FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Electoral Outlook: Bleak

by ANDREW LEVINE

These are bleak times on both sides of America’s partisan divide.

It’s not looking good for the Republican establishment; their (ever less) useful idiots have taken charge of the GOP, and the hooligans are out of control.  But the plutocrats who enlisted them can’t or won’t jump ship.   Greed rules; and, despite all Obama’s efforts to prove them wrong, they still believe that they can better enrich themselves with Republicans calling the shots.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, enthusiasm is in short supply, especially in the party’s more progressive quarters; and there seems to be no chance that any left challenge, or indeed any challenge at all, will be launched against President Obama and the rightward-drifting party he leads.

Liberals, along with African Americans, Hispanics and the other constituencies that elected Obama in 2008 – and the “independents” he assiduously courts — are more than a little down on the Great Capitulator.  But count on them, as Obama and his advisors do, to close ranks behind him.  It is an abject posture.  But, for all but a handful of ambivalent dissenters, it seems reasonable nevertheless, given what the Republicans are likely to put on offer.

Thus the 2012 election is shaping up to be a contest in which both parties will advance what their saner members regard as lesser evils.  This has become the norm in our political culture, though never quite so starkly as now, inasmuch as the evils involved have seldom, if ever, been so plain.

For the plutocrats behind the GOP and those who identify with them, the problem will just be to stay on board, despite a yawning cultural divide.  This has been and should continue to be easy, so long as the belief persists that a more dignified, or more snobbish, stance would cost them.  In other words, unenlightened self-interest should see them through – at least until November 2012.   It doesn’t hurt either that, on the issue of paramount concern to the pillars of the Republican establishment, enhancing the wealth and power of their class, there is a meeting of minds.   Despite the “populist” tone of Tea Party blather and the theocratic leanings of so-called values voters, the motley that comprises the GOP base agrees on at least this: that public policy should serve plutocrats to the hilt.

Establishment Democrats are not so lucky because their party’s base hardly sees eye to eye with them – especially when it comes to wooing the rich and powerful or succumbing to the dictates of the military brass and the lobbies that own Congress.  Party loyalties count for something.  But, for the most part, the Republican Party stays together, despite enormous cultural contradictions, because its several constituencies agree on fundamental policy questions; the Democrats stay together for lesser evil reasons only.

By definition, a lesser evil is better than a greater evil.   But it’s a long way from that truism to the idea that it is always better that Democrats beat Republicans.  And even if, in some generally agreed sense, Democrats are better than Republicans in all or almost all instances, and granting that Obama is sure to be less onerous than whomever he runs against, it doesn’t automatically follow that they or he should be supported now or even, in the atomized solitude of the voting booth, on election day.

If it is by their fruits, not their roots, that we know them, it is not always obvious, even in hindsight, who the lesser evil in a presidential contest is.  Let’s concede, though, that, in recent decades, the Republican candidates have been worse.  Was it therefore better that Bill Clinton beat Bush I and then Robert Dole or even that Barack Obama beat John McCain?   And would it have been better if Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry had won?  I would venture that a positive answer is certain only for the 2004 election, when the sheer awfulness of George Bush was already in full display; then “anybody but Bush” was an apt principle.  In each of the other years, including 2008, the answer, though probably Yes, is far from obvious.

That’s because just having a lesser evil in the White House is only part of a larger story, and not taking the whole picture into account can be seriously misleading.

Democratic administrations generally do make better lower level appointments than Republican administrations do, and that can matter to real people in countless ways.  But Democrats also tend to rally around their leader and so, when the leader is spineless, their characteristic pusillanimity rises many-fold.  This is what we have witnessed since 2008.   And it is why Wall Street Democrats like the Clintons and Obama have a good argument; they can deliver for plutocrats better than Republicans can because they are able, as Republicans are not, to demobilize the opposition.

