The Lesser of Two Evils

Rating: 3.3 after 4 votes

Posted by The Barefoot Bum on June 22, 2008 at 12:34pm

There is, of course, a difference between the Democratic party and the Republican party. There's a difference, a real difference, between Barack Obama and John McCain. The Republican party is the party of sexism, racism, stupidity and Christian fundamentalism, and it's retreating from reality faster than the Italian Army. McCain is completely beholden to the party of insanity. The Democratic party is not completely insane, and Obama is not beholden, body and soul, to this sort of insanity. I get it.

Besides nominating a black man (which I think is very cool), that they're not completely insane is the best thing I can say about the Democratic party.

If you want to vote for Obama because, unlike McCain, he's not stupid and insane (or not beholden to stupidity and insanity), and you care at all about my blessing, you have it.

The political and social elite plays a critical part in American politics. They shape the discussion, and boil down the voters' choices. Whether it's good or bad to have an elite that performs these functions is an open question for another day. The reality is that this elite does exist, they do shape the discussion, and they do boil down the voters' choices. And I'm faced with two bad choices: A literally insane fanatic, and a non-insane spineless conservative.

Obama's politics are fundamentally conservative, despite some of his rhetoric. He's aggressive and hawkish on Iran, his mandate-free health care plan is pure bullshit, and his tax and economic policies appear "progressive" only in contrast to the Bush administration's eight years of batshit-crazy insanity. Anyone who has the approval of Andrew Sullivan and Bill Kristol, anyone who defended Bush's "right" to choose John Roberts for the Supreme Court, cannot be considered a progressive in any sense of the word.

Obama and the Democratic party he represents are spineless. The primary function of partisan politics is for each party to punish the other(s) for their stupidity, errors and crimes, regardless of their ideology. Even the most ideologically acceptable party is composed of human beings, and it's uncontroversial that people behave better when there's someone at least unsympathetic, if not downright hostile, looking over their shoulder, and we want those who directly control the military and the police to be on their very best behavior. From their refusal to impeach and prosecute the members of the Bush administration for their egregious and obvious crimes against Federal Law, the Constitution and humanity, to their recent supine willingness to grant immunity to telecoms for past criminal behavior, the Democratic party has shown its inability and unwillingness to perform their most fundamental role as a partisan political organization.

I'm not here to convince you that Obama is a conservative. If you look at critically at Obama's policies and positions and you think he'd make a fine president then vote for him with, for what it's worth, my blessing.

But I don't like Obama, and I want to talk about my own responsibility as a voter when I'm faced with a choice between what I consider two bad alternatives.

I understand our political system. I understand that a vote for someone other than Obama or McCain is, at least in the immediate sense, equivalent to an abstention, a half vote for the eventual winner. But to vote for Obama simply because he's the least bad choice is to actively endorse a system that has consistently present me with bad choices.

The theory is that if we vote for the lesser of two evils, we'll see at least incremental improvement. I may not have the ideal candidate, but at least I'll have the one better than the alternative. Slowly but surely (or so the theory goes) we'll get less and less stupidity, bullshit and pure evil, and maybe start to see some actual good.

But this theory is not borne out by the facts. Since I was a young man, the country has been worsening. I've seen the progressive ideals (such as they were) implemented by Roosevelt and preserved by Eisenhower, steadily eroded and destroyed. I've seen increasing poverty, a shrinking middle class, a dramatic increase in economic inequality, decreasing economic mobility, an economy that increasingly benefits only the very rich, and an erosion of our basic Constitutional civil liberties (fueled originally by the war on some drugs used by some people, but drastically expanded by the Bush administration's war on ~~brown people with a weird religion sitting on our oil~~ terror).

Choosing the lesser of two evils, time and again, has had the opposite effect: ratcheting the quality of life in this country down, not up. I have not been rewarded by the choice of expediency over idealism, I have been punished time and again.

I fully understand that a vote for Obama is justified by expediency: McCain is definitely worse, much worse. But I am not going to choose expediency any more. It's just not enough. I am not going to supinely accept the bad choices that our national elite has presented me. I'm going to vote my conscience and damn the consequences. I just can't stomach choosing only between a freefall and a slow slide into tyranny and economic exploitation. I've spent almost thirty years "buying time" for the Democratic party to get their act together and not just slow but reverse the country's decline into "every man for himself, and the Devil take the hindmost" politics and economics. They have failed, and I will no longer enable their failure.

It's not my responsibility to create better choices. I don't have the wealth, training, talent, or ability to join the elite. I was not born rich, nor do I have any talent at becoming rich. I did not receive a scholarship to Harvard, Princeton, Yale or even Podunk State University. I was not trained as a journalist. The elite that controls our national discourse was not banging on my door to ask me to join them, and I did not give them the cold shoulder out of spite or misplaced idealism. I'm just an ordinary guy with an ordinary job. I work, I pay my taxes, I vote, and I speak my mind: my obligations as a citizen end there.

I've changed my registration: I'm no longer a member of the Democratic party. I will vote, and I will definitely not vote for McCain, but I will not vote for Obama either. If McCain wins, so be it. I refuse to take responsibility: It's the fault of an elite that has given me bad choices, and has brainwashed half the country into thinking that John McCain might be anything other than a national disaster and a betrayal of whatever great ideals have been promoted in our society, from the Constitution to the New Deal. Compared to that great betrayal by the people who justify their power by appeal to their supposed intelligence, wisdom, and civic virtue, my refusal to passively accept their bullshit pales to insignificance.

Tags: john mccain, presidential election, politics, barack obama

11 Comments

Comment by Rod on June 22, 2008 at 5:44pm: I can see where you're coming from, BB. Obama is not the perfect candidate, Harry Reid allowed the first overhaul of FISA to pass, and now Hoyer and Pelosi let the second one go through. In the meantime, impeachment articles against Cheney and Bush are buried in Judiciary Committee limbo, as the Speaker of the House does her Benedict-Arnold best to force Congressman Conyers not to bring impeachment up under penalty of firing.

Your argument begs the following questions:

a) What do we do in the future to rectify these inequities?

b) What can we in the present to ensure that we have the option to execute the above-referenced corrective actions?

c) If not Obama--which you have presented a strong enough case to label as a less-than-ideal candidate--who will you vote for, or--for that matter, should you exercise your constitutional right not to vote--who would have made the ideal candidate vis-à-vis the Union's present state of affairs?

Comment by The Barefoot Bum on June 23, 2008 at 12:52am: I don't think it's quite fair to label Obama as merely less than perfect. I'm an engineer; I know full well that the perfect is (sometimes) the enemy of the good. The problem is that Obama is bad: conservative, militaristic, corporatist; I'm a not-quite-pacifist, progressive liberal.

What do we do in the future? Damned if I know. Whatever it is that we ought to do, Obama's spineless conservatism ain't it.

I'll vote. I've voted in almost every election, and I won't stop now. I'll probably vote for McKinney or Nader. (Please read Bob Somerby before telling me that Nader cost Gore the election in 2000.)

Comment by geoffrey on June 23, 2008 at 2:37pm: I don't think Nader cost Gore the election. I watched an unreasonable man recently and came away feeling pretty sympathetic to Nader. But Obama's pretty liberal. He's rated the most liberal member of the Senate. His top concern has always been poverty in the inner-cities and, when the time comes, I think he'll help with the environment. Maybe he's not a revolutionary, but I like the idea of electing a guy who spent his whole adult life working for this country's poor and forgotten.

Comment by Paul Davison on June 23, 2008 at 9:04pm: All due respect, please explain how Obama is a conservative. Is he a modern day fake conservative like John McCain (against abortion, anti-gay marriage)? Is he a neo-conservative like George W. Bush (ass owned by military industrial complex and oil industries, panders to the religious right)? Is he a true conservative like Ron Paul (basically libertarian)? Hardly.

And militaristic? Where are we getting that label? He's been on the record as against the war from day one.

However, I do respect your lack of desire to vote for somebody who doesn't inspire you. Me - I'm pretty damn enamored with the guy. He has uncommon charisma, which is a fundamental pillar of true leadership. (Nader's a great guy, great thinker, and means very well, but is severely lacking charisma and will never be anything close to president).

I also respect your lack of desire to not be a card-carrying Dem. I'm only a registered dem because I wanted to participate in the primaries in Massachusetts. One of my biggest regrets was voting for Kerry in '04 out of a desire to get GWB outta office. Truth is, he was an awful candidate and the energy was only around getting GWB defeated, not electing a visionary leader like John F. Kerry.

Obama moves people. Inspires people. Those are valuable qualities. He will represent our country proudly to the world and send a great message about how far we have come from enslaving people like him for 400 years.

