[Peace-discuss] Chomsky on the Biden Trump vote

[Morton K. Brussel]

I simply report it, the Interview with C.J. POLYCHRONIOU: A powerful but disturbing “debate", but with no mention of war-like tendencies of Biden (and earlier, Clinton, Obama) relative to Russia and China, also Iran, and omitting Biden’s vote and support for the murderously destructive consequential  Iraq war. Then, there is the Congress to consider.  

Yes, I’m very uncomfortable with what’s before us as a result of the coming election.  Here’s the interview: [/truthout.org/articles/chomsky-covid-19-has-exposed-the-us-under-trump-as-a-failed-state/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=7135e5f4-c0e9-486f-9b96-d6576625d16d <http://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-covid-19-has-exposed-the-us-under-trump-as-a-failed-state/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=7135e5f4-c0e9-486f-9b96-d6576625d16d>]
Many on the left feel, naturally, and with much justification, extremely uncomfortable about Joe Biden. In fact, we hear now from some quarters the same arguments we heard in 2016 about Hillary Clinton, which is to say that it would be unconscionable for progressives to accept the “lesser of two evils” principle. How can we understand the political and conceptual context of electoral choices made by progressives and the left in November 2020?

These questions are plainly important. They are a matter of intense discussion and often impassioned debate on the left, and plenty of invective. That makes them worth discussing. To be quite frank, I don’t see much other reason for discussing them. I’ve tried to explain in recent interviews, and judging by the reactions, have failed. So, I will repeat in more detail.

I’ve been around for a long time and can’t think of a candidate about whom I was not “extremely uncomfortable,” at least since FDR (and I was too young to have considered opinions then).

In Biden’s case it’s easy to think of reasons to be extremely uncomfortable. We can begin with his participation in the destruction of Libya and Honduras, in Obama’s global assassination campaign, in breaking all records in deportation — and on from there. But while continuing with constant efforts to change that world, we have to take off a few minutes to each make our own choices on election day.

In the moral domain, what matters is the predictable consequences of your actions, those you are well aware of but choose to ignore. No one cares if you feel your conscience is clear.
Let’s think through the two concepts that lie behind the question: “unconscionable” and “lesser of two evils principle.”

Let’s start with “unconscionable.” There are those — including close personal friends and long-time activists whom I greatly respect — who take the position that some actions are simply “unconscionable,” whatever the consequences. I will ignore this position. To me, frankly, it seems not worth discussing. In the moral domain, what matters is the predictable consequences of your actions, those you are well aware of but choose to ignore. No one cares if you feel your conscience is clear.

Let’s turn to the lesser of two evils principle.

Throughout my lifetime of activism (almost 80 years), I’ve been familiar with two doctrines about voting. One is the official doctrine.

Official doctrine holds that politics consists of showing up every few years, pushing a lever, then going back to one’s private pursuits. Citizens are “spectators,” not “participants in action,” according to official doctrine. They can choose one or another member of the leadership class (“the responsible men”) but that’s the limit of popular participation. I happen to be quoting Walter Lippmann, a respected public intellectual of the 20th century (a Wilson-FDR-JFK liberal), in his “progressive essays in democracy,” but the ideas are representative of prevailing liberal opinion. They trace back to the framers of the Constitution. That’s why the “gold standard” in constitutional scholarship, a fine and illuminating study by Michael Klarman, is called “The Framers’ Coup <https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-framers-coup-9780199942039?cc=us&lang=en&>” — a coup against the popular demand for democracy.

On the right, views are much harsher.

A second doctrine is the one that has always prevailed on the left, call it “left doctrine.” Politics consists in constant direct popular engagement in public affairs, including a wide variety of activism on many fronts. Occasionally an event comes up in the formal political arena called an “election.” For left activists, that requires spending a brief period assessing the options (a very brief period for legitimate activists, who’ve been following everything relevant closely). Then comes a decision as to whether it’s worthwhile to take a few minutes away from ongoing political work to push a lever in the quadrennial extravaganza. It’s at most a brief departure from political engagement.

That’s the doctrine that I’ve followed all my life, sometimes abstaining because the show didn’t seem to matter and there’s no point legitimizing the charade by participating, sometimes voting for a third party, sometimes voting for Jones if it’s important to block Smith. I’ve sometimes voted for a Republican, in years when the Republicans were still a bone fide political party and had a better candidate.

There are, of course, myriad other cases, but the general point of left doctrine seems clear.

In recent years, a third doctrine has made an appearance and is now consuming much debate on the left: the lesser of two evils principle. I’d never heard of it before, in a lifetime of intensive political engagement (in the left doctrine sense). And it seems quite strange to me. It obviously is quite different from left doctrine, the prevailing doctrine on the left. The intensive debate about it falls within official doctrine, with its laser-like focus on the elections.

My own feeling about the lesser of two evils principle, of course, is that we should reject it in favor of left doctrine. It has no merits that I can see, so I think we can put it aside, along with the often–fevered debate about it.

Let’s now consider the immediate case in hand. If the traditional left doctrine were applied to the current situation, it would require comparing Trump and his entourage with Biden and his, and asking whether there is a difference between them.

I personally think the difference is colossal. First and decisive, another four years of Trump and we’ll have approached or possibly passed tipping points on the path toward environmental catastrophe toward which Trump is racing, his “party” in tow, virtually isolated in the world, certainly in the political system here. Just as important, the arms control regime will be dismantled, sharply increasing the threat of terminal war. The severe threats that Trump has incited in the Middle East will have increased, if not exploded. The Doomsday Clock, already reduced to seconds under Trump, will probably be close to abandoned. The reactionary international led by the White House that Trump is establishing will be well solidified. At home, the judiciary will be so packed by ultra-right young judges that no progressive initiatives will be able to be implemented for a generation. By the wayside we’ll be observing other horrors, like children sent to concentration camps on the border, Black people murdered on a whim, etc.

An advocate of left doctrine will spend a few minutes reviewing the familiar facts, then take off another few minutes to push a lever, then go back to work.

I know of only one proposed counterargument. We have to put pressure on the Democratic establishment. To begin with, it’s not a counterargument. It simply reiterates the main thesis of left doctrine: constant pressure. The only remaining question is how to impose pressure. There are, basically, two proposals on the table. The first is left doctrine. The second is refusing to vote for Biden.

Let’s take a look at these.

Left doctrine efforts can work, as they often have before. We all know that that has been the main source of progress over the years.
First, left doctrine. We continue with what has been done, and has been very effective. One illustration is the Sanders campaign, which has been a remarkable success in shifting debate and policy choices to the left. The activism of the Sunrise Movement — aided by young congresswomen brought to office in the Sanders wave, notably Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — has brought to the legislative agenda a Green New Deal, with the cooperation of liberal Democrat Ed Markey, senator from Massachusetts. Some version of a Green New Deal is essential for survival. There have also been significant shifts in other areas (health care, minimum wage, harsh repression in vulnerable communities, women’s rights, on and on). We can, in fact, see this in Biden’s program, which is well to the left of previous Democratic front-runners. That’s why Biden is supported against Trump by Sanders (who had a large role in bringing the shift about) and also by longtime labor activists like Lawrence Mishel and Jared Bernstein. It’s not my program, or yours, but we can hardly doubt that it is an improvement over what preceded.

Left doctrine efforts can work, as they often have before. We all know that that has been the main source of progress over the years, particularly when there were administrations susceptible to activist pressure.

It could be argued that political programs are just words. True, but irrelevant. Left doctrine efforts can keep Biden’s feet to the fire, as has often happened in the past. And there will be opportunities to go far beyond, an urgent necessity.

In contrast, we can be sure that a Trump administration will be rock solid in opposition.

The second approach is to refuse to vote for Biden in the hope that withholding the vote will convince the Democratic establishment to take us seriously down the road. I can’t honestly construct a plausible version of this view, and it would be unfair to try.

Turning finally to your question, “How can we understand the political and conceptual context of electoral choices made by progressives and the left in November 2020?”

To me the answer seems clear. We should assess whether there is meaningful difference between the candidates, and also recognize that, for most of us, voting takes a few minutes. Then we go back to our real activist work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20200429/cc8e47a2/attachment-0001.htm>