OPINION & EDITORIAL
Lesser-evilism not viable philosophy
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Chris Dols:
- Scapegoating immigrants (April 15, 2005)
- Protest far from treasonous (April 20, 2005)
- Socialism needed for egalitarianism (April 28, 2005)
- Help for hurricane victims stuck in Iraq (September 15, 2005)
- Flaws in Beckstrom argument again (October 14, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Michael Moore sells out (October 19, 2004)
- Kerry as bad as Bush; vote Nader! (September 1, 2004)
- Readers drop gloves, bust some skulls (September 7, 2007)
- Reflecting on lessons learned (December 14, 2004)
- Not time for Democrats to waiver after loss (November 11, 2004)
by Chris Dols
Thursday, December 9, 2004
As much as I love digging into the right wing, liberals drastically need to reassess their current strategies if our fights for equality and against racism are to win. In short, I will argue that we wholesale need to abandon the strategy of what I will call “Lesser Evilism” and specifically, the Democratic Party. We must opt for movement activism. Beneath my convictions lies a deep faith in regular people, their ability to organize, lead and, through protests and strikes, make changes to this world’s backward priorities.
When they fight, whether or not they are successful, and what form of struggle is difficult to predict. But that people will struggle and that mass movements will emerge, I guarantee. This confidence in regular people contradicts the dominant pessimism of liberalism. Moreover, the right wing thrives on this pessimism. A little history is necessary to make this clear, but we don’t need to go back too far.
It is mostly undisputed among radical leftists (i.e. not liberals) that the victories of the last generation (ending the Vietnam War, winning Roe vs. Wade, affirmative action) are owed to movements as opposed to the makeup of Congress, etc. The explanation is simple. Inner city riots, burgeoning strike movements, soldiers’ rebellions and mass protests are costly and embarrassing to those leaders trying to police the world in the name of democracy. Yet many liberals insist that despite a Nixon presidency and conservative courts, somehow we have the Democratic Party to thank for the victories of the late ’60s and ’70s. While this is a misunderstanding of where change comes from generally, the greater problem is that these liberals, many of whom are spokespeople for progressive causes today, are actually crippling future progress by equipping a new generation of progressives with the wrong lessons, strategies and history.
I want to chisel this conflict (between radicals and liberals) down to its most central disagreement. Central to liberalism is the idea that we need to settle for a lesser evil. This is for two reasons: 1) to avoid provoking a right-wing backlash, and 2) to defeat the more right wing forces in the short term. The underlying assumption is that society shifts leftwards as a matter of course, a social evolution. Take for example the idea that we will win the same-sex marriage debate once the older, conservative generation dies off. This belief is terribly naíve. Never has history progressed as a matter of course, but always as a matter of organized resistance (or, negatively, reaction). I’d like to take on these two pinnacles of “Lesser Evilism.”
Consider this dedication among liberals to defeat right wing forces in the short term. The “Anybody But Bush” sentiment that turned a vote against Bush into a vote for Kerry this year is the perfect expression of this defeatist approach. Instead of realizing that campaigning for a man who fundamentally agreed with Bush (Kerry: for the occupation of Iraq, against gay marriage, for tax-cut incentives to businesses, etc.) helps entrench these policies, the “Anybody But Bush” crowd magnified their rhetorical differences and took the bait.
Not only did the anti-Bush (read: pro-Kerry) movement cripple the movements in the short term in the name of beating Bush (many campaigned for Kerry instead of organizing protests), but they ideologically set back the movements for the long term. Many liberals, for example, accommodated Kerry’s bad positions to justify voting for him, such as, “We can’t cut and run from Iraq.” Beneath the strategy of lesser evilism, there is a lack of faith in regular people’s ability to organize a successful struggle. So in lieu of that struggle, let’s just take what we can: the lesser evil.
Second, as for the idea that we don’t want to spark a reaction from the right-wing, we have heard a lot about this in the context of the fight for equal marriage rights.
Many on the left are blaming San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom (who issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples) for the 11 state amendments against gay marriage. Rather than disarming our movements by attacking those who dare to fight for equality, these pundits would do well to stop selling the gay community so short. In Wisconsin, some progressives insist that we shouldn’t wage civil disobedience against the current discriminatory marriage laws to avoid provoking the right wing. Newsflash: The right wing is already mobilized, and if we don’t fight, we’ll never win! Every fight for equality has sparked opposition by bigots, homophobes, racists and all the most backward elements of society.
