Conventional wisdom has it that the Democrats are poised to lose in the 2010 elections; that they may even lose control of Congress. I would venture, though, that this nightmare won't come to pass; that Republican vileness and craziness will ultimately assure Democratic victories. But I could be wrong: If Obama persists in promoting "bipartisanship" in the face of Republican intransigence, the conventional wisdom could prove correct.
Lesser evils are still lesser and are therefore to be preferred. On the other hand, they are also evils, and are therefore to be despised. The Democrats have given us much to despise: perpetual war, subservience to Wall Street, milquetoast (and ultimately retrograde) reforms, abject servility before noxious pressure groups, immobility in the face of ecological catastrophe, and on and on. How much does it then matter that the Republicans are even worse? That question admits of no clear answer. But it is clear that this indeterminacy is a consequence of a disabling structural problem.
If "democracy," means what the word implies, rule by the demos, the people, all liberal democracies are undemocratic; at best, they respect the form, but not the substance, of genuine popular rule. But each "democracy" is undemocratic in its own way. The party system is mainly to blame. This has been evident early in the nineteenth century, when it became clear that, with political parties mediating public participation in political life, the propertied classes had nothing to fear from extending the franchise to the masses. The party system made democracy safe for capitalism.
However, in most countries, the party system allows for the electoral expression of views voters actually hold -- once the ideological superstructure has had a go at shaping opinion. In recent decades, mass media have been especially effective in securing the status quo, but we should not discount the impact of the educational system and, in benighted quarters (which is to say, almost everywhere), of religion. The story is familiar throughout the world: citizens vote; then the results are compromised away as ruling alliances form.
In this respect, America is indeed "exceptional." Our parties have all but duopolized the electoral system, making ballot access for "third" parties prohibitively difficult. The result is that everyone to the left of, say, Eisenhower Republicans is effectively disenfranchised -- except sometimes briefly and impotently in primary contests. Thus the compromises and betrayals that take place after elections elsewhere happen here before elections take place. The results are similar; little, if anything, changes. But the American way impoverishes the political culture even more profoundly than in liberal democracies, where there is something to vote for.
Of course, when the right candidate appears, muddleheaded progressives can convince themselves that they there is something to vote for. That happened in 2008. Obama was the establishment candidate from the get go. But he became a Rorschach candidate in whom voters saw what they wanted to see. Those who feel betrayed are therefore wrong. Disappointment is another matter. Even I, who never expected much, never thought it would come to this.
The tragedy is that, thanks to American exceptionalism, there is no constructive way to express this disappointment electorally -- because to vote against a Democrat one must vote for a Republican or at least vote (or not vote) in a way that makes it easier for a Republican to win.
In a more democratic political system, it would be salutary for the lesser evil to lose now and again. But with our media and party system, the lesson that will be drawn if the Democrats lose is that Obama's "agenda" was too much for the country. Of course, the opposite is true. Back when he had political capital to spare, Obama was timid when "audacity" was required. Thus he let an historical opportunity pass.
But Obama is the president we have; and the only real choice we will have in November is to vote for a Democrat or a Republican. The obvious conclusion is that the system must be changed. But there is no hint of that in the offing. Ironically, Obamamania made that always dim prospect even more improbable. Now at least that problem has passed. However the deeper problem remains: our institutions still compel us to choose between the very bad and the even worse.
This is why we really have no choice but to help the Lesser Evil prevail. Democrats deserve to lose, and Obama with them. But with so much at stake, we have no choice but to let them walk. Reluctantly therefore, and with a view ultimately to changing the institutional framework that makes such awful choices necessary, we must see to it that they win.
I absolutely share Mr. Levine's belief that "Obama was the establishment candidate from the get go. But he became a Rorschach candidate in whom voters saw what they wanted to see. Those who feel betrayed are therefore wrong. Disappointment is another matter. Even I, who never expected much, never thought it would come to this."
I'm sick of voting for "the lesser evil" and wish Mr. Levine would lay out ideas for changing "the institutional framework". Publicly-funded elections and campaign-funding caps would be a good start.
Do you LIKE what you got for the last 30 years? As long as the Democratic party can run hard to the right and STILL get the left to vote for it because it's the "lesser evil" there will be no change in America. We will continue to "chose" between the arsonist and the termites and wonder why our house is falling down.
