FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

What Readers Need to Know About Noam Chomsky’s Position on Lesser-Evil Voting

by

Recently there have been a number of articles that explain Noam Chomsky and voting patterns in the US electorate and how they relate to US policy in terms of the concept known as LEV or “less than evil voting.” David McDonald has written, “Lesser Evil Politics: Really, Noam? Hubert Humphrey?” In the piece he writes, “Back in ’68, Chomsky says, ‘the ultra-left faction of the peace movement’ caused the election of Richard Nixon by ‘minimizing the comparative danger’ of a Nixon presidency, thereby making the huge strategic mistake of foisting Nixon on the world, prolonging the Vietnam War by ‘six years’ and causing senseless deaths and untold suffering because we voted our hearts, not our minds.”

When I asked Chomsky about this article he indicated that he didn’t even bother responding and that the author completely missed the point.  Of course, Chomsky asserted, the “ultraleft” itself was too small to swing the vote, but they were referring to the far greater group who accepted McDonald’s position, who very likely did swing the vote.

Andrew Smolski also, on Chomsky’s voting position, in his, “To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky,” states that, “Worse yet, Halle and Chomsky are decidedly wrong in their assessment, hiding behind their religious belief that the utilitarian logic they employ is obvious and a priori correct. They willfully ignore that the logic of lesser evil voting (LEV) is a causal mechanism pushing the political structure to the right. They cannot fathom that their strategy is part of the rightward drift, even while they admit that that rightward trend exists, which is why, in Chomsky’s words, Democrats are now “Moderate Republicans”.

Here too, Chomsky remarked that the piece was basically not worth a review, although easy to see why those who are trapped by the propaganda about the quadrennial extravaganza can fall into the error.

Priti Gulati Cox wrote, “All That Glitters is Feardom: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein,” a title that speaks for itself.

Maybe I’m being far too kind, but I think these articles are well written and contain useful and helpful information. At the same time, I believe they invite certain misconceptions about what Professor Chomsky believes about voting in the US.

For starters, Chomsky has long held that the US political system has intentionally offered weak candidates close in ideology, while presenting the illusion of choice, and both wings are dedicated to the business class and business run society. This is why, Chomsky states, we have an extraordinarily violent labor history.

I also think the premise that Chomsky advocates less than evil voting is incorrect. Chomsky, in select circumstances does not advocate less than evil voting, he simply suggests, but never insists, on strategic voting. Simply put, Chomsky holds that if you live in a state that is safe for Democrats, you have the options of: voting for the Green Party, not voting, but most importantly perhaps, carrying on with democratic action and organizing, which Chomsky holds to be the more significant part of the political process. The process is entirely independent of voting and since voting should occupy about five minutes of our time, we need to keep up the important work.

Then, if the state you reside in is not safe, meaning it is a toss-up state that Republicans can win, it’s wise to vote for the Democrat. He never suggests that Democrats should be voted for necessarily, but that voting against Republicans is vital. For one thing, they are not even a party, but a renegade group that can’t even admit climate change is real. Even if someone did not vote for a Democrat in a toss-up state, Chomsky, I think, would be more interested in what the citizen was doing to be collectively engaged.

Chomsky thinks that we shouldn’t so easily tolerate the view which, for example, consigns hundreds of millions of Bengalis to a grim fate as the sea level rises, following Trump-Republican prescriptions. Or at home, the view that says that it’s fine if we get four more Scalias on the Supreme Court.

In reality of course, Smolski, McDonald and Cox share plenty of common ground with Chomsky. Is there a difference between a Democrat and a Republican when it comes to Noam Chomsky’s politics? Yes, but very small. Usually, this is the case anyway, but since the GOP has abandoned parliamentary procedures, they are no longer a political party.  They are, literally, a menace to survival and hence the need to vote strategically.
But in the small difference, now maybe colossal, Chomsky maintains, there lies a potential for far reaching consequences when in a toss-up state. But again, as always, there is no substitute for the active citizens that devote themselves to on-going issues to participate in. This, to Noam Chomsky, is true participation and why he likes to quote Howard Zinnand the importance of “the countless small actions of unknown people.”   
More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
May 26, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Anthony DiMaggio
Swamp Politics, Trump Style: “Russiagate” Diverts From the Real White House Scandals
Paul Street
It’s Not Gonna Be Okay: the Nauseating Nothingness of Neoliberal Capitalist and Professional Class Politics
Jeffrey St. Clair
The ICEmen Cometh
Ron Jacobs
The Deep State is the State
Pete Dolack
Why Pence Might be Even Worse Than Trump
Patrick Cockburn
We Know What Inspired the Manchester Attack, We Just Won’t Admit It
Thomas Powell
The Dirty Secret of the Korean War
Mark Ashwill
The Fat Lady Finally Sings: Bob Kerrey Quietly Resigns from Fulbright University Vietnam Leadership Position
John Davis
Beyond Hope
Uri Avnery
The Visitation: Trump in Israel
Ralph Nader
The Left/Right Challenge to the Failed “War on Drugs”
Traci Yoder