Does that mean we shouldn’t fight to begin with? That’s what many are saying. Despite their good intentions, they are dead wrong. It’s impossible to challenge oppression without provoking the benefactors of that oppression. This “realistic” advice coming from liberal pundits is tantamount to telling rebellious slaves that their rebellion may provoke the whip. While it’s true, we must also remember that their complacency is guaranteed to keep them enslaved.
Chris Dols (cdols@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in civil engineering and a member of the International Socialist Organization.
Anonymous (December 9, 2004 @ 10:36am):
Mr. Dols,
You cannot seek to build a socialist "radical left-wing" dream world without doing so in this, the real world. And in this real world...indeed, this real nation, that means you have to have the support of 50% of the people, plus 1. (Or, if you want to avoid endless recounts, about 55% at least would be nice.)
How much percentage of the vote in the past two elections did Nader get? Or Cobb? How many Green, or Socialist, or Independent Presidents have we had? Zero. Who signed off on your beloved Civil Rights Act, knowing damned well he was giving away his party's most solid geographical base (the South)? L.B. Johnson, a DEMOCRAT. Not to mention that he had a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS. Not a Green Congress, not a Socialist Congress, Democrat.
Who made the mad grab executive orders on his way out to protect so much pristine American land (even after signing onto Welfare Reform)? Bill Clinton, a DEMOCRAT.
The Democrats may not be as "radical" as you like, but they DO get things done. They get those things done because Congress writes the laws, not protestors. They get things done because they compromise. They make deals. That's how Washington WORKS. Hard-liners from both sides end up looking like loonies to the general populace (the people who do the voting). That's why most people think both Jerry Falwell and Ben Masel (Madison's #1 protestor, a title you really have to work at to earn) are blathering idiots.
Look, I know I'm left of center usually, but the mass of undecided voters in this country are closer politically to me and mine than you and yours, who proudly call yourself the term "radical left-winger". The silent majority doesn't want radicals, and they don't want reactionaries either, because they are NEITHER of them. They are in the middle, and are always on the lookout for who just might be closer to them on the political spectrum.
Clinton maintained his base, sure. (What do you think he proposed universal health care for, his healt.....um...yeah) But he also was a smart guy, who realized that if he was going to win, he'd have to be a moderate to please his Southern roots. As a result, he won twice. Bush Jr. painted himself to look like a Pro-business, Pro-God right-winger, and left the door open for Kerry. (Who promptly tripped on the threshold.)
If you want to do something useful and powerful, stop screaming at the other liberals for a while, unite, show the public how much you care about them and their well-being, win some elections, and THEN argue over policy when it's time to write bills. Until then, stop giving the Republicans a reason to smile.
-William Northend
Anonymous (December 9, 2004 @ 11:31am):
Dols: "We need to stick with the strategy that got .0008% of the vote this year!"
He'll probably rebut that and say it was actually .6% or whatever, but seriously, what's the difference?
And honestly, the thing that pisses me off most, is all you crazy ISO types who said the election was a distraction from social movements WASTED YOUR TIME ON NADER, not on building a social movement. And then you wrote endless fucking articles about it, and about how we shouldn't be wasting time on the election, we should be building social movements. And now you're still TALKING ABOUT THE ELECTION! So, if an anti-Bush person voting for Kerry is a distraction from what we need to do, AREN'T YOU A BIGGER DISTRACTION?!!?!
Anonymous (December 9, 2004 @ 12:22pm):
How many electoral votes did the hippies get? Ah yes, that's right, zilch. Call me when you finally free Tibet.
Anonymous (December 9, 2004 @ 4:55pm):
Translation of Mr. Dols's article:
You must not choose between the lesser of two evils. You must choose the greater of two evils. Thus, when deciding whether to vote for one of the major party candidates (i.e., Bush or Kerry) or the biggest douchebag on the planet (i.e., the Socialist Party's candidate), you should vote for the douchebag.
Anonymous (December 9, 2004 @ 4:57pm):
proletarians of the world UNITE!
Ayn Rand "We The Living"
Anonymous (December 9, 2004 @ 7:37pm):
Bad spellers of the world, UNTIE!
Anonymous (December 9, 2004 @ 11:17pm):
just because someone doesn't agree with your viewpoints, does't mean you need to label them as "bigots, homophobes, racists, and all the most backward elements of society." Just because you think you're right, doesn't make it so. Why do you think the controversies exist in the first place?
