[Peace-discuss] The Supreme Court, and "lesser evilism"

[Phil Stinard]

Mort,

Facile?  Did I call the pro-Kerry arguments facile?  Why yes, I did call 
them facile!...  but I was being polite.  I intended to say morally 
bankrupt.  To attempt to cajole, delude, or deceive anyone into voting for a 
candidate who does not represent their views is morally bankrupt.

Let's briefly discuss the topic of the nastiness of the lesser-evilism 
campaign.  A couple of days ago, after I wrote a very heartfelt piece on why 
I was voting for Kerry (a position that I'm seriously reconsidering now), 
Jenifer replied something to the effect that if Naderites had voted for the 
lesser of two evils in 2000, we wouldn't even have a war.  "Duh."  The "Duh" 
is a direct quote by the way--the rest is a paraphrase.  Besides being 
factually dubious, it was just plain nasty.

Now, let's look at what you wrote:  "Some evidently think this of negligible 
importance,
indeed diversionary, as long as the capitalist system persists."  I assume 
that you're not referring to my views, since what you're saying has nothing 
to do with my views on the issue.  But, it's nasty anway, because you're 
referring to someone whom you assume exists, obviously some socialist, 
communist, or anarchist based on the allusion to capitalism (although are we 
to assume that if the capitalist system doesn't persist, that your views 
will then receive broad acceptance?).  Maybe it's more incoherent than 
nasty....  The point is that when confronted with the flaws in their logic 
and the bankruptcy of their ideas, the desperate Kerry-supporting 
lesser-evilists get nasty, and sometimes even go ballistic.  I got yelled at 
over dinner once for sticking up for my views and not being steamrolled by a 
Kerry supporter.  "What?!?!?!?  It's like voting for Bush!  What about the 
Supreme Court!?!?!?!?!?"  Oh, the dinner host looked like he wanted to crawl 
under a table.  I didnt' start the argument, though.  When asked by someone 
if I would vote for Kerry, I just said no, and the other person got nasty.

Now let's look at Chomsky, he's not quite so nasty:  "Anyone who says 'I 
don't care if Bush gets elected' is basically telling poor and working 
people in the country, 'I don't care if your lives are
destroyed. I don't care whether you are going to have a little money to help 
your disabled mother. I just don't care, because from my elevated point of 
view I don't see much difference between them.'"

It's a nice appeal to people's emotions, but it's not a rational, logical 
argument, and a debating coach would laugh him off the team.  I'm surprised 
he hasn't accused Nader of clubbing baby seals.  Chomsky is using some of 
the same techniques of manufacturing consent that he decries.  Don't get me 
wrong, I think that Chomsky is one of the greatest progressive thinkers of 
our times, but he's not a God.  Even Chomsky can make mistakes.

So, if you want to keep arguing for Kerry, go ahead until you're blue in the 
face, but if you're alienating me, I'm sure you're alienating others.  I 
hope that the gashes in the progressive movement (still open and bleeding 
four years after the 2000 election, judging by Jenifer's comment) can heal 
after the election is over.

--Phil

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Supreme Court, and "lesser evilism"
Morton K.Brussel brussel4 at insightbb.com
Fri Sep 17 20:09:01 CDT 2004

At the risk of having these arguments called "facile", I call your
attention to an article(on Common Dreams)  by Norman Solomon, also
facile (?), which brings up the danger to our justice/court system of a
Bush victory. Some evidently think this of negligible importance,
indeed diversionary, as long as the capitalist system persists.

I append a few quotes from Solomon's article, which, even if
repetitious, are worthy of repetition.

For the full article see:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0917-05.htm

MKB

"The big media themes about the 2004 presidential campaign have reveled
in vague rhetoric and flimsy controversies. But little attention has
focused on a matter of profound importance: Whoever wins the race for
the White House will be in a position to slant the direction of the
U.S. Supreme Court for decades to come.…
…
As opponents of abortion rights, civil liberties, gay rights and other
such causes work to gain a second term for George W. Bush, they try not
to stir up a mass-media ruckus that might light a fire under
progressives about the future of the Supreme Court and the rest of the
federal judiciary. Likewise, those on the left who don't want to back
Kerry even in swing states are inclined to dodge, or fog over, what
hangs in the balance. Kerry is hardly a champion of a progressive legal
system, but the contrast between his centrist orientation and the
right-wing extremism of the Bush-Cheney regime should be obvious. It's
too easy to opt for imagined purity while others will predictably have
to deal with very dire consequences.

  "The popular constituency of the Bush people, a large part of it, is
the extremist fundamentalist religious sector in the country, which is
huge," Noam Chomsky said in a recent interview with David Barsamian.
"There is nothing like it in any other industrial country. And they
have to keep throwing them red meat to keep them in line. While they're
shafting them in their economic and social policies, you've got to make
them think you're doing something for them. And throwing red meat to
that constituency is very dangerous for the world, because it means
violence and aggression, but also for the country, because it means
harming civil liberties in a serious way. The Kerry people don't have
that constituency. They would like to have it, but they're never going
to appeal to it much. They have to appeal somehow to working people,
women, minorities, and others, and that makes a difference."

  Chomsky added: "These may not look like huge differences, but they
translate into quite big effects for the lives of people. Anyone who
says 'I don't care if Bush gets elected' is basically telling poor and
working people in the country, 'I don't care if your lives are
destroyed. I don't care whether you are going to have a little money to
help your disabled mother. I just don't care, because from my elevated
point of view I don't see much difference between them.' That's a way
of saying, 'Pay no attention to me, because I don't care about you.'
Apart from its being wrong, it's a recipe for disaster if you're hoping
to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative."

  Norman Solomon is co-author, with Reese Erlich, of "Target Iraq: What
the News Media Didn't Tell You." His columns and other writings can be
found at www.normansolomon.com.