This from a CounterPunch article dated July 7, 2011, by Margaret Kimberly:

While Democrats were always a war party, just as much as Republicans, they were also known for their willingness to use the federal government to create and enhance programs which benefited working people. They protected and expanded the modern welfare state as it existed in this country. President Johnson was responsible for the horrific escalation of the war against Vietnam, but he also was responsible for the very existence of the programs which Democrats are now ready to eviscerate. Johnson was the embodiment of the lesser of two evils argument, attacked because he waged an aggressive and immoral war, but at the same time credited with responding to movement demands and eliminating poverty for millions of people.

That lesser of two evils argument now has almost no meaning. Not only is Obama keeping the country in a perpetual state of war, but at the first sign of Republican resistance, he is willing to throw what used to be the foundation of the Democratic party under the wheels of a bus.

I think Ms. Kimberly makes a very valid point. During the LBJ era, it was possible to argue that there were tangible benefits for voting Democratic, because as flawed and wrongheaded as the Democrats were on foreign policy, at least their domestic agenda was far more egalitarian and compassionate towards the poor than the Republican alternative.

Fast forward five decades, and it's quite clear that Johnson's neoliberal successors are far more sympathetic to the dog eat dog, sink or swim philosophy of such worthies as Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand than they are to the humanistic philosophy embodied in Gandhi's injunction: The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Though I continue to have the greatest respect and admiration for Bernie Sanders, I reject his implicit argument that Donald Trump represents a significantly "Greater Evil", and thus making sure he's defeated (obviously by Hillary Clinton) should be considered high priority and of the utmost importance going forward. To my mind, the scourge of "Lesser Evil-ism" is a far more insidious and destructive force than anything represented by Donald Trump, and my own personal focus will thus be on trying to encourage people as forcefully as possible to break free of that toxic and destructive paradigm, which Ralph Nader rightly called "a snare, a trap, and a delusion."

In presidential elections the duopoly candidates typically receive over 98% of all votes cast. Will this year be any different? Sadly, the answer is probably no. But what seems altogether clear is that as long as the neoliberal establishment is successful in convincing the vast majority that there are only two (bad) choices and every responsible voter has to choose one, then this modus operandi will continue to be deployed, and any meaningful alternatives will continue to be relegated to the far margins.