Post Politics

It’s election season again, that joyous time of the biennium, and you know what that means: a renewal of the perennial left-wing debate over “lesser-evil voting.” Is it wrong to vote for a Democrat, rather than someone on the genuine left, in order to keep a reactionary or a fascist out of power? Or, on the contrary, is it wrong to vote for a leftist who has apparently no chance of victory, thereby denying a vote to the Democrat and so increasing the odds that the reactionary candidate will win? The most famous advocate of “lesser-evil” voting is Noam Chomsky, who argues that the most immediate moral imperative is to prevent the worst possible electoral outcome from occurring. Critics of lesser-evil voting are legion, as a simple Google search indicates.--CW

A sensible argument for LEV, which I can no longer abide by. The duopoly has had its day and will continue to have many more of them in a fraudulent political process that both sickens and embarrasses me. I do not think it my civic duty to support fraud.

I know many people--I should say most people I know--buy Mr. Wright's thinking, if they think at all. Those who do not think an iota are inconsequential, and hence the real problem.

As I've said over and over, the level of political discourse in the U.S. bottomed out long ago.  The U.S. is a police state.

As long as that little problem lingers, whom to vote for hardly matters at all, despite Wright's painstaking argument.

(Picture: Obama's war in Yemen)


TS