title: no title
text:  shares
     
  the anarchist political observer noam chomsky has over the years espoused a strategy of voting for the democrat in swing states recently chomsky with john halle propounded  an eight point brief for lev lesser evil voting 
  chomsky questions the ethicalmoral principle rejecting lev since lesser evil voting is designed to minimize evil as futile as lesser evilism is it is also futile to discuss there being a lesser evilism between the two utterly dominant rightist political parties in the united states lev in fact is an equally contemptible or greater evil
  chomsky though sensibly cautions that challenges to the politicalbusiness duopoly needs to be contemplated with a full awareness of their possible consequences what are the possible consequences chomsky suggests a trump presidency should it materialize will undermine the burgeoning movement centered around the sanders campaign particularly if it is perceived as having minimized the dangers posed by the far right however another consequence is equally possible a horrendous slide to the right would spur progressives to coalesce among a leftist democrat andor it might finally cause former or potential democrats to reject the chicanery of the businessdominated democrats and embrace the progressivist platform of the green party
  this costbenefit strategic accounting seriously pushes for progressivist change
  focusing on the electoral system however must not be the endall and beall for bringing about progressivism in the us grassroots organizing and activism must continue to inform oppose poverty and impoverishment oppose war and violence and push for human rights and equal opportunity for all people  during electoral periods and between election cycles
  more  and the zionist question is noam chomsky a disinfo agent for israel  part   and the zionist question is noam chomsky a disinfo agent for israel  part   and the zionist question is noam chomsky a disinfo agent for israel  part   and the zionist question is noam chomsky a disinfo agent for israel  part  i examine halle and chomskys eight point brief for lev
   voting should not be viewed as a form of personal selfexpression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites
  no argument with this
   the exclusive consequence of the act of voting in  will be if in a contested swing state to marginally increase or decrease the chance of one of the major party candidates winning
  this is true of the individual act of voting the individual in solitude has little sway over the electoral result that is an obvious given however when a consciousness sweeps across a multitude of likeminded individuals then enormous potentials emerge this desire for a change from the effete status quo is arguably what occurred with the almost breakthrough candidacy of bernie saunders and it is also what happened in a dissimilar manner with the candidacy of donald trump chomsky has framed the exclusive consequence of the act of voting as the result of an individualistic action and it is but individuals can and do at times form a wider consciousness measurable by statistically rigorous polling results that has potential ramifications on a much greater scale that mere margins an example of this would be the expression of voter disgust in the canadian federal election of  following two successive majority governments led by the brian mulroney tories a voting tsunami washed away all but two tory seats in the seat parliament the conservatives had been around since  but the electoral demolition led to the eventual dissolution of the tories
   one of these candidates trump denies the existence of global warming calls for increasing use of fossil fuels dismantling of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to india and other developing nations as called for in the paris agreement the combination of which could in four years take us to a catastrophic tipping point trump has also pledged to deport  million mexican immigrants offered to provide for the defense of supporters who have assaulted african american protestors at his rallies stated his openness to using nuclear weapons supports a ban on muslims entering the us and regards the police in this country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood while having done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order trump has also pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the rich hence shredding what remains of the social welfare safety net despite pretenses
  much of what trump stands for is anathema true there is no need to defend this man however trump stakes out important positions diametrical to hillary clinton for example clintons advocacy of a nofly zone over syria her saber rattling with russia her corporatefriendly policy toward socalled free trade deals
  chomsky cleverly anticipated such an objection writing
   with respect to point  which some will challenge by citing the claim that clintons foreign policy could pose a more serious menace than that of trump
  in any case while conceding as an outside possibility that trumps foreign policy is preferable most of us not already convinced that that is so will need more evidence than can be aired in a discussion involving this statement furthermore insofar as this is the fact of the matter following the logic through seems to require a vote for trump though its a bit hard to know whether those making this suggestion are intending it seriously
  first chomsky concedes an outside possibility that trumps foreign policy is preferable in other words chomsky posits an inside possibility one assumes that chomsky is saying that there is the strongest likelihood that clintons foreign policy is preferable without any substantiation of why this would be so second he raises an unreasonable demand for evidence that trump will follow a less menacing foreign policy than clinton given that trump has never held political office no such evidence exists what does exist is plenty of evidence that clinton will pursue a menacing foreign policy there is no reason to assume clinton would reduce the number of american military bases overseas or curtail military spending in fact it is likelier that she would increase military spending she will also likeliest resort to a us military attack to bring about regime change in syria pushing the us closer to military confrontation with russia trumps detractors compare his bombastic rhetoric unfavorably to clintons rhetoric but toward putin or assad clintons undiplomatic utterances are on record
  moreover following chomskys logic while the more preferable policies of trump lack evidence by the same token the more objectionable policies of trump also lack evidence for the same reason trump has no political track record upon which to judge what he would do if in the oval office thus following this chomskyian logic one could not pass judgement on hardly of trumps pronouncements would he really build a wall on the mexicous border where is the evidence for this would trump really ban muslims from entering the us where is the evidence for this
