The Chris Moeller Archives

Hillary sucks. Vote for Hillary

Here are some problems inherent in Noam Chomsky's plan for "lesser evil" voting.

What is a safe state? Or more precisely, what would be a dangerous state? Say I agree that every person who lives in a state where their single vote will make a difference in the electoral college results should vote for the lesser of two evils, rather than voting their conscience. That leaves nobody qualified to do this. Your vote will not make a difference in the final tally. I will accept all wagers to the contrary that your vote tip your state either way, and on November 9th, the loser buys the winner a new Honda Civic.

Also, now that she leads the polls by more than 10 percent? Are they all fifty safe states? You're going to feel pretty stupid if you vote for Hillary and she wins your state by more than one vote. You just gave her the mandate she needs to continue enriching herself at the public trough. And you will not have impressed me. Why are we acting like we haven't already gone through this shit three presidential cycles in a row?

What does Chomsky think has happened in the last four, eight, twelve years to continue justifying his silly theory? Democratic candidates aren't getting any better? They're getting worse. Is it still Nader's fault?

Third parties have no power? No, giving Wall Street Washington the only thing they want from you with no demands in return means you have no power. It was absolutely a smart course of action for progressives to support Bernie Sanders in a Democratic primary. We're starting to figure out the "demand" part. But you don't follow that up by switching to his opponent, the very institutional whore upon which the entire opposition movement was built. And you definitely don't do it after the entire world sees how you got screwed over. To what depth will they feel they can stoop the next time? And by next time, of course, I mean eight years from now. It would damage the incumbent too badly to run a candidate against her in the primaries four years from now.

This is what conservatives have figured out. They demand shit. And if they don't get it, they don't give it away. In what element of life does this strategy work? Despite the whiny claims by liberals, right-wingers are far more inflexible in their beliefs than those on the far left, and while we're busy proclaiming the death of the Republican party as a result of this inflexibility, the country's politics continue in a dead sprint to the right. Oh, what I wouldn't give to have politicians pandering to me ceaselessly on my issues and still have the luxury of slapping down the ones I don't like personally. On the left, we're lucky if we can find a single one that shares our values.

Why is my vote of conscience "a form of individual self-expression" but your vote of expedience is not one also? God knows every person that thinks they need to vote for Clinton to combat a Trump presidency feels the need to tell me about it. You aren't joining the anti-Trump brigade to feel good about yourself? There's a whole cable network devoted to this self-glorification. It's called MSNBC.

If faced with a vote between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, you would vote for Trump, right? I'm guessing here. You're the "lesser evil" advocate. And remember that protest votes against both of them in this hypothetical are not an option.

If future accusations that my failure to support Hillary Clinton showed a lack of concern "for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration" are indeed "based in fact," then you will accept humbly my criticisms of you for what you permitted Killery Clinton to do next in Palestine, Ukraine, Libya, and Syria.

Not only would Hillary be more damaging to the principles of the Bernie campaign than Trump would, she already has been. Every time they tell you to fall in line behind her, they're telling you to shut up and continue cowering in the corner.

It's quite easy to advocate strategic voting by liberals on a state-by-state basis, but still protect your own sleeping habits, when you live in Massachusetts.

There is no difference between Clinton and Trump on the issue of climate change other than a rhetorical one. And Clinton's anti-planet support for fossil fuel industries and her backing, much more pronounced than Trump's, for anti-regulation trade deals, makes her the more dangerous of the two candidates on this issue. And he offers nothing. Climate change is exactly the kind of political issue that can't wait for another four years. And if Hillary is this year's victor, we're waiting another eight years for a Democrat that supports the environment with her actions. Again, it has to be a Democrat. Lesser-evil voting and all that.

Somehow a failure to vote against Nixon led to "six years of senseless death and destruction in Southeast Asia," but two votes for Barack Obama didn't add eight more years (and counting) of death and destruction in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Palestine? Last I checked the historical record, Henry Kissinger worked for McNamara as well as he did Richard Nixon, and LBJ made his choice for politics over genocide, just as Nixon did. Democrats have given us more wars than Republicans since 1900, and the two most recent presidential administrations further that case. They don't contradict it. You can call the "Democratic" wars more justified and then you and I can agree to disagree.

How is lesser-evil voting not just a passive acceptance of the choices the establishment will allow?

Does it seem odd to you that popular support for both the Democrat and Republican Parties are at an all-time low, but we are fed a constant media diet of being told to rally around the corpses? Don't go! Don't leave me! I'll be better! I'll pay attention to you! You're my #1.

Do you promise? Well, okay. Pathetic.

 ---

Just so you know, if I were to vote for the lesser of two evils. I would cancel out a Hillary vote. I don't vote for war criminals.

But lesser evil voting is preposterously stupid.

posted by CM @ 2:09 PM