I tend to agree with a chance to vote for something, instead of always being faced with that
old familiar choice between the lesser of two evils…I understand…that the big thing this year [1972] is beating Nixon. But that was also the big thing twelve years ago in 1960 — and as far as I can tell, we’ve gone from, bad to worse to rotten since then and the outlook is for more of the same.”
(Hunter Thompson, 1972)
Will the Real Lesser Evil Please Stand Up
Where Have All the Flowers Gone?
The excuse express has just motored into town. And the excuse-mongers are in rare form. The occasion? Bernie’s sad but unsurprising endorsement of Hillary for president. “This campaign is about the needs of the American people and addressing the very serious crises that we face. And there is no doubt in my mind that as we head into November, Hillary Clinton is far and away the best candidate to do that.” True, not the most full-throated endorsement, but an endorsement by any other name…is still an endorsement. His bleating out this semi-endorsement or non-endorsement endorsement or however one chooses to characterize it isn’t the biggest surprise. After all when it comes right down to it, a guy, especially one coming to the end of his political life, has to look out for number #1. Wouldn’t want to wind up like Nader (he said that early on) and see all those plum committee assignments go poof. What is, on the other hand, truly awe-inspiring, is the rush by progressive wannabees to frame his cave-in as a semi-victory on the order of winning the battle but losing the war. (logical fallacy made infamous in 1968 “It became necessary to destroy the village to save it —US Major on the destruction of Ben Tre, Vietnam} Here’s a sampling of what passes for enlightened opinion on the subject: “I do feel like we have to be very respectful of Bernie Sanders, very grateful to him, because I believe he performed a political miracle in America with his campaign.” And in the “he had to do it, but he didn’t really mean it” category “I think he gave today the speech that he had to give, which was 75 percent here are the reasons we should be together.”
Of Fairy Tales, Folklore and Lesser Evils
In the wake of Bernie’s demise, “lesser evil” adherents have re-emerged from their four year snooze to propose in “safe” states, voting for the losing third party candidate you prefer, or not voting at all. In competitive “swing” states, one must vote for the “lesser evil,” i.e. the democrat.” (John Halle/Noam Chomsky) This gambit was overwhelmingly successful 1n 2012 when the democratic sheep dutifully voted for the “lesser evil” Obama to save the republic from the doom a Romney president would have wrought. Four years later, the names have changed and the nature of the evil, but the message still resonates. Except this time, it’s not the capitalist archfiend Romney but the proto-fascist Trump we are saving the Republic from.
The irony is that the evil destined to bring us to our knees never does and the rewards of electing the lesser evil never work out as promised. Remember Ronald Reagan? His presidency would destroy democracy. It didn’t. The lesser evil JFK was going to fix the missile gap. There wasn’t one so he didn’t. LBJ was the Peace Candidate. Who can forget his solemn vow? “We’re not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.” We all know how that turned out. Vietnam extinguished the lives of at least two million Vietnamese, 58,000 Americans and extinguished LBJ’s promise of a Great Society for the generation of Americans who came of age in the sixties. Lesser evil than Goldwater or just a different brand? Then there was Richard Nixon. The smart money and the Democrats bet he would bring down the republic. The Democratic choice, Hubert Humphrey, was LBJ’s co-conspirator in the war crimes perpetrated on three nations: Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos. A President Humphrey administration the lesser evil? Ask the Vietnamese, the Cambodians, the Laotians. As it turned out America proved more resilient than the Nixon administration. And so it goes. History repeating itself. Every four years the same parlor game. Who is the “lesser evil”? Who knows? What if it had been President Romney these last four years. How much worse off would we be? More wars than the five or six we are currently fighting, more deportations than the two million souls Obama’s goons have kicked out in eight years, a crappier reform of the health insurance industry, higher levels of student debt than $1.3 trillion, more free trade agreements than three already on the table … Surveying the wreckage of the new day Obama promised us, true not Reagan’s “shining city on the hill.” but close, we can be forgiven for not believing that the sky will fall if Hillary loses.