  by effectively undermining trumps peacemongering visàvis clintons warmongering chomsky by the same logic undermines criticisms of the regressivist political utterances by trump thus following chomskys logic through it seems a bit hard to know whether his suggestion is intended seriously
   the suffering which these and other similarly extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a clinton presidency
  one assumes that chomsky refers to the domestic population here trumps policies  if he is true to his word to protect jobs for american workers and punish offshoring of american jobs along with his opposition to the tpp  would be a political reversal for neoliberalization clintonomics would be decidedly worse for marginalized and oppressed peoples at home and abroad the economic plight of students the poor and ill however would be much better under a jill stein presidency 
  the economic plight of students the poor and ill would be much better under a jill stein presidency
  if chomsky is referring to the preponderant violence of us foreign policy and its oppressive and genocidal on populations then i agree with his basic moral principle not only must we take responsibility for our actions but the consequences of our actions for others are a far more important consideration than feeling good about ourselves under the democratic administration hundreds of thousands have died millions of people have been displaced and terrorist organizations have proliferated this is the evidence from clintons time in political office thus a vote for clinton is predictably a vote that will lead to a continuation perhaps even a ramping up of the suffering of others basic morality suggests to this writer to steer clear of casting such an oppressionenabling vote
   should constitute sufficient basis to voting for clinton where a vote is potentially consequentialnamely in a contested swing state
  i contend that chomskys basis for  is false or questionable first chomsky has staunchly argued that we should concentrate foremost on the wrongful actions and crimes of our own state because they are something we can have an influence over but it seems that chomsky believes that trump will supersede clintons record of killing in iraq libya and syria clinton is not going to close us military abroad trump has called these bases into question and if one concentrates on the domestic population at least the rhetoric of trump against socalled free trade agreements and offshoring us factories abroad bodes well for the american worker
   however the left should also recognize that should trump win based on its failure to support clinton it will repeatedly face the accusation based in fact that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a trump administration
  this criticism is antidemocratic furthermore the criticism applies conversely chomskys citing the accusation gives it a veneer of credence effectively it leads to the perpetuation of the businessparty duopoly the records of the bill clinton and barack obama administrations demonstrate the futility of such a proffered rationale clinton deregulated the finance sector exposed american workers to the vagaries of free trade implemented regressive welfare policies and continued aggressive us militarism abroad obama bailing out the banks attempts to cut back social security warring in afghanistan libya yemen and syria drone strikes confrontation with russia and china tpp and the lingering incarceration at guantanamo bay it is important to note that democrats arguably have a freer hand to implement rightist policy than republicans have since many supporters of democrats will mute their opposition to avoid providing succor to the republicans george bush was stymied from tinkering with social security notably obama has done an aboutface on social security and proposed an expansion picking up on the popularity for such a measure from the bernie saunders candidacy
   often this charge will emanate from establishment operatives who will use it as a bad faith justification for defeating challenges to corporate hegemony either in the democratic party or outside of it they will ensure that it will be widely circulated in mainstream media channels with the result that many of those who would otherwise be sympathetic to a left challenge will find it a convincing reason to maintain their ties with the political establishment rather than breaking with it as they must
  it is true that establishment operatives will use lev as a bad faith justification for defeating challenges to corporate hegemony either in the democratic party or outside of it that was the case when ralph nader ran it is the case when cynthia mckinney ran and it is when jill stein runs the corporate media and even many socalled progressives will trot out this timeworn argument with each election cycle as long as enough people buy into the premise then the status quo will persist the result is that a rightwing government always assumes office in washington this bodes ill for the poor and working class it bodes poorly for nation states designated as enemy states by the us
   conclusion by dismissing a lesser evil electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for clintons defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve
  conclusion by buying into a lesser evil electoral logic the corporatepolitical duopoly will remain in power to continue policies that primarily benefit the  and their goals for further enrichment to unfetter finance to pursue a belligerent foreign policy  a policy that seeks to placate the militaryindustrial establishment and to further entrench corporate domination of the electoral system all of this is at crosshairs with what should be at the core of what progressives claim to be attempting to achieve
  final comments
  the tragedy of opting for lesser evilism is that the people get evil
  some leftist commentators argue that there is no evilism  i found that to be preposterous barack obama was the socalled lesser evil the previous two election cycles obama is not a lesser evilist he is the man who enables evil  the cycles of usbacked violence and killing in places such as gaza syria bahrain afghanistan yemen and somalia underscore the utter futility of pandering to a perceived lesser evilism if one votes for a degree of evil then one should not be surprised when evil results
  progressivism demands that social justice activists repudiate evil morality dictates that people should not live in fear of being killed a genuine peacemongering us president is needed to stop the killing and save lives consequently both democrats and republicans are anathema given the present candidates if people vote then the only conscionable vote is for someone not of the business party factions
  only a propeace third party will set the us on a new path  outside of a revolution the election of a propeace third party is the only moral direction on the horizon for americans truly interested in steering their country toward peace and rehabilitating the ensanguined us reputation such a third party vote however may well augur the birth of a revolution on many promising fronts