Comment by The Barefoot Bum on June 23, 2008 at 10:01pm: Obama is a conservative Part 1. Part 2. Part 3.

Obama at AIPAC. Also Obama, despite his "opposition" to the war, has voted for most of the Iraq war appropriations bills. IIRC, his only vote against was symbolic, after the bill was assured of passage.

Comment by Justin on June 24, 2008 at 2:33am: Excellent article, BB! While I can certainly sympathize with your disillusionment with both Parties and their nominees, there may be something to be said about Obama's ability to inspire American, young American specifically. While George Carlin never voted and had lost his faith with the American voter and our political system a long time ago, he did speak about Obama in a recent interview:

"Well, it's an exciting story to watch. What's exciting is that it doesn't happen in this country very often. There were moments in the history of the American people - and by the way, one of the reasons I got off the train of the American experience is I think - I'll get back to Obama in a minute - I think that human beings were given great gifts and had great potential and they squandered it all on goods, possession, power, territory and on a superstitious God that watches everything and controls. These things, I think, crippled the human animal to the extend that we never lived up to their potential. The same thing happened in this country. We were given great potential. We were given this great system of self-government, the best one that had been devised so far. And we've given it all up for gizmos, and goods, and toys and possessions, and - in this country - God, overlooking everything and spoiling everything. "So... there have been moments in this country when people have, leaders have emerged who were inspirational, and who could carry the people with them because — in order to effect change in their lives and experience as a group, they need to be led, and they need to believe in something and they need to believe in themselves, and they need to believe that they can change things. And they way that happens is through an inspirational leader."

If Obama can succeed in getting my generation to start engaging in politics, then he may be instrumental in effecting long-term change, even if his presidency would only keep the status quo. And it should be said that Carlin wouldn't have voted for these guys either.

Comment by geoffrey on June 24, 2008 at 9:10am: may he rest in peace

Comment by Paul Davison on June 24, 2008 at 9:56pm: Thanks for posting Apostate's series about Obama...I read all three. While interesting and thought provoking, her articles are hardly a slam-dunk case in my mind about O's conservative credentials.

But then again I'm a progressive who nearly switched party affiliations just so I could vote for Ron Paul.

I believe the truth is - what we think of as conservative and liberal are not necessarily the textbook definitions of those terms. My wife and I joke that the "liberals" are the real conservatives - we want to conserve the environment, conserve peace, conserve human rights, conserve transparency, while the "conservatives" are the true radicals: wanting to infringe others rights, restrict freedoms, and rule through imperialism.

Comment by The Barefoot Bum on June 25, 2008 at 1:20am: It's not intended to be a slam dunk. Topical politics is not my strongest genre, nor is it The Apostate's. Like I said: If you think Obama is all that and a bag of chips, vote for him with my blessing. I don't think he is, and I have to figure out what to given my lack of good choices.

Comment by Joe on July 5, 2008 at 8:39pm: I was never enchanted by Obama. He seems young. He seems like he has as much potential as charisma. But what has he done, aside from taking a stand against the Iraq War when it benefitted him mightily and cost him nothing?

Foregoing public campaign finance is the kind of pragmatism I can understand, and many even respect. But the apparent FISA Flip FLop seems like it could be a devastating sell-out. At this point, BO doesn't even look like the best of a bad lot what with others taking the lead in confronting this administration and the complaisant opportunism of the bulk of Democrats in Congress.

I'll try to keep an open mind and learn more about his decision, but right now he's neck and neck with "None of the Above" in the horse race for my vote.

Of course, I'm from Massachusetts so it's not such a brave stand if I really end up refusing to vote for the Democrat. If I was in a swing state, I probably wouldn't have the nerve.

When I voted for Nadir instead of Gore back in 2000, I thought I felt fine until I started listening to the election returns. The sick feeling I had in my stomach made me think of a Woody Allen movie where Woody's uncle decided to rebel against Kosher dietary restrictions, and then got violently ill after gorging on pork and shellfish. I can still relish the relief I felt after early returns indicated that Gore had won Florida and was therefore the presumptive president elect.

It would be good not to have to choose the lesser of two evils. But I wonder if things are really getting worse. We have such a poor sense of history. Power always extracts a price. American democracy can certainly be over idealized, but it just may be that we get the kind of choices that we have earned based on all kinds of choices we make (or don't) and actions we take (or don't) every day for decades and even generations.