That’s one thing Obama has been good at.  But he couldn’t have done it without many willing accomplices.  If, over the next few years, we finally lose what remains of New Deal and Great Society reforms, of American capitalism’s best efforts to date to assume a human face, it is not just Obama and his advisors who will be at fault.  Liberals will have much to answer for too; for it is their reflexive lesser evilism that will have brought us to that sorry state.  Was Robert Frost right when he said that liberals are too “broadminded” to take their own side in a quarrel?  It sure looks that way.

Andrew Levine is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park.

ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What’s Wrong With the Opium of the People. He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park.  He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

February 09, 2016
Andrew Levine
Hillary Says the Darndest Things
Paul Street
Kill King Capital
Ben Burgis
Lesser Evil Voting and Hillary Clinton’s War on the Poor
Paul Craig Roberts
Are the Payroll Jobs Reports Merely Propaganda Statements?
Fran Quigley
How Corporations Killed Medicine
Ted Rall
How Bernie Can Pay for His Agenda: Slash the Military
Neve Gordon
Israeli Labor Party Adopts the Apartheid Mantra
Kristin Kolb
The “Great” Bear Rainforest Agreement? A Love Affair, Deferred
Joseph Natoli
Politics and Techno-Consciousness
Hrishikesh Joshi
Selective Attention to Diversity: the Case of Cruz and Rubio
Stavros Mavroudeas
Why Syriza is Sinking in Greece
David Macaray
Attention Peyton Manning: Leave Football and Concentrate on Pizza
Arvin Paranjpe
Opening Your Heart
Kathleen Wallace
Boys, Hell, and the Politics of Vagina Voting
Brian Foley
Interview With a Bernie Broad: We Need to Start Focusing on Positions and Stop Relying on Sexism
February 08, 2016
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Privatization: the Atlanticist Tactic to Attack Russia
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Water War Against the Poor: Flint and the Crimes of Capital
John V. Walsh
Did Hillary’s Machine Rig Iowa? The Highly Improbable Iowa Coin Tosses
Vincent Emanuele
The Curse and Failure of Identity Politics
Eliza A. Webb
Hillary Clinton’s Populist Charade
Uri Avnery
Optimism of the Will
Roy Eidelson Trudy Bond, Stephen Soldz, Steven Reisner, Jean Maria Arrigo, Brad Olson, and Bryant Welch
Preserve Do-No-Harm for Military Psychologists: Coalition Responds to Department of Defense Letter to the APA
Patrick Cockburn
Oil Prices and ISIS Ruin Kurdish Dreams of Riches
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange, the UN and Meanings of Arbitrary Detention
Shamus Cooke
The Labor Movement’s Pearl Harbor Moment
W. T. Whitney
Cuba, War and Ana Belen Montes
Jim Goodman
Congress Must Kill the Trans Pacific Partnership
Peter White
Meeting John Ross
Colin Todhunter
Organic Agriculture, Capitalism and the Parallel World of the Pro-GMO Evangelist
Ralph Nader
They’re Just Not Answering!
Cesar Chelala
Beware of the Harm on Eyes Digital Devices Can Cause
Weekend Edition
February 5-7, 2016
Jeffrey St. Clair
When Chivalry Fails: St. Bernard and the Machine
Leonard Peltier
My 40 Years in Prison
John Pilger
Freeing Julian Assange: the Final Chapter
Garry Leech
Terrifying Ted and His Ultra-Conservative Vision for America
Andrew Levine
Smash Clintonism: Why Democrats, Not Republicans, are the Problem
William Blum
Is Bernie Sanders a “Socialist”?
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
We Can’t Afford These Billionaires
Enrique C. Ochoa
Super Bowl 50: American Inequality on Display
Jonathan Cook
The Liberal Hounding of Julian Assange: From Alex Gibney to The Guardian
George Wuerthner
How the Bundy Gang Won
Mike Whitney
Peace Talks “Paused” After Putin’s Triumph in Aleppo 
Ted Rall
Hillary Clinton: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Gary Leupp
Is a “Socialist” Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign
Vijay Prashad
The Fault Line of Race in America
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail