Keith's NO EMPIRE Blog

A radical dissident perspective on various topics. Comments welcome at

Tuesday, August 09, 2016

Lesser Evilism

Let us begin by noting that "lesser evil" is a label, nothing more. It is used by many people on the nominal Left ("liberals," "progressives," etc) to justify voting for the Democratic candidate regardless of actual past performance. There has been no attempt to objectively predict the likely consequences of the election of the Republican versus the election of the Democrat, it is merely assumed that the Democrat would be less "evil". The word evil a highly perjorative label which detracts from policy implications, and of the effectiveness in actually implementing a desired agenda, particularly in view of the overwhelming influence of the dominant elites on governmental policy. This is significant in regards to the casual dismissal of Third Party candidates who, if they do well, may actually influence policy options more in defeat than the victory of one or the other corporate candidates.

One of the more significant aspects of the US Presidential elections is how they have been reduced to personality contests, actual policy rarely discussed. From the perspective of the elites this makes sense. Significant policy decisions are made by the elites, not the voters. Many have noted the relative consistency of US policy over time regardless of who or which party is in office. If the voters confine themselves to voting for one of the two corporate candidates, this is the inevitable consequence: policy always consistent with overall elite objectives, frequently to the detriment of the 99%. Currently, this includes neoliberal globalization and imperial global hegemony. These, in turn, require ongoing privatization, austerity, militarism and domestic restrictions and control. Fomenting racial/ethnic/religious conflict is standard, and provide the "liberals"/"progressives" something to rally around as the Democratic candidate pursues the imperial agenda which they claim to oppose, but which they de facto support with their vote. And since they refuse to hold the Democrat accountable at the ballot box, the entire political economy inevitably moves to the right in accordance with the elite agenda.

A significant aspect of the Presidential election marketing campaign is to get the citizenry to feel a part of the whole political process by virtue of their participation in the act of voting and perhaps contributing to and/or working for a particular candidate. There is a certain irony in feeling a flush of victory when your corporate candidate wins, the implementation of policies which you oppose by the candidate you supported virtually inevitable. This is where the "lesser evil" label proves invaluable. No matter how badly your candidate actually performs, the other guy would have been worse, so you convince yourself. Furthermore, any Progressive Third Party candidate is viciously attacked as taking away votes from the Democratic candidate. Should the Republican win, this greatest of all tragedies will be blamed on the Third Party Progressive candidate rather than on the Democratic candidate's record of imperial service. In this way, "liberals" can consistently and self-righteously support empire, militarism and neoliberal globalization by voting for the Democratic corporate candidate, while becoming incensed at those who support genuine progressive Third Party candidates. This failure to acknowledge the consequences of their actions by creating an exaggerated demon enemy whom they are defeating at the polls is a prime reason why the elites are able to manufacture consent for their policies and generate enthusiastic support for the politicians who implement these policies in spite of the rather obvious consequences.

This lesser evilism mindset is particularly relevant to the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections insofar as Hillary Clinton's record in support of imperial militarism and neoliberal austerity is so well known and she is so universally unpopular that it has become necessary for her campaign to literally terrify the Democratic faithful of the Republican candidate, the obnoxious buffoon Donald Trump, so that they will be driven to the polls out of fear of Trump to vote for Hillary. The contention among the "liberal" cadre that Hillary is the lesser of two evils is a defensible position only if you believe what she and The Donald say while ignoring her long history of saying one thing and doing another, and of up front warmongering. The current dishonest attempt to portray Trump as a sort of proxy for Vladimir Putin is a return to cold war red baiting as well as further demonization of Putin. It would seem that the American people are being prepared for a pivotal confrontation with Russia, this one infinitely more dangerous than other recent interventions. We are at the end of an era and the empire is attempting to achieve total hegemony prior to a restructuring of the global financial system and the entire global political economy. Hillary has surrounded herself with hyper-militaristic neocons who are pathological risk-takers, Victoria Nuland (Mrs. Robert Kagan) a telling example. The overwhelming support of organized Jewry for Clinton probably indicates that she will take a very hard line against Iran and Assad's Syria. For all of these reason's and more, I have concluded that Hillary Clinton may well be the most dangerous person to seek the Presidency, hardly the lesser evil. Unlike Trump, Clinton has very broad support among the imperial elite, therefore, will likely win easily. Furthermore, this broad support makes policy implementation likely. A Hillary Clinton administration will likely represent a neocon dominated war administration, the militarists throwing caution to the wind as they seek to remake the Middle East, weaken or destroy Russia and contain China thereby securing complete hegemony for the U.S. led global corporate/financial empire. The risk of a nuclear holocaust has never been higher. How this can be described as a lesser evil is beyond comprehension.


Post a Comment

<< Home