On voting for the Lesser of Two Evils

Submitted by Ravensword on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 5:54pm

Edit: I accidentally published this before I was finished. Sorry for any inconvenience I'm might've caused.

This is my first essay on here. I'm just trying to get into my writing stride on here. Also, need to familiarize myself with the blogging features.

Among many other things that I'm concerned about the coming general election, the prospect of having to vote for the lesser of two evils is becoming less and less palatable. It used to be fashionable to bash Nader voters back in the 2000 election cycle, and while not outright blaming them for Bush, telling them that they were a part of the problem. Even worse were those voters who I perceived as smug because of how they would justify their vote by saying that they voted their conscience. That's little comfort given the fact that Bush became president. I wasn't old enough to vote in the 2000 presidential election.

However, with the prospect of having to vote between Hillary or Trump, I'm a bit stumped as to what to do. At a glance, I see myself in a double bind. There's not really much of a choice there. I do believe that Hillary would be the lesser of two evils, but goddammit if I can pull the lever for her. Only in America would you get the opportunity to choose between a neocon and a fascist.

Being put into such a situation, I think I can empathize a little with Nader voters. I thought I would be able to take the pragmatic option, but that has become a rather distasteful option to me. It just won't do. Hillary's manufactured media persona is off-putting, and it's clear that she's just a calculating and triangulating politician. Her claims of being a progressive, when she has never been one for much of her life, is insulting to my intelligence. It's also mistifying to me as to how many so-called liberals and progressives actually believe she is one, when her entire life has consistently lived on the wrong side of history, but that's a topic for another essay.

All this doesn't inspire me to want to pull the lever for her, if she were the Democratic nominee, but I'm not going to stay home an not vote. That's not an option. At this time, I'll probably vote for Jill Stein. I'm guessing that Nader voters must've felt similarly. I still have a degree of hindsight bias towards voting for Nader in 2000, but that's only natural.

I've had arguments with family members over my unwillingness to vote for Hillary in the general. They want me to do the right thing and vote fornHollary. They say that Hillary needs my vote, and while that may be true (though highly unlikely), she's not entitled to it. To be caught between a rock and a hard place, or in this case, a neocon and a fascist, is annoying. I'd rather vote Green.

Tags:

Bush

Nader voter

lesser of two evils

Vote

Comments

Submitted by rmwarnick on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 5:50pm

It's a myth

It's a myth that Ralph Nader voters decided the 2000 election. The Internet term for ideas that have been proven false but won't go away is "derp." This is a prime example. Among other things, far more registered Democrats voted for Bush in Florida than for Nader.

http://www.salon.com/2000/11/28/hightower/

—

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

Submitted by Bollox Ref on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 6:06pm

Oddly enough.......

It's a constant theme over on the Great Orange Hillary (despite evidence otherwise).

Gore lost because of Gore and his wretched sidekick Lieberman. I can still picture Gore's stilted performances during the debates with Bush. I'm sure he's decent enough in private, but his public persona had the charisma of a wooden carving.

Blame Florida Democrats for voting for Bush.

—

Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 6:47pm

GORE DID NOT LOSE.

As a Floridian, someone who watched the vile election fraud happen, I beg of all of you:

Please don't rewrite history into "Gore lost because...."

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 7:04pm

Didn't help him any more than Tilden

We have had two Presidents who were elected but never got to be inaugurated. How to remedy this is a serious problem, since in both cases proper Constitutional procedures were circumvented - mildly in 1884 by a House-chosen "panel" rather than the whole House, BLATANTLY in 2000 by the Supreme Court usurping the House's authority.

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by UntimelyRippd on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 7:35pm

"Gore failed to become President" is how I usually

try to phrase it.

In any case, I've figuratively screamed myself blue in the face at the epistemologically challenged people who look at the static snapshot of the electorate that was taken on that November Tuesday, and categorically assert that Nader cost Gore the election. This is classic first-order thinking -- exactly the same sort of thinking that insists a rise in the minimum wage will cause unemployment. The bottom line is that we cannot ever know what would have happened if Nader had not run, because we cannot know how the entire campaign would have been different without him. We cannot know who would have said what, we cannot know who would have done what, we cannot know what the media would and would not have reported. Once small example: I believe that in the last weeks Gore shifted to the left (defying the DLC braintrust) in order to recapture votes from Nader, and that this shift to the left increased his vote total.

