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
 

SHRED

(28,136 posts)
Sun Aug 7, 2016, 02:15 PM Aug 2016

Sanders and Chomsky agree

Noam Chomsky’s 8-Point Rationale for Voting for the Lesser Evil Presidential Candidate
Critics of “lesser evil voting” should consider that their footing on the high ground may not be as secure as they often take for granted.
By John Halle, Noam Chomsky / Noam Chomsky’s Official Site
August 6, 2016

Among the elements of the weak form of democracy enshrined in the constitution, presidential elections continue to pose a dilemma for the left in that any form of participation or non participation appears to impose a significant cost on our capacity to develop a serious opposition to the corporate agenda served by establishment politicians. The position outlined below is that which many regard as the most effective response to this quadrennial Hobson’s choice, namely the so-called “lesser evil” voting strategy or LEV. Simply put, LEV involves, where you can, i.e. in safe states, voting for the losing third party candidate you prefer, or not voting at all. In competitive “swing” states, where you must, one votes for the “lesser evil” Democrat.

Before fielding objections, it will be useful to make certain background stipulations with respect to the points below. The first is to note that since changes in the relevant facts require changes in tactics, proposals having to do with our relationship to the “electoral extravaganza” should be regarded as provisional. This is most relevant with respect to point 3) which some will challenge by citing the claim that Clinton’s foreign policy could pose a more serious menace than that of Trump.

In any case, while conceding as an outside possibility that Trump’s 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 it’s a bit hard to know whether those making this suggestion are intending it seriously.

Continued…http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/noam-chomskys-8-point-rationale-voting-lesser-evil-presidential-candidate

---

Personally, I think the prospect of throwing away Progressive gains via a tRump presidency are too great. I will be voting for Hillary based on how both Sanders and Chomsky have stated the case to do just that.

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sanders and Chomsky agree (Original Post) SHRED Aug 2016 OP
Noam - it's JARRING to hear Trump's garbled primordial ooze quoted in your piece lostnfound Aug 2016 #1

lostnfound

(16,177 posts)
1. Noam - it's JARRING to hear Trump's garbled primordial ooze quoted in your piece
Tue Aug 9, 2016, 09:59 AM
Aug 2016

It's like wandering through the Louvre and stumbling across an open sewer.
Like reading a calculus book and finding it littered with grade school insults.
Like listening to a symphony periodically interrupted by a jackhammer.

But thank you, Mr Chomsky. You are, as usual, correct.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»Sanders and Chomsky agree