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 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).

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
April 28, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Slandering Populism: a Chilling Media Habit
Andrew Levine
Why I Fear and Loathe Trump Even More Now Than On Election Day
Jeffrey St. Clair
Mountain of Tears: the Vanishing Glaciers of the Pacific Northwest
Philippe Marlière
The Neoliberal or the Fascist? What Should French Progressives Do?
Conn Hallinan
America’s New Nuclear Missile Endangers the World
Peter Linebaugh
Omnia Sunt Communia: May Day 2017
Vijay Prashad
Reckless in the White House
Brian Cloughley
Who Benefits From Prolonged Warfare?
Kathy Kelly
The Shame of Killing Innocent People
Ron Jacobs
Hate Speech as Free Speech: How Does That Work, Exactly?
Andre Vltchek
Middle Eastern Surgeon Speaks About “Ecology of War”
Matt Rubenstein
Which Witch Hunt? Liberal Disanalogies
Sami Awad - Yoav Litvin - Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb
Never Give Up: Nonviolent Civilian Resistance, Healing and Active Hope in the Holyland
Pete Dolack
Tribunal Finds Monsanto an Abuser of Human Rights and Environment
Christopher Ketcham
The Coyote Hunt
Mike Whitney
Putin’s New World Order
Ramzy Baroud
Palestinian, Jewish Voices Must Jointly Challenge Israel’s Past
Ralph Nader
Trump’s 100 Days of Rage and Rapacity
Harvey Wasserman
Marine Le Pen Is a Fascist—Not a ‘Right-Wing Populist,’ Which Is a Contradiction in Terms
William Hawes
World War Whatever
John Stanton
War With North Korea: No Joke
Jim Goodman
NAFTA Needs to be Replaced, Not Renegotiated
Murray Dobbin
What is the Antidote to Trumpism?
Louis Proyect
Left Power in an Age of Capitalist Decay
Medea Benjamin
Women Beware: Saudi Arabia Charged with Shaping Global Standards for Women’s Equality
Rev. William Alberts
Selling Spiritual Care
Peter Lee
Invasion of the Pretty People, Kamala Harris Edition
Cal Winslow
A Special Obscenity: “Guernica” Today
Binoy Kampmark
Turkey’s Kurdish Agenda
Guillermo R. Gil
The Senator Visits Río Piedras
Jeff Mackler
Mumia Abu-Jamal Fights for a New Trial and Freedom 
Cesar Chelala
The Responsibility of Rich Countries in Yemen’s Crisis
Leslie Watson Malachi
Women’s Health is on the Chopping Block, Again
Basav Sen
The Coal Industry is a Job Killer
Judith Bello
Rojava, a Popular Imperial Project
Robert Koehler
A Public Plan for Peace
Sam Pizzigati
The Insider Who Blew the Whistle on Corporate Greed
Nyla Ali Khan
There Has to be a Way Out of the Labyrinth
Michael J. Sainato
Trump Scales Back Antiquities Act, Which Helped to Create National Parks
Stu Harrison
Under Duterte, Filipino Youth Struggle for Real Change
Martin Billheimer
Balm for Goat’s Milk
Stephen Martin
Spooky Cookies and Algorithmic Steps Dystopian
Michael Doliner
Thank You Note
Charles R. Larson
Review: Gregor Hens’ “Nicotine”
David Yearsley
Handel’s Executioner
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail