IGNORING THE LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES OF LESSER-EVILISM

I haven't decided on the best plan to deal with this year's election. A Green-Safe-States Strategy? A Nader-Hopeless-But-Genuine-Alternative Strategy? A Kerry-Defeat-Bush Strategy? A Bush-Consolidate-Opposition Strategy?

I'm most sympathetic at this point to voting for Nader or Cobb - assuming they are on the ballot. One of the reasons is because of a problem I see with the Leftist-Pro-Kerry camp. I respect these folks, but I disagree with their central arguments.

They believe that a vote for Kerry is really a vote against Bush, and acknowledge that we have a lot of work to do after a Kerry victory. They might say something like, "Vote for Kerry, then take to the streets the next day." They often recognize the problems with lesser-evilism, but believe this is a unique election with higher stakes. This year the most important thing is simply to defeat Bush. Finally, they will argue, as Tariq Ali does, that it is easy to support a 3rd party candidate when you are relatively comfortable - but Bush's policies are actually affecting people, killing people, and causing suffering.

This argument is short-sided and sometimes used as a way to silence opponents of lesser-evilism.

First, I think we need to strip away the Bush opposition based mostly on a visceral reaction to his appearance and his style. One of the ways Democrats have managed to push their party to the right is by wrapping their proposals in much more appealing packages. These proposals, like cutting taxes on corporations or kicking desperate families off of welfare, would have been unacceptable a couple of decades before, even if Republicans attempted them. We work with the United Nations, under Democrats, to starve the children of Iraq. We are "peacekeepers," under Democrats, when we bomb poor people, and we are sensitive about using words like "crusade" when we enforce our policies overseas through violence.

Of course there is a difference between Kerry and Bush, and I'm willing to acknowledge that fewer people will suffer under a Kerry presidency. But, I think there is a chance, maybe 20% or so, that any differences in suffering throughout the world will be negligible and a smaller chance, maybe 5% or so, that suffering will increase under a Kerry presidency. Still, the chances are greater that fewer people will have their homes bombed and more children will have health care under Kerry. That is a real difference that has a real effect on human lives.

This type of argument, however, can probably always be made as we look at two candidates from the two dominant parties. The policies of the dominant party in the United States, as long as we remain as powerful as we are now, always have an affect on people's lives in this country and throughout the world. One choice over the other for U.S. president will always lead to more or less suffering, more or less human misery, and more or less death and destruction because of the power that office has in a very powerful government. The real question is how much suffering will be caused in the long run by consistently falling into the lesser-evilism trap every four years, while both parties continue to move to the right.

It isn't necessarily true that things have to get worse before they get better, but it seems inevitable that things will continue to get worse until we can crack the two dominant parties. We will never accomplish that by destroying third party candidates out of fear and guilting their struggling supporters. If a Kerry victory makes a slight difference in the short-term, it will only prop up the continuing move to the right in this country. A vote for Kerry may slow-down that move, but it simultaneously strengthens a movement among the rich and powerful in this country to cut social programs, dominate the globe, and force millions into wage-slavery. If not now, then when will we halt this downward cycle?