Lessers, evils and the greater good

Michael Lerner has written an essay in the current issue of Tikkun
magazine entitled “Don’t Vote Lesser Evil Politics,” in which he
examines the
choice that liberal and progressive voters face “about whether to
support Al
Gore or one of the various protest candidates like Ralph Nader or John
Hagelin.” He defines “lesser evilism” as “the proposition that you must
choose the candidate most likely to win who will do the least harm,
rather than choosing the candidate who comes closest to expressing your
own views and attitudes.”

In this essay, Lerner presents a series of moral and philosophical
challenges to that proposition. He argues that “lesser evilism” is
tactically unsound because the more progressives capitulate on their
agenda, the more the Democratic Party turns its attention to courting
the center/right to stop
it from voting Republican. He reminds readers that Jesse Ventura’s
victory
proved that traditional expectations about electability are unreliable,
and
Lerner cautions against presuming that any lesser of two evils will
carry out even the compromised agenda we hoped to preserve by voting for
them, using examples of Democratic Party betrayals by Clinton-Gore, Gov.
Gray Davis of California and others.

Finally, Lerner argues that political “lesser evilism” weakens
democracy, depresses morale among those who want to affect change, and
is corrupting and corrosive of how we live our daily lives, well beyond
the narrow confines of electoral activity.

In reply to Lerner’s philosophical and political remarks, Congressman

Barney Frank, an ardent Gore supporter and extreme critic of the Ralph
Nader campaign, asks “How can people who are committed to improving the
world insist on their right to ignore the results of their actions?”
Frank
challenges Lerner’s assertion that political accommodation leads to more
—
and more forms of — accommodation. “There is nothing at all
inconsistent,” he argues, “between deciding to choose the lesser evil at
a given point in time, and simultaneously continuing to work so that the
next time a choice has to be made, one may be able to choose an even
lesser evil, or a greater good.”

Congressman Frank’s question is a good one. After all, why shouldn’t
the left navigate tactically through a variety of electoral and
political choices to get to the “greater good”? It should. The only
problem is that it can’t. Why?
Because the left has no vision of the greater good and consequently, it
has
no guiding commitment on which to base and judge the success of its
tactics.

The vision which propelled the social upheavals of the 1960s —
ending
poverty, racism and war — all of which require certain structural
changes in
the society, was sacrificed for a lesser agenda, largely one based on
“identity politics,” which does not require structural change and
thereby
can be coopted — i.e., legitimized within the Democratic Party.

Lacking a vision doesn’t mean lacking issues. The liberal/left has a ton
of those — as Congressman Frank himself points out. For example, Frank
writes
“On economic issues, Nader is in many respects better than Gore,” but
“with
regard to abortion, gun control and gay rights, Gore is not only far
better
than Bush, he is far superior to Nader.”

These remarks are helpful indicators of the extent of the lack of
left vision. Identity politics — the championing of the rights of
various oppressed groupings in society — like women, gays and racial
minorities — is the politic of “realism” that replaced the focus on
structural change. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party, in
limited ways, can produce incremental changes on these kinds of
constituency issues. That’s why the Barney Franks of the world can point
to Al Gore and list the things he’s done to help various voting blocs.
However, the two parties do not — and will not — produce structural
changes, particularly democratic political and economic
reforms, because those kinds of changes threaten the dominant power
position of the country’s corporate special interests. Al Gore promises
to stand up for “the people” against “the powerful.” But he will not
support a political restructuring that makes the people themselves
powerful.

Progressives, a la Barney Frank, have accepted the
incrementalism that is the
hallmark of two party politics. Incrementalism — which is by its nature

conservative — can proceed more or less quickly, based on multiple
factors.
But when incrementalism moves slowly — as it has since the centrist
takeover of the Democratic Party — it never leads to greater
incremental
changes, but instead to a growing inertia. Some progressives support
Nader because they want to break out of the incrementalist lesser of two

evils box. But many others are supporting Nader because they see it as a
way
to jumpstart the pace of liberal incremental change. Even Nader himself
— who supports structural political reform — focuses on the
significance of his
candidacy in moving the Democratic Party to the left, rather than on
creating
a new political force that seriously goes after the special interests.
But if you’re trying to play the political leverage game, his assuring
voters that his candidacy will have no negative effect on a Gore victory
is hardly the kind of posture that forces the Democrats to be more
responsive.

The issue in the 2000 presidential elections is not who you support,
but
what you support. Do you want to take the position that there must be no

poverty in America? If you do, then you make choices — electoral and
otherwise — that are based on achieving that goal.

The current conjuncture in American politics, is one where the two
parties have been overrun by powerful globalist special interests who
practice incrementalism as a form of social containment and restrict
democracy to maintain that political control. It is this two party
political deadlock that must be broken if poverty and corruption are to
be ended.

Political corruption — as was the case with slavery — is a known
fact. A
century and a half ago some Americans were dedicated to ending it. They
did
various things to accomplish that goal, but their success or failure was

always measured by how close they came to a society in which slavery was

abolished. Today, a vision of a country where political corruption is
outlawed and poverty is eliminated does provide a guide.

Who must provide that progressive vision? That’s the job of the left.
If
the American left doesn’t play that role, if it doesn’t represent
something
more than a group of constituencies, then the left becomes nothing more
than a weak constituency itself, rather than a visionary guide to
building for the greater good.