Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Rigged race means Hillary takes more delegates in Bernie’s Wyoming win [View all]RiverLover
(7,830 posts)134. I read an interesting article this am about the consequences of Lesser Evil voting
What will lesser evilism look like in 2016?
by Lance Selfa
3/30/2016
....whole thing is very good...snipped some good stuff....
MANY PEOPLE who agree with every argument raised above against supporting Clinton may still decide to vote for her--if only to prevent a Trump or Cruz from wreaking immediate damage on the tattered social welfare state and on civil liberties. Like the proverbial atheist who, wanting to hedge their bets against the possibility of an afterlife, asks to receive last rites before dying, many people will cast a vote for the lesser evil, just in case.
The fear of the greater evil is understandable. But is voting for the lesser of two evils really a strategy to even win "breathing space" to organize movements from below?
Consider Democrat Lyndon Johnson's election as a "peace candidate" in 1964. He was running against the reactionary and enthusiastically pro-war Republican Barry Goldwater, so many left voices decided to go "Half the way with LBJ." But once Johnson was elected, he escalated the war in Vietnam beyond anyone's worst nightmares.
Those who voted for the lesser evil to stop the greater evil got a combination of both.
That outcome is more typical than not, as U.S. socialist Hal Draper explained in an important article titled "Who Going to Be the Lesser Evil in '68?" Draper referenced what he called the "classic case of lesser evilism": The 1932 election in Germany, when the Social Democrats encouraged a vote for extreme conservative Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg to defeat Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party:
So the Lesser Evil, Hindenburg, won; and Hitler was defeated. Whereupon President Hindenburg appointed Hitler to the chancellorship, and the Nazis started taking over...the people voted for the Lesser Evil and got both [the greater and lesser evil]...This is exactly why 1932 is the classic case of the Lesser Evil, because even when the stakes were this high, even then, voting for the Lesser Evil meant historic disaster.
Draper's example is a dramatic one, but it illustrates the importance of understanding that the Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same "property" party--and that they operate as such.
What about issues like abortion rights on which there are real differences between the two parties? For example, Democrats are at least committed to maintaining abortion as a legally available option for women, whereas the Republicans are committed to outlawing it.
Within the limited scope of the question, that much is true. But supporting Democrats just because they aren't as bad as Republicans demonstrates the poverty of expectations among liberals. Democrats like Hillary Clinton are responsible for giving up so much ground to the right on the issue of reproductive rights, which at every step has enabled the anti-abortion fanatics to push for more.
Plus there is the question of how legal abortion was won in the first place. The U.S. Supreme Court was packed with conservative appointees when it overturned laws banning abortion with its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision--and Richard Nixon, an ardent opponent of choice, occupied the White House.
So what happened? The Supreme Court felt the pressure of thousands of women and men demonstrating for abortion rights in the preceding years.
As Draper notes elsewhere in his essay, when Democratic politicians are assured that the party's more liberal base will vote for them anyway, they spend most of their time moving to the right to win votes there.
Thus, Clinton and her surrogates have already talked up a strategy of bringing "moderate Republicans" repulsed by Trump into the Democratic "big tent."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
......snip..........
http://socialistworker.org/2016/03/30/what-will-lesser-evilism-look-like
by Lance Selfa
3/30/2016
....whole thing is very good...snipped some good stuff....
MANY PEOPLE who agree with every argument raised above against supporting Clinton may still decide to vote for her--if only to prevent a Trump or Cruz from wreaking immediate damage on the tattered social welfare state and on civil liberties. Like the proverbial atheist who, wanting to hedge their bets against the possibility of an afterlife, asks to receive last rites before dying, many people will cast a vote for the lesser evil, just in case.
The fear of the greater evil is understandable. But is voting for the lesser of two evils really a strategy to even win "breathing space" to organize movements from below?
Consider Democrat Lyndon Johnson's election as a "peace candidate" in 1964. He was running against the reactionary and enthusiastically pro-war Republican Barry Goldwater, so many left voices decided to go "Half the way with LBJ." But once Johnson was elected, he escalated the war in Vietnam beyond anyone's worst nightmares.
Those who voted for the lesser evil to stop the greater evil got a combination of both.
That outcome is more typical than not, as U.S. socialist Hal Draper explained in an important article titled "Who Going to Be the Lesser Evil in '68?" Draper referenced what he called the "classic case of lesser evilism": The 1932 election in Germany, when the Social Democrats encouraged a vote for extreme conservative Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg to defeat Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party:
So the Lesser Evil, Hindenburg, won; and Hitler was defeated. Whereupon President Hindenburg appointed Hitler to the chancellorship, and the Nazis started taking over...the people voted for the Lesser Evil and got both [the greater and lesser evil]...This is exactly why 1932 is the classic case of the Lesser Evil, because even when the stakes were this high, even then, voting for the Lesser Evil meant historic disaster.
Draper's example is a dramatic one, but it illustrates the importance of understanding that the Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same "property" party--and that they operate as such.
