No shame in voting for lesser of two evils.

Chomsky sed that there is no shame in voting for lesser of two evils.

Yes, there is.  

Yes, there is shame in being part of that system.  

Saying otherwise is like denying that the humiliated are humiliated.  

8 comments

Skip to comment form

    • TMC on March 22, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    should be ashamed of themselves for passing what is essential a bill written by AHIP and is a reprise of the 1993 bill that moderate Republicans presented as alternative to the Clinton bill. The corporations that own congress have won. The middle class and women will pay a heavy price.  

    • banger on March 22, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    The reason the left (in the commonly understood sense of the word) in America is always faced with having to vote for the lesser of two evils is that it offers no alternative. For example, in the case of Kerry v. Bush it was important to vote for Kerry since Bush and the neocons were profoundly destructive to the country. The left had already abandoned effective opposition (including Chomsky and his acolytes) by not insisting on a real investigation on 9/11 — even if the gov’t story were true it was pretty obvious that the matter was a crime and not an act of war. But the left barely questioned that and largely supported the Afghan invastion (Chomsky et. al. did not, thankfully) which had been clearly planned some time before it happened. That invasion was obviously illegal under international law — the Taliban gov’t was never given time to comply with the ultimatum and the overtures they made were ignored. Once progressives accepted the legitimacy of 9/11 and the Afghan invasion they barely peeped about he Patriot Act which effectively invalidated the basic foundation of law. Not opposing the War on Terror which is not a war at all but an Orwellian term for state authoritarianism since one can’t have a war against a feeling — just can’t happen. In fact, the very term symbolically destroyed meaning, language and the foundation of English law all at one time.

    Thus, we are stuck with the lesser of two evils since the left stands for nothing so there is no other choice. The left, for example, did not support Dennis Kucinich who articulated a clear political platform for the left. Instead, the left decided they had to choose a candidate based on whether the candidate was “attractive” to voters — i.e., who would appeal to the masses. This showed utter contempt for “the people” by not even giving them a chance to choose for themselves or to stand for something. Even if Kucinich would not have won his showing would have commanded respect in Washington and his support would have been sought by the major candidates. We have to remember that politicians of the center (Clinton, Obama) are in the center because they want to win the office not because they have much of any political convictions — their job is to build a consensus that can rule and keep the society relatively stable. No centrist is interested in real change they only desire adaptation to keep the ship of state on the course it has been on. Without a viable left that course is steadily towards the right.

    So I agree with you that we should support our own but when there is not “there” there — you have no choice.

Comments have been disabled.