Progressive politics

The Evils of Lesser Evil Voting

Joel S. Hirschhorn

Condemn progressives for voting enthusiastically for Democrats and the inevitable response is something like “just imagine how much worse voting for Republicans would be.” Similarly, many true conservatives and Libertarians see voting for Republicans as a necessary evil. With many progressives regretting giving Democrats a majority in Congress and many conservatives regretting putting George W. Bush in the White House, it is timely to refute lesser evil logic.

Inevitably, lesser evil voters face personal disappointment and some shame. Politicians that receive lesser evil votes do not perform according to the values and principles that the lesser evil voter holds dear. These voters must accept responsibility for putting ineffective, dishonest and corrupt politicians in office. Though they may be lesser evils, they remain evils.

All too often lesser evil voters avoid shame and regret and prevent painful cognitive dissonance by deluding themselves that the politician they helped put in office is really not so bad after all. Corrosive lesser evil voting erodes one’s principles as pragmatism replaces idealism. This makes the next cycle of lesser evil voting easier.

Lesser evil voting helps stabilize America’s two-party duopoly that greatly restricts true political competition. Third party and independent candidates – and minor Democratic and Republican candidates in primaries – are defeated by massive numbers of lesser evil voters. Despite authentically having the political goals that mesh with many voters on the left or right, these minor “best” candidates fall victim to lesser evil voting. Lesser evil voters are addicted to a self-fulfilling prophesy. They think “If I vote for a minor candidate they will lose anyway.” They ensure this outcome though their lesser evil voting. The truly wasted vote is the unprincipled lesser evil vote.

Today I took a long lunch and went and saw Al Gore doing his book tour appearance at the Barnes and Noble in Union Square. I expected Gore to do his usual and work the crowd up about global warming. But what I saw instead really surprised me--I saw a presidential candidate giving a very strong campaign manifesto. Gore, speaking to a packed audience, gave this strong, forceful, heartfelt speech about the need for american citizens to be called to action to rise above the lack of reasoned, intelligent debate that we have now in this society, and to reclaim our country and our ideas, and make this country live up to its grand potential.

Gore's new book is called "The Assault on Reason", and in it, he talks about the loss of judgement and intelligent conversation in this country, about how all too often now important decisions are made
without full consideration and proper debate. Gore mentioned in his speech that when the decision was made to go to war in Iraq, 70%,*seventy percent* of americans thought Iraq had attacked us on 9/11.
Because the average citizen was too busy watching American Idol to pay attention to what was going on in Congress, in more than thirty second sound clips. Gore cites statistics like this as proof that the
political discourse in this country is seriously eroding, and with it our democracy. What does it say about american society, he points out, when more people know more about whats been happening with Paris Hilton's court troubles over the last month than whats been going on around the world, in places like Iraq, the Sudan, Afghanistan? What does it say when you can't get people to care about global warming because it inconveniences them too much? Gore argues that people don't understand reasoned debate when they hear it because they pay so little

Obama: The Democratic Messiah?

Joel S. Hirschhorn

What a wonderful political distraction is Senator Barack Hussein Obama. Perhaps a good part of his attractiveness is that he is in so many ways the complete opposite of George W. Bush.

Yet, what amazes me is how our bipartisan obstacle to true political competition continually creates illusions of change and reform. Thus it keeps a grip on Americans’ hope for the future, and preempts public support for more profound political change. Is Obama just another example of how our corrupt political system ingeniously creates candidates to keep hope alive? Is the self-professed progressive Obama the real thing? Is he something other than a conventional politician? I have read many of his speeches and other statements. I applaud his upbeat rhetoric, but few policy details are given.

Joseph Sobran opined that “the Democrats are looking for a political messiah, and many of them think they’ve found one in Illinois’s junior senator, Barack Obama. And Obama is, without question, a very charming, intelligent, and impressive young man who is, moreover, catnip to the press corps.” Cal Thomas made the good point that many Americans look at presidential candidates as political messiahs. He said Obama “can also play dual roles of messiah figure and one of the Wise Men.” And he astutely asked: “Have political ‘messiah figures’ become false gods?”

One reason I enjoy being part of local Democratic Clubs is the chance to meet my elected officials and talk to them directly. For those who dismiss politicians as all corrupt and unresponsive, you might be in for some surprises if you actually met them. Not to say there aren't some corrupt ones, but many are people who are really trying to do good.

The Michigan Democratic Party is the first state party to adopt the very community-oriented "Blue Tiger Democrat" approach to politics. And it looks like the Party leaders are reaching out to bloggers and visa versa.

Here are some chances for bloggers to meet the electeds in Michigan. Believe me, it can be quite interesting meeting the people who represent us. Sometimes good interesting some times bad "interesting." But usually interesting!

This is from the Michigan Liberal blog:

Come join Speaker of the House Andy Dillon, Majority Floor Leader Steve Tobocman, and Representative Barb Byrum as they meet with folks like you from the Michigan progressive/liberal/democratic blogosphere on

Friday, February 16th
6pm - 7pm
Livingston County Democratic Party Office
10321 E. Grand River Suite 600
Brighton, MI. 48116

Of course, far be it from the folks in the Senate to miss out. Many thanks to Minority Leader Mark Schauer for offering to meet up

You may not want to know this. Americans have been successfully brainwashed to fear exactly what their revered Constitution gives them the right to have. Those smart Framers of the Constitution decided that we needed exactly what the establishment, pro-status quo elitists who run our plutocracy do NOT want us to have. There is even a well funded semi-secret group organized to prevent what we the people have a right to.

Has the brainwashing worked? You bet it has. In the absence of public furor, for over 200 years Congress has not done what Article V of the Constitution says it “shall” do. Congress has never issued a call for an Article V convention of state delegates to consider constitutional amendments, in response to two-thirds of state legislatures asking for one. That numeric requirement – the only specified requirement in Article V – has been satisfied, with 50 states submitting over 500 requests. Such a convention operating under authority of the Constitution would be a fourth, impermanent branch of the federal system, not beholding to the three permanent branches. Such independence has been cartooned into a frightening monster.

There is no uncertainty about what the Framers thought the nation needed. They wrote in crystal clear language a two-step process for amending the Constitution. First, craft proposals for possible amendments. Either Congress can do it or an Article V convention of state delegates can. Second, ratify proposed amendments by three-quarters of the states, either through their legislatures or state conventions, as Congress chooses. The Framers believed that Americans, acting through large numbers of state legislators, deserved a way to circumvent the excessive power of Congress or its refusal or inability to satisfy sovereign citizens – their bosses. No role was given to the federal judiciary and executive branch in amending the Constitution.

My colleague from the Drug Policy Alliance wrote this op-ed piece [Liza's Note: We are reprinting the whole article with the author's permission]:

Put Drug Laws on Day One Docket
By Gabriel Sayegh
First published: Tuesday, January 2, 2007
Albany Times-Union

New Yorkers are waiting to see whether Gov. Eliot Spitzer's campaign slogan -- "Day One, Everything Changes"-- is genuine, or just a slogan. There are a number of issues that warrant the attention of the new administration, and reforming the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws should be a priority.

The Rockefeller Drug Laws, passed in 1973, mandate harsh mandatory minimum prison terms for simple, low-level drug offenses. Under these laws, people convicted of first-time drug offenses receive 8 to 20 years in prison. While the state spends millions of taxpayer dollars every year imprisoning drug offenders, spending on community-based drug treatment is pitifully low.

Indeed, treatment options for people with drug problems are too limited, especially for low-income people. There are more than 14,000 people in New York prisons under the Rockefeller Drug Laws. Nationwide, over 500,000 people are incarcerated on drug offenses, more than any other industrialized nation (and more than the European Union, with 100 million more residents, incarcerates for all offenses combined).

But perhaps the most despicable aspect of the Rockefeller Drug Laws is the institutional racism associated with their application. More than 90 percent of the people incarcerated under the Rockefeller Drug Laws are black and Latino, even though whites use and sell illegal drugs at approximately equal rates. There is no excuse for this disparity.

Panel Seeks End to Death Penalty for New Jersey

By LAURA MANSNERUS
Published: January 3, 2007
TRENTON, Jan. 2 � A legislative commission recommended on Tuesday that New Jersey become the first state to abolish the death penalty since states began reinstating their capital punishment laws 35 years ago. Its report found �no compelling evidence� that capital punishment serves a legitimate purpose, and increasing evidence that it �is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency.�

The report, whose lone dissenter was the original author of the state�s modern death penalty statute, came a year after New Jersey joined Illinois and Maryland in imposing moratoriums on executions, and amid growing unease among politicians and the public about capital punishment.

Eight other states, including New York, have also suspended executions in recent years, most because of court decisions. Maryland had lifted its moratorium in 2003, after a year, but a court essentially reinstated it last month.

Death penalty experts said that New Jersey was the first state to receive an official recommendation that capital punishment be abandoned, and it lands in a state where legislators have a Democratic majority along with a Democratic governor who supports repeal of the statute.

The governor, Jon S. Corzine, embraced the report on Tuesday. �As someone who has long opposed the death penalty,� he said in a statement, �I look forward to working with the Legislature� to carry out the recommendations.

Questioning Capital Punishment
the Nation by BRUCE SHAPIRO
[posted online on December 24, 2006]

In the long, contentious history of capital punishment in America, there has never been a moment like this: Over just a few days in mid-December, judges in California and Maryland and the governor of Florida shut down any pending
executions in those states--all because of rapidly growing doubts about the humanity and constitutionality of lethal injection. In less than a week, 1,052 death-row inmates were thrust at least temporarily beyond reach of the
needle.

At first glance, the impact of each of these death penalty moratoria might seem limited. In Florida on December 16, Governor Jeb Bush suspended executions and set up a commission to study lethal-injection procedures, after the grotesque death of Angel Nieves three days earlier: The three-drug cocktail supposed to sedate Nieves and kill him painlessly and quickly instead left the inmate conscious, grimacing in pain and struggling for breath. It took half an hour and a second round of injections before the
spectacle ended.

In California, US District Judge Jeremy Fogel declared that state's execution protocols rife with irregularities In particular, Fogel raised serious questions about whether "certain inmates
have been conscious" when injected with heart-stopping drugs, suffering "unconscionable" pain and anguish.

I was about to write a review of this great movie, but Tami Hultman does a great job in letting you know what this movie is about. Check it out, I got this from New America Media.

‘Blood Diamond’ Entertains, Educates

allAfrica.com, Review, Tami Hultman, Posted: Dec 11, 2006

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In the early days of Master Sergeant Samuel Doe's 1980 coup in Liberia, I was entering a hotel in Monrovia with my five-year-old son when soldiers lounging in the lobby started shouting and indiscriminately shooting. Flight seemed the wrong option, especially when one of the shooters challenged me, "Lady, wheh you goin' wi'dat bag?"

"Looking for you," I improvised. "My son wanted his picture taken with a brave soldier. Would that be you? My camera's in the bag. Do you want to see?" Within seconds, half a dozen menacing youth, brandishing assault rifles, were good-naturedly jostling to be in front of the lens, asking my "small boy" how he liked Liberia, would he like to stay with them, would he show their pictures to everybody in America.

That long-forgotten moment lurched into my mind during a pre-release screening of Edward Zwick's new film, Blood Diamond, starring Djimon Hounsou, Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Connelly. During a tense encounter with young rebels in Sierra Leone, U.S. journalist Maddy Bowen, played by Connelly, defuses the threat by taking their pictures.