*; that doesn't stop right-wing "libertarians" [sic] from showing their true colors and voting for the party that is more overt in their hatred of the working class. (That's not to say that the Democrats are the workers' friends, just that they at least pretend to be, whereas the Republicans are transparent in their preference for the rich -- and that's why people like you consider them the lesser evil.)

*That's right. The LP loves to flaunt its alleged "social liberalism" as a primary selling point. They contrast this with the social conservatism of the RP, and contrast their lust for capitalism with the alleged "socialism" of the DP. They make a point of combining the "good" (as they see it) of each major party: the social liberalism of the DP and the capitalism of the RP. But since they're flat wrong about the DP's economic position (the Democrats are enthusiastic capitalists), the actual truth is that the DP, and not the RP, shares the LP's socially liberal, pro-capitalist position. They may disagree over how capitalists ought to regulate themselves via their union, the state, and there are other secondary differences like gun-control, but we're talking about lesser-evils here, and from the LP's position, the DP is decidedly it. Except that it's not, because, as we all know, the alleged "social liberalism" of these reactionaries is nothing more than a talking point to be unceremoniously jettisoned the moment one perceives that his bottom line is threatened.


blaming Nader for Bush's victory in 2000 is a blatantly transparent way for the Democrats and their hangers-on to find a scapegoat(conveniently to their left), for their own failures. It is also a way to terrify progressives out of building a real left-wing alternative party at a time when it is so desperately needed. Like others have said, its a toothless threat because the Democrats pursue 90% of the Republicans policies when they are in power anyway, their whole role is to domesticize what remains on the left and make them ask for less and less and less when they should be demanding more, more, and more.

Not only that, but it's simply false: more Democrats (and those who lean that way) voted for Bush than for Nader.

[Bob George]

Never mind that the Democratic Party more closely resembles the Libertarian Party than the Republican Party does*; that doesn't stop right-wing "libertarians" [sic] from showing their true colors and voting for the party that is more overt in their hatred of the working class. (That's not to say that the Democrats are the workers' friends, just that they at least pretend to be, whereas the Republicans are transparent in their preference for the rich -- and that's why people like you consider them the lesser evil.)

*That's right. The LP loves to flaunt its alleged "social liberalism" as a primary selling point. They contrast this with the social conservatism of the RP, and contrast their lust for capitalism with the alleged "socialism" of the DP. They make a point of combining the "good" (as they see it) of each major party: the social liberalism of the DP and the capitalism of the RP. But since they're flat wrong about the DP's economic position (the Democrats are enthusiastic capitalists), the actual truth is that the DP, and not the RP, shares the LP's socially liberal, pro-capitalist position. They may disagree over how capitalists ought to regulate themselves via their union, the state, and there are other secondary differences like gun-control, but we're talking about lesser-evils here, and from the LP's position, the DP is decidedly it. Except that it's not, because, as we all know, the alleged "social liberalism" of these reactionaries is nothing more than a talking point to be unceremoniously jettisoned the moment one perceives that his bottom line is threatened.

I think you might be using as the standard your definition of libertarianism, and not the actual platform of the Libertarian Party, and therefore deducing that libertarians should be closer to the Democrat Party. How you'd even come to that conclusion anyway, I do not know, because the Democrat Party is the furtherest thing from any sort of libertarianism whether it be civil, political or economic. I don't see how the Democrats are anywhere close to a left-libertarian like Noam Chomsky or a right-libertarian like Milton Friedman.

Libertarianism, as I understand it as a left-wing or a right-wing ideology, is an ideology of maximising freedom. Nearly every time freedom is taken from the American people in some form or another, it always seems to come from the Democrats. More freedoms are taken away in the name of economic equality, social justice, consumer protection, health, environmentalism, than are taken away in the name of national defense.

I've done the whole thing with lining up Libertarian party positions against Democrat and Republican positions. I've done the whole pros and cons thing for both major parties. American libertarians, right-wing libertarians, who are pretty much represented by the Libertarian Party, agree far more with Republicans than Democrats. Even though, out of ten random issues Libertarians wont agree with Republicans on more than half, they will agree with Democrats even less (maybe one or two out of ten).