Lesser Evil: The Opiate of the People
Let’s be clear about the creation of lesser evilism. Democratic kingmakers trot it out sporadically to shore up support for one or another in a long line of neo-liberal imperialist democratic hopefuls. In 2012, it was the go-to excuse to convince democrats and independents that as bad as Obama’s first term had been, populated as it was with failed promises, possible war crimes, crony capitalism, bank bailouts and corporate capture, perpetual war and dances with the devils (Israel, Saudi Arabia to name the most egregious), the alternative was worse. So it goes today. Hillary may not be the visionary leader we have been waiting for, Messrs Chomsky, Halle and countless other backward leaning democratic pundits lecture us but the other guy would be so much worse. Really? Let’s skim the surface of the Clinton record. Nicknamed the diva of destruction and the Queen of Chaos (really good and insightful book by Diana Johnstone) for her unerring ability to wreak catastrophic destruction on nations the empire cannot capture by other means, her record of reducing civil society to ruins in Iraq (yes to Bush’s war), Libya (leader of the no-fly zone/regime change adherents) and Syria (send in the marines) is unmatched in the modern era. Not to mention her adoring reference to the war criminal, Henry Kissinger. Her support for the Keystone XL pipeline when she was Secretary of State showed her complete disregard of climate justice (a stance she was forced to modify, at least rhetorically, when Bernie morphed into the ant at her picnic). She supported the coup in Honduras that led to the overthrow of a democratically elected government and the establishment of a neo-liberal oligarchy, ditto in the Ukraine, once again installing a corporatist whose neoliberal credentials made the empire beam. Her domestic record is not much better. One of her biggest supporters “Doing God’s Work” Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs ponied up $675,000 for three speeches she delivered. Do you suppose she entertained the audience of corporate criminals with tales of the bloody havoc she was going to wreak on their bottom line to establish a more egalitarian society? Face it folks, she bills herself the progressive who gets things done. While the latter is undoubtedly true, the former gets five Pinocchios. She supported her husband’s atrocious 1994 crime bill as a way to get “super predators” off the street. Didn’t happen. It turned out to be a way to imprison countless numbers of Americans, overwhelmingly black and young, build bigger and more numerous incarceration sites to keep up with the demand and give a huge boost to what was then a fledging private prison industry. Recalling her concern for the dispossessed brings to mind this memorable bit from her book Living History on her husband’s 1996 “end welfare as we know it” act — “[a] plan that would motivate and equip women to obtain a better life for themselves and their children… “ part of the playbook that in Hillary’s own words demonstrates her “concern for the poor.” That was far from a universal opinion. Marion Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund where Hillary once worked, an organization that is a permanent fixture in her stump speech to burnish her humanitarian cred, wasn’t abroad that particular train, characterizing it [welfare reform] as a “moment of shame” for the Clintons and the Democratic party. Her husband Peter Edelman, Bill’s assistant secretary of HHS, flat out resigned. (Noble gesture aside, it must be noted, regardless of one’s position in the hierarchy of important people a suspension of disbelief is essential. Peter Edelman in June, 2016 — “It’s 20 years later, I think we’re all in a good place now…I strongly believe that Hillary is the most qualified candidate for president,”) While we’re on the subject of Hillary’s social justice credentials, a word or two on her shape-shifting on the abortion issue over the years. At a 1994 prayer breakfast when Mother Teresa excoriated both Clintons for their pro-choice views, Hillary smiled gamely. The president, on the other hand, looked as though he was about to blow her house down. She followed that up with a years’ long association with Mother Teresa’s organization anti-abortion baggage and all. Do you suppose Ilyse Hogue, President of NARAL (pro-choice advocacy organization), “forgot” Hillary’s history of pragmatic politicking when she uttered the following at the DNC on July 27 — “If we want families to succeed we start by empowering women…that’s what gives our families the best chance to get ahead and stay ahead and that’s what Hillary Clinton has spent decades fighting for.” How her stewardship of her husband’s crime and welfare reform bills could possibly merit that encomium is a real head-scratcher. The final word on Hillary’s social vision has to go to Rabbi Michael Lerner, a one-time mentor of Hillary’s considered left leaning for his refusal to follow Netanyahu off the Zionist cliff, “There is something in her that pushes her toward caring about others, as long as there’s no price to pay.”
IF There’s A Lesser Evil, There’s Got to be a Greater Evil
Donald Trump anointed the greater evil by the “serious people” in the Democratic Party might well advance the doomsday clock a second or two we are told. The catalog of his future sins is alarming. Build a wall between the US and Mexico (improbable), kick out all non-citizens (impossible), give huge tax breaks to the wealthy, AKA job creators (history teaches us that Ds and Rs generally think alike on that topic). Sound familiar? Back in 1980 another showman, Ronald Reagan presented the electorate with a similar basket of goodies. Did the republic crumble? No less an authority than our current president and the reigning lesser evil put his finger on it: “he [Reagan] tapped into what people were already feeling, which was, we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.” All of which Reagan was happy to provide — on the cheap. No social programs for him, just a lot of happy talk, rhetorical posturing, and lofty promises of spreading the glories of American democracy around the globe. Sound familiar?
How Does This Greater and Lesser Evil Thing Work?
Think of lesser evilism as a construct the smartest folks in the room thought up to get their candidates elected. As campaigns become more and more expensive and the people who have the money become more and more demanding, the winning candidate strikes a Faustian bargain with his big-time bundlers and donors. Help me get elected and I’ll keep the pitchforks from your door. (FDR and Obama). How would you like to be ambassador to Japan (Caroline Kennedy) or to China (Max Baucus for his stunning alchemy turning health care reform into one of the biggest corporate giveaways in history) These gilt-edged campaign battles blur the lines of issues and ideology. Name-calling and calling out substitute for reflection on the pressing problems at home and abroad — inequality, poverty, a nation of young debtors, endless war, confrontations with the Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and virtually every other country whose leaders don’t fall in line with the US open door policy —your door, not ours.
Is the lesser evil lesser all the time, some of the time or never?
That’s the question we return to again and again: Who is the lesser evil? Bill Clinton was ready to privatize social security. Plans made, Republican co-conspirators on board, deal done. Along came Monica Lewinsky and we were saved. Does that make him the lesser evil because he failed or the greater evil because he tried? Sooner rather than later we must face the painful fact: There is no greater evil and certainly no lesser evil. Desperate partisans trying to fashion a rationale for their chosen candidate absent substantive achievements take refuge in this weak tea. In an era of one party, only evil, unmodified, is present. Consider Gore Vidal’s diagnosis of the state of political affairs in the US. “There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party…and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider…than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt… and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.” Those prophetic words were spoken forty years ago and four decades later not much has changed.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Easy answers there are none. One of two evils will get elected in November. That doesn’t mean we should give in to the Chomskys and Halles (and lots of other delusional Dems) and cast our ballot out of fear the other guy will win. The protestors in Chicago in 1968 showed us that direct action is contagious and its pressure can topple even the Washington power structure. One of the major reasons the war ended was the spread of direct action to US soldiers in the field. Fragging – killing their own commanders not the North Vietnamese they had been taught to hate forced Nixon and Kissinger to end the war not because they wanted to but because they had to. More recent examples of direct action resulted in a number of state, local, and federal increases in the minimum wage (the “fight for $15) Even the direct actions mounted by the Bernie faithful made a difference as Hillary was forced to swing left (rhetorically at least) on a number of issues: college tuition, minimum wage, more robust health care reform, and the TPP. The success of direct action, peaceful but pointed, may even save a few black lives as protests against the slaughter of innocent young black men increase in purpose and intensity. It’s not throwing away your vote to go for Jill Stein and the Greens. The more serious the challenge to the duopoly’s grip on US electoral politics, the more seriously the peoples’ demands will be taken. Direct action defeated Hoover’s bid for a second term, gave FDR the metaphoric hammer to wrest concessions out of the banks, drove LBJ from office, forced Nixon to end the war, and compelled Obama to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Occupy Movement scared the empire’s leaders. They squashed it, but the memory lingers and leaves a bad taste in the mouths of US captains of industry. What we need more than ever is a good dose of Howard Zinn, bless his indomitable spirit—“ The really critical thing, “isn’t who’s sitting in the White House, but who is sitting in—in the streets, in the cafeterias, in the halls of government, in the factories. Who is protesting, who is occupying offices and demonstrating—those are the things that determine what happens.”
What Do We Want and When Do We Want It?
“Let’s not speak anymore about capitalism, socialism. Let’s just speak of using the incredible wealth of the earth for human beings. Give people what they need: food, medicine, clean air, pure water, trees and grass, pleasant homes… some hours of work, more hours of leisure. Don’t ask who deserves it. Every human being deserves it.” Marx in Soho: A Play on History (1999) Howard Zinn
There’s Always Another Out
We could go fishing.
1,740 total views, 1 views today