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

Submitted by rmwarnick on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 7:47pm

The Nader myth was debunked on DKos

The Nader myth was debunked years ago in an excellent diary on DKos. I won't go back there myself, but here's the link from Google:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth

—

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 8:49pm

One would probably get banned for that now

Now that The Establishment Pravda is the be-all and end-all....

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by UntimelyRippd on Sat, 03/26/2016 - 12:04am

looks like i was active in that diary

could've saved myself the trouble of my comment above

UntimelyRippd Dec 06 · 05:22:04 PM
I've said this before, I'll say it again, and it
will change the mind of nobody: It is impossible to know what would have happened if Nader hadn't run, because he did run. Every attempt to blame Nader rests on the assumption of "all else equal" -- but all else would not have been equal. By running, Nader changed everything in ways that cannot be measured.

For example, late in the campaign, Gore switched to a more populist message. Was this something made necessary by Nader's participation? Maybe. Maybe not. There is no way to know. Did this shift win Gore votes, or cost Gore votes? There is no way to know. Did it win him only votes that would have gone to him anyway, if Nader weren't running? There is no way to know. By raising the populist issues he raised, did Nader drive voters away from Bush, but into the camps of Libertarian and other candidates? There is no way to know.

Et Fucking Cetera

We can't even properly measure how many Nader voters wouldn't have voted at all if Nader hadn't run -- because we have only their post hoc word on it, and there is no way to know what the campaign would have looked like, and how they would have responded to it, if Nader hadn't run.

People who hate on Nader aren't doing so because a solid case can be built for assigning him the blame. If that were the reason, they would read the preceding paragraphs and think, "huh. i hadn't thought of that. we don't know these things, do we?" (And they would think that thought, because it is true that we don't know these things. If you are one of "them", and you disagree with me … well … prove it. Go through the list and explain to me exactly how it is that we know the answers -- never mind that they all miraculously support the Nader-Is-Satan hypothesis.)

People who hate on Nader are doing so because he pissed them off just for being there, saying what he was saying. I'm not going to plow into pseudo-psychoanalysis, but I will say there's plenty of fertile ground there, and none of it reflects in a complimentary way upon the haters.

UntimelyRippd tytalus Dec 07 · 01:07:16 AM
The only thing I have to answer for is demanding
my right as an American citizen to cast my vote for the person who best represents my own philosophy, as well as my own understanding of how our society is organized and what needs to be changed.

If the Democratic Party cannot successfully blackmail me, and is disinclined to conciliate me, then I would say it is the Democratic Party that has the problem. Neither I nor Nader is responsible for the catastrophic electoral failures of the Democrats from 1994 through 2004; nor are we responsible for the catastrophic failure of 2010.

I place 100% of the blame for Al Gore's failed bid for the Presidency, not on Nader, and not on Nader voters, and not on the viciously corrupt Supreme Court that appointed Bush, but rather on the DLC party establishment that still has not learned the lesson of 2000, as evidenced by the 2010 debacle (not to mention T. McA's desultory victory in VA).

Nader was certainly incorrect about one thing -- his claim that the Democrats are the same as the Republicans. No, they are not. In 2000, the Democrats were economically rather a lot like the Republicans of 1976. By 2008, they'd managed to gain ground, resembling quite strongly the Republicans of 1996 -- but of course, the Republicans manage to continue becoming more and more and more horrible. Indeed, more and more Democrats literally were the Republicans of 1996. They haven't changed their politics, they've only changed parties. This is a convenient circumstance for the politely right-wing bastards whose policies the Democrats now endorse. Finally, after 2 decades of this horror, we're beginning to see some serious pushback from a handful of elected Democrats, but they are still battling the McAuliffes and the Clintons and the Schumers and Feinsteins and Baucuses and on and on and on who have helmed this voyage of the damned.

On social issues, yes, there is certainly a broad divide -- but even there, only if we constrain the adjective "social" to mean pretty much "issues that pertain to bigotry".

—

Submitted by fladem on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 8:03pm

This is the sort

if argument that can only be termed denial. It one of a number of arguments that simply do not stand up to any sort of analysis. I can recite them by heart - All these Democrats voted for Bush in the panhandle.

Well, the Democrats who voted for Bush in 2000 hadn't voted for a Democrat in 20 years. There were (they are dying off) a large number of Reagan Democrats who live in the panhandle who just have never changed their name recognition.

In an election decided by so few votes, everything mattered. Everything.

But I have no doubt - because there at the end of the day there isn't any - that had Nader not run Gore would have carried Florida.

Submitted by UntimelyRippd on Sat, 03/26/2016 - 10:05am

you should get yourself some doubt.

it would bring you closer to the truth.

—

Submitted by riverlover on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 5:53pm

decent first essay, and yes, what are we presented with?

Knife or pills and a plastic bag are not choices that are palatable.

I could do one better than Nader, don't blame me, I voted for Perot. Never voted for Bill, my first parting from the Dems.

—

Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.

Submitted by Ravensword on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 6:31pm

Thanks.

This is why we need more than two viable parties. In fact, we need more than three, several. This'll ensure that we don't feel like our vote is being wasted because we didn't vote for one of the two main parties.

Submitted by dkmich on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 8:05pm

Nader is a myth....

There must have been at least 10 reasons why Gore lost. To isolate it to Nader is a strategy to shame the reformers and keep them in line.

I don't know how you will vote, but I'm not voting for Hillary. If Bernie doesn't make it, I will vote Green. If that elects Trump, so be it. Maybe the next time the Third Way will watch its back. The left is tired of getting shit on.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by Ravensword on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 6:42pm

I don't know about that.

I'm not ready to bern down the world and see what rises from the ashes, however appealing that option may seem—and it is quite appealing. However, I must also m, as they say on Tumblr, "check [my] privilege." It's easy to just stand by and let Drumpf win the election, but it's something else if you're a woman and/or a minority.

I remember that butthurt Clintonistas created a campaign to convince people to vote for McCain after Hillary had lost the 2008 primary in the hopes that she would run again in 2012 and beat McCain. That was a monumentally stupid plan. Say what you will about Obama (and there are quite a few things to be unhappy about), but VPOTUS Palin? Seriously? Besides, what can I say? I liked Candidate Obama

I don't think getting Trump will teach the Third Way scum any lessons. The establishment elite of the Denocratic party won't learn a damn thing.

I would be more enthusiastic about voting Green if I knew my vote counted.

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 6:59pm

Turd Way asshats

I don't think getting Trump will teach the Third Way scum any lessons. The establishment elite of the Denocratic party won't learn a damn thing.

Under any circumstances whatsoever.

Ceterem censeo, Via Tertia delendum est!

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by dkmich on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 8:08pm

I am a woman.

Obama got my last two lesser of evil votes. My vote is no longer owned. It has to be earned.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by Ravensword on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 9:09pm

Not gonna lie

I would vote for Obama over Hillary.

Submitted by UntimelyRippd on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 7:36pm

The Third Way will never learn.

If they were capable of learning, they would have learned after 2000. Instead, they chose petulant denial and laid the blame at Nader's feet.

—

Submitted by Bollox Ref on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 6:10pm

I'm fortunate enough to have a write-in option.

So Bernie it is.

I wouldn't vote for Clinton if she gave me the entire 'Family' net worth.

—

Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.

Submitted by wrbpmaui on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 7:39pm

umm let's not

Be to hasty about turning down that family worth. Heard nova Scotia is welcoming fleeing Americans. With all that dough it would be simple to vacation in warmer climes ;-).

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 7:42pm

You assume she'd follow through on any offer...

Any offer Hillary makes would be so couched in double talk and addendum that you'd be lucky to not end up owing HER money for the privilege of voting for her.

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by Miss SPED on Fri, 03/25/2016 - 6:43pm