If you want change find and support a third party. If you can't bring yourself to do that then admit you are the problem.
Our nation is like the addict who isn't willing to go into rehab. We know the addiction will eventually kill us, but we're not hurting enough (yet) for the radical change needed to get us on the right course. So we rationalize that we're only doing cocaine (the democrats). At least it's not heroin (the republicans).
I'm torn. Part of me says we should race to rock bottom. If we're going to crash eventually, let's get the pain over with. If that means voting for third party candidates that lose, for a time, let's have at it. At least it will send a clear message to the two-party ruling class that we CAN and WILL knock
em out.
Agree that the place to start with real third parties is local.
Listening to the political arguments of one side pointing fingers at an executive controlled by one party and the other side pointing back at a legislature controlled by another political party is the equivalent of water torture. It certainly has nothing to do with what mature political debate should be about, or the responsibility that a democracy should be able to clearly establish.
Perhaps the lack of mature political debate in America has resulted in the failure to develop a mature electorate.
The point the author was attempting to make is that even though that is true, Democrats are still slightly better than Republicans. Maybe. So we should support Democrats.
It's blatantly apparent to me now that things have to get much, much worse in America before we can have serious social and societal changes. So I say put the Republicans back in power; that way they can ruin the country just that much faster than the Democrats are currently ruining it, and bring about the day of our very own Bastille right here in America that much sooner.
As for Bastille, you do realize that the Reign of Terror afterwords was pretty horrible.
Radio chains, TV, newspaper chains, and right wing propaganda mills (think tanks) promote baloney. Even college educated Republicans and Democrats are prone to the most visceral thought processes. I am pretty sure we could devise a galvanic skin response test that would predict belief systems.
The weakness of a democracy is that if you can confuse the electorate you can get away with anything.
They say that it is no longer in operation.
Unaffiliated living in Colorado, running for the US Senate
charleymiller2010
Dunno? Sales of 'Prilosec' fall maybe?
If the Party of the Lesser Evil were to consistently lose elections because progressives refused to be taken for granted, political reforms (such as instant runoff voting and public financing of elections) will finally begin to get some badly needed attention.
4: A > B > C
1: B > A > C
1: B > C > A
3: C > B > A
If it's just A vs. B in this election, B wins, 5:4. But when you add candidate C, the winner changes to A. That's a spoiler. Which means candidate C's party is screwed, because everyone who would consider listing C first next time will think better of it, and rank B higher. Which is exactly the result we have under today's voting system.
But IRV isn't the only option out there. Real voting reform can be possible with approval voting or score voting (AKA range voting), because these methods don't have any "lesser evil" problems in a 3-candidate election.
Check out http://rangevoting.org or http://leastevil.blogspot.com for more information.
That about sums up the past two years.
"But Obama is the president we have; and the only real choice we will have in November is to vote for a Democrat or a Republican."
Hell and no. Time to start pumping up 3rd and 4th parties. Been fed this lesser evil crap for over 20 years now. Not buying it, not this time.
The US needs the rule of law.
There are even, as we know and as Obama knows, admitted war criminals walking around free, happy, and rich.
or indeed NO party. An unaffiliated Candidate would have little difficulty in pointing out the hypocritical positions taken by BOTH existing Parties...but using what medium? The Mainstream Media is thoroughly invested in the mechanics of the two Party system as it exists. Although the Internet was integral in raising support for Obama, was it the critical medium?
(Yes, I realize that I've presented questions and no answers. Opinions? Anyone?)
Health insurance: Is anyone pleased? When I see people touting their accomplishments and list the passage of healthcare as one of them I wonder with whom that person is conversing
Many wanted a single payer or public option. So their choice of presidential candidates is someone who made absolutely no effort toward either option or a republican who wants the entire bill repealed.
We need more parties. We have people from the left who believe Obama is a DINO and people from the right who believe Obama is a socialist.
Could it be that our 2 parties are just too big? Both parties take big bucks from corporations all the while knowing they will not lose their base because who else would their base vote?
Blue Dogs and progressives should each have their own party. Republicans should have the tea partiers and those closer in thinking to Olympia Snowe