******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Without weighing in on the merits of voting for neocon Clinton, I don't think that is the gist of the argument. The argument is not that she is the lesser evil. It is that she is *considerably less evil* than her opponent. The argument is that Donald Trump is far, far worse than Clinton, as opposed to say, Romney and Obama or McCain and Obama. In those years, many on the left foolishly backed Obama at the expense of building any kind of counterhegemonic pole by exaggerating the differences between Obama and his opponent. But in this election, little exaggeration is needed by Clinton's supporters. The other guy is so insane that his own Party leadership is crumbling under the weight of being unable to endorse their nominee because he's such a loony toon. In other elections, one could identify one of the candidates or the other as a "lesser evil," but they would be hard-pressed to establish that the differences between the two outweigh their enormous similarities. That is not the case with this election. Trump has gone above and beyond simply being "worse" than Clinton. He is *so much worse* that his own Party's leadership is looking at Hillary!!! The other difference is that, as I understand it, the Canadian system is more friendly to smaller parties. Americans do not have that advantage. Personally, I have always voted Green and intend to do so again during the upcoming election. But I also live in a solidly Blue state, so I don't think my vote has ever counted (not that it would count otherwise). If I lived in a "swing" state I might feel forced to rethink my loyalty to the Greens even if I would not have done so in other years. I also think that the task of building the kind of party that you are talking about cannot operate on the same clock as the presidential elections. Setting up a party (even a bourgeois one, to say nothing of a revolutionary party) takes decades, and it is a full-time project, not something that can be done by trying to grab votes on election years. Perhaps the Greens should consider building up their base outside of the elections and not just during election years? They could do so by building a grassroots base and then using it to propel candidates into local government. From there they might have a stronger means of connecting with the voter base during general elections in order to challenge the Democrats. - Amith On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Ken Hiebert via Marxism < marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > I think I understand the argument for voting for Clinton. In a nutshell, > she is the lesser evil. > > I want to point out what I think are the shortcomings of voting for the > lesser evil. > Of course, you can always use your vote to choose between the two most > likely contenders for an office. Some people regard that as a "useful" > vote. > In my opinion it is much more useful to use your vote to build a left > alternative. > As a thought experiment, think back to the Johnson-Goldwater election of > 1964. Which was the more useful vote, a vote for Johnson? Or a vote for > the SWP or another small left party? > I would argue that the most useful vote was for the SWP or another small > left party. > > Each time you vote for the lesser evil you postpone the building of a left > alternative. And you arrive at the next election with the same > alternatives, a weak left and a choice between the candidates of the > Republican Party and the Democratic Party. > > The Green Party of Canada probably does not qualify as a left > alternative. But I think the growth of the party illustrates the point I > am making. > The party was launched in 1983. They didn't get more than 1% of the vote > until 2004. And they didn't elect an MP until 2011. The people who voted > for the Greens up till that time, were they wasting their vote? Not in my > opinion. The handful of people who voted for them at the beginning > encouraged others to vote for them in subsequent elections. And they grew > to be a political force. > > If you limit yourself to the lesser evil, you will be helpless when the > lesser evil becomes so unpopular that the greater evil wins. What will you > have to show for your efforts? > > If you want to build a left alternative, the best time to start is now. > > ken h > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/ > options/marxism/amithrgupta%40gmail.com > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