Besides that, the core of right-libertarianism is economic policy. The key belief being that economic policy influences social and foreign policy. An example of that is using free trade to promote world peace. You can solve foreign issues with economic policy. You can solve social issues with economic policy. So the party that libertarians agree most with on economic policy, is the party they will side with if they have to side with either. And that party is clearly the Republicans. The Republicans aren't perfect, but at least they have more respect for free markets, for the private sector and for private property than Democrats do.

[RGacky3]

their whole role is to domesticize what remains on the left and make them ask for less and less and less when they should be demanding more, more, and more.

EXACTLY, they rallied the left by promising single payer, and then once they had them behind the democrats, just did a corpoate insurance company package.


More freedoms are taken away in the name of economic equality, social justice, consumer protection, health, environmentalism, than are taken away in the name of national defense.


Such as?

Anything that beats the patriot act? The sedition act? The draft? and so on and so forth?


An example of that is using free trade to promote world peace.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH, holy shit, ANY ONE with their head out of the sand would laugh at that.

[Bob George]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH, holy shit, ANY ONE with their head out of the sand would laugh at that.
Laugh at it, but not refute it?

Let's put this simply so you might be able to grasp the concept...

For this hypothetical you are going to have to put ideology aside and face the reality of the world you are living in and system on which it runs. You have to work within that system and be relatively rational.

Now, would you kill your boss? Would you do anything to harm them? Would you even dare to offend them a little bit? Probably not. Why? Because they pay you. If you do anything to disrupt that, you have no income. That makes life, in this real-world system, hard.

What about if you own a business of some kind. Would you kill off all your customers? No way. Would you even upset them a little bit? You'd probably try to avoid it, right? Because without them, you don't make any money.

And that is why the United States doesn't bomb Canada. Because Canada is America's trading partner. They rely on each other for trade, so there is quite a high level of peace between those nations. And it's the same with, Japan for example. Sixty-five years ago the U.S. bombed the hell out of them and now they are best buddies because they trade together. There are going to be some exceptions, but for the most part, if one country relies on another for trade, then they aren't very likely to bomb that country. It's just common sense (something which the left has always lacked).

[¿Que?]

Laugh at it, but not refute it?

Let's put this simply so you might be able to grasp the concept...

For this hypothetical you are going to have to put ideology aside and face the reality of the world you are living in and system on which it runs. You have to work within that system and be relatively rational.

Now, would you kill your boss? Would you do anything to harm them? Would you even dare to offend them a little bit? Probably not. Why? Because they pay you. If you do anything to disrupt that, you have no income. That makes life, in this real-world system, hard.

What about if you own a business of some kind. Would you kill off all your customers? No way. Would you even upset them a little bit? You'd probably try to avoid it, right? Because without them, you don't make any money.

And that is why the United States doesn't bomb Canada. Because Canada is America's trading partner. They rely on each other for trade, so there is quite a high level of peace between those nations. And it's the same with, Japan for example. Sixty-five years ago the U.S. bombed the hell out of them and now they are best buddies because they trade together. There are going to be some exceptions, but for the most part, if one country relies on another for trade, then they aren't very likely to bomb that country. It's just common sense (something which the left has always lacked).
I would agree with you to some extent. To say that trading partners (provided both partners benefited mutually) would be less likely to criticize each other makes perfect sense to me. However, China and the U.S. are also trading partners, and yet I wouldn't call that the model of world peace. In fact, you are always going to run into problems if you try to as you say, use free trade to promote world peace, mainly because free trade relies on competition. It is never universally beneficial and therefore not a good path towards world peace (at least not without coercion).

[Jimmie Higgins]

...a right-libertarian like Milton Friedman.

Libertarianism, as I understand it as a left-wing or a right-wing ideology, is an ideology of maximising freedom.Like Miltie's followers did in Chile under Pinochet or like in China:



Grandmaster of Free Market Theory Milton Friedman mourned in China


Xinhua News Agency (http://www.encyclopedia.com/Xinhua+News+Agency/publications.aspx?pageNumber=1) | November 17, 2006

The Nobel prize laureate who advised the Chinese government in the 1980s to relax its control on the economy and to advance the policy of opening-up and economic reform was mourned by many members of China's cultural and economic circles on Friday.
China: freedom maximized:rolleyes:.


One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.
Good advice actually - too bad none of his cult-followers listen to this.


And that is why the United States doesn't bomb Canada. Because Canada is America's trading partner. They rely on each other for trade, so there is quite a high level of peace between those nations. And it's the same with, Japan for example. Sixty-five years ago the U.S. bombed the hell out of them and now they are best buddies because they trade together. There are going to be some exceptions, but for the most part, if one country relies on another for trade, then they aren't very likely to bomb that country. It's just common sense (something which the left has always lacked).And an understanding of history, economics, and class is something that conservative and liberals have always lacked. So according to you, the US was never in WWI? I mean US was doing good business trading with both sides? Why would it bomb the Germans if it was trading with Germany - why would Germany bomb US munitions and sink US passenger ships breaking their embargo if the Germans were trading with the US? China and the US are currently trade BFFs but they are at the same time competing and at a certain point there will be probably be proxy wars between these economic empires because both will not be able to expand without causing the other to decline. This is why WWI happened in the first place - Russia, Germany, and the US were becoming risisng industrial powers who wanted the UKs monopoly on trade-routes and colonies to be opened up. The old established industrial powers obviously wanted to keep the economic relationships the same. In WWII, it was an extension of this and again Germany, Japan, Italy, the USSR wanted more economic access but could not because of the UK and other old powers: the result is that the "winners" the US and USSR got to redraw the world economic map.

Capitalism doesn't work without forcing people to labor and enforcing trade laws - so the largest firms must use the power of states to protect their interests. Sometimes this means protectionism when this is what a national economy needs - other times (like after the cold war) when a national economy wants to expand rapidly, it wants "open borders" - but of course this really means that the US/French/Chinese firms actually want borders open to them but closed to competing markets.

Free-market ideas might sound good on paper and in ruling class academic journals, but doesn't work in reality. See what I did there:laugh:.

[anticap]

I think you might be using as the standard your definition of libertarianism, and not the actual platform of the Libertarian Party, and therefore deducing that libertarians should be closer to the Democrat Party.

I'm using my experience as a former right-wing "libertarian" [sic] and a former almost-member of the LP (never bothered to join, but supported their platform).


How you'd even come to that conclusion anyway, I do not know

I explained it in my previous post.


More freedoms are taken away in the name of economic equality

As ardent capitalists, the Democrats don't support economic equality.


than are taken away in the name of national defense.

Utter nonsense. The military budget could be halved and the U$ would remain the most powerful imperialist force in history. That money could feed, house, clothe, and provide health care for... who knows how many? Freedom is realized only when one has their basic needs met, so that they can focus on their desires. A starving homeless person is not free.


I've done the whole thing with lining up Libertarian party positions against Democrat and Republican positions.

Me too, and that was when I realized that the DP was closer to the LP than the RP is. Before I bothered to do so, I simply swallowed the common "wisdom" that said the opposite.


American libertarians, right-wing libertarians, who are pretty much represented by the Libertarian Party, agree far more with Republicans than Democrats.

Yes, because they don't actually live up to their own rhetoric, as I said.


Besides that, the core of right-libertarianism is economic policy.

No shit? That was my closing point to you in my previous post.

We're done here.

[RGacky3]

Now, would you kill your boss? Would you do anything to harm them? Would you even dare to offend them a little bit? Probably not. Why? Because they pay you. If you do anything to disrupt that, you have no income. That makes life, in this real-world system, hard.


Actually thats what happens in revolution, you dispose (probably not kill, thats not at all neccessary) your boss and then take over the firm for the workers. Our goal is to fire our Boss.

BTW you failed to mention the abuse workers have under their bosses.


What about if you own a business of some kind. Would you kill off all your customers? No way. Would you even upset them a little bit? You'd probably try to avoid it, right? Because without them, you don't make any money.

But you'd have no problem harming people that are not your customers, which is why diamond companies will never hurt people that buy diamonds, but those poor Africans arn't buying any diamonds are they?


And that is why the United States doesn't bomb Canada. Because Canada is America's trading partner. They rely on each other for trade, so there is quite a high level of peace between those nations. And it's the same with, Japan for example. Sixty-five years ago the U.S. bombed the hell out of them and now they are best buddies because they trade together. There are going to be some exceptions, but for the most part, if one country relies on another for trade, then they aren't very likely to bomb that country. It's just common sense (something which the left has always lacked).

Are you assuming that if they wern't trading with each other they'd just bomb other countries for the fun of it? That countries need reasons NOT to bomb others? Are you insane?