: : *Big deal... so you vote for the crook.
: It IS a big deal, ya dumb taco-with-meat-sauce eater! C'mon Krasny, do you really believe that keeping David Duke out of the statehouse wasn't important enough to compromise and vote for Edwards? I don't believe that.
*I believe I have indicated that as a member of that constantly dwindling voting elite, the choice between Edwards and Duke is an obvious (as in 'all the important decisions as to *whom* have already been made and here's what we're offering you') one. *Not* that it's not important enough, as a progressive, to compromise on. Personally, I'm of the opinion that at least with a Duke as Governor, the whole issue of racism, creationism, White Supremacy, etc., which exists independent of who's Governor, is put on the front burner... so it's not all bad... ya carrot munchin' PETA extremist...:)* --K
: :The real question is, "What do you do so that in four years, you don't have to go through the same exercise in lesser-evilism?" I fear that Democracy is yet one more casualty of so-called 'consumerism.' We seem to think that political choices are something over which we have no control and candidates are merely another corporate offering. It's Coke or New Coke.
: You do have a choice. You can continue to work for your vision, organize for your vision, field candidates for your vision, and when you're strong enough, achieve your vision; in the meantime, you have to cut your losses by voting for the less-destructive candidate when there's no other choice. That's smart poker.
*Again, that's a little of what I was trying to get at. The focus ought not to be on "lesser evil" or political "Sophie's Choice(s)", but how can we avoid the whole dilemma in the first place. If you accept that the whole political-economic system is unfair and inequitable through and through, then I would say that anything which undermines such a basis is the way forward... which begs the question: is voting for or actively supporting someone like Edwards that which ultimately undermines the dominant paradigm? Perhaps, our time is better spent (as agitators) uncovering the political process and the inherent corruption and the thousands of ties between capital and politicians which makes such political Sophie's Choice's a virtual inevitability...* --K
: : But isn't that the whole point of such democratic-oligarchy? To let people think they actually have a choice? That includes the neo-nazi loons out there... throw in an RC cola now and then. In the end, they know everyone will go for the Coke.
: Work from the bottom up, or put another way, achieve CRITICAL MASS -- that's how you overthrow coke.
*LOL... 'Critical Mass.' I'm not obsessed with bottom-up versus top-down models for revolutionary change... why not the best of both worlds? As Lenin pointed out, if intellectuals (in the vanguard) have any measure of success at all, it should lead to more and more leaders emerging from the ranks of the working masses; conversely, grass roots movements do have a tendancy to attract the best thinkers... which is one reason why the Left (broadly speaking) attracts most of the brighter lights, IMO.* --K
: : We'd better wise-up to the fact that none of this nonsense is going to change unless those of us with nothing to lose and everything to gain by change, change it.
: : "Cthulu For President: Why Settle For The Lesser Evil?"
: Fine, I'll vote for Cthulu for Dunwich County Supervisor. Hell, at least Halloween will be better. In the meantime, allow me to offer you the same lesser of two evils test I offered SDF: Krasny, you're tied up, and you're give two options: you can either get slapped across the face, or have your legs broken. Defiantly calling for neither will only result in letting your captors make the decision for you. So, do you trust your captors to choose the slap over the broken legs, OR WILL YOU CHOOSE THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS FOR YOURSELF (while still vowing revenge in your mind)? Sorta personal now, ain't it?
*Which is why it's a false dichotomy. These decisions ought not be made upon such a personal basis. As comrade Yevtushenko might point out, "When the jackal is your enemy, the shark is not a friend." One could argue however, that by voting for the shark, you are in fact supporting him. The point is not to be held captive at all in the first place.
As touched on up above... if ultimately, my own condition and the conditions of others is better served by the 'slap on the legs,' then I would be remiss if I didn't point out that it's better to take the hit. Afterall, Bloody Sunday could have been avoided in the name of lesser evilism too (the organizers knew in advance that the troops had orders to fire)... but then there would not have been strikes in 105 industrial towns, the uprising in Odessa, nor the battleship Potemkin sailing under the Red Flag for 19 days. It's all conditional from an objective POV. Sometimes freedom really is the recognition of necessity. Look at the EU show down with Haider in Austria... is the cause of working class solidarity (ultimately) better served by the EU Bosses deciding the guy is too Rightwing... or should the Left in Austria struggle against this tide of popular opinion?* --K