What about issues like abortion rights on which there are real differences between the two parties? For example, Democrats are at least committed to maintaining abortion as a legally available option for women, whereas the Republicans are committed to outlawing it.
Within the limited scope of the question, that much is true. But supporting Democrats just because they aren't as bad as Republicans demonstrates the poverty of expectations among liberals. Democrats like Hillary Clinton are responsible for giving up so much ground to the right on the issue of reproductive rights, which at every step has enabled the anti-abortion fanatics to push for more.
Plus there is the question of how legal abortion was won in the first place. The U.S. Supreme Court was packed with conservative appointees when it overturned laws banning abortion with its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision--and Richard Nixon, an ardent opponent of choice, occupied the White House.
So what happened? The Supreme Court felt the pressure of thousands of women and men demonstrating for abortion rights in the preceding years.
As Draper notes elsewhere in his essay, when Democratic politicians are assured that the party's more liberal base will vote for them anyway, they spend most of their time moving to the right to win votes there.
Thus, Clinton and her surrogates have already talked up a strategy of bringing "moderate Republicans" repulsed by Trump into the Democratic "big tent."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
......snip..........
http://socialistworker.org/2016/03/30/what-will-lesser-evilism-look-like
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
159 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Rigged race means Hillary takes more delegates in Bernie’s Wyoming win [View all]
RiverLover
Apr 2016
OP
Ties in raw numbers that effect the delegate count are decided by coin tosses here in Iowa.
stone space
Apr 2016
#11
I'm not talking about supers. Including supers is like including poll results.
stone space
Apr 2016
#56
Your welcome, I only learned of it myself a couple months ago and at first thought "no way"
Dragonfli
Apr 2016
#149
I am going to book mark this thread, in order to remind me to work with you on this after the GE
Dragonfli
Apr 2016
#151
That's because Bernie is not a corrupt power broker fueled by personal ambition and greed,
Maedhros
Apr 2016
#153
Of the more than 600 surrogate ballots received, 402 went in favor of Clinton and a mere 215 went to
RiverLover
Apr 2016
#16
Agreed. Ask your neighbors if they can get to the polls and if not get them an absentee ballot
Henhouse
Apr 2016
#9
And Hillary has spent her life in Arkansas, or is it Illinois? One never knows with her.
pangaia
Apr 2016
#61
And Hillary moved here solely for the purpose of running for the Senate seat . . .
markpkessinger
Apr 2016
#66
she did a very good job looking after her constituents, and made sure to spend
geek tragedy
Apr 2016
#75
Any SD who's an elected official that votes against their state's popular vote...
Lizzie Poppet
Apr 2016
#43
I get a Vermont newspaper even though I live in NH, and there have been some very
Vinca
Apr 2016
#49
If we're going to have races based on the popular vote, that's what should be counted.
Vinca
Apr 2016
#41
Oh, believe you me, I'll enjoy coming back here on the 9th to rub their noses in it.
Lizzie Poppet
Apr 2016
#40
This is the first election I have ever seen, after 37 yrs, where a 12 point victory was called a tie
Dragonfli
Apr 2016
#25
I read an interesting article this am about the consequences of Lesser Evil voting
RiverLover
Apr 2016
#134
First of all, hello to my favorite river enthusiast and dragonfly lover! Second, great article
Dragonfli
Apr 2016
#138
I assume like myself, you have seen several election cycles, since well before the internet age
Dragonfli
Apr 2016
#136
I don't like caucuses, but it's what some states prefer. The rules were set long ago, so it's not
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#21
The fact that you carp about "the next level" shows how little Camp Sanders cares about democracy
Tarc
Apr 2016
#109
Did he know the party's rules when he decided to latch onto the Democratic Party
Nye Bevan
Apr 2016
#30
If Sanders does manage to get more pledged delegates than Clinton and still ends up
Marr
Apr 2016
#50
Even when people explain the facts, the CT theories persist. It is embarrassing.
bettyellen
Apr 2016
#95
BS. Its the other way around. ie SALON- "10 Ways the Dem Primary Has Been Rigged from the Start"
RiverLover
Apr 2016
#106
People were cool with the system 8 yrs ago, when it worked for Obama. I do not do hypocrisy.
seabeyond
Apr 2016
#96
And if Hillary wins this rigged process, they expect us to vote for her
BernieforPres2016
Apr 2016
#97
I know several states will have marijuana initiatives on their ballots.
DisgustipatedinCA
Apr 2016
#101
You keep telling yourself that. Most Bernie supporters here are lifelong Dems, like me.
RiverLover
Apr 2016
#102
She will lose the general and if not, our congress will grow even more horrid.
CentralCoaster
Apr 2016
#114
Indeed. We are learning fast aren't we?! Let's use our infusion of energy from this to tear the
haikugal
Apr 2016
#105
And DWS says the supers are to make sure there is no grassroots.........peoples vote do not count
bkkyosemite
Apr 2016
#127
Sanders cheerleaders like the rules when it allows them to get more delegates in Nevada
SFnomad
Apr 2016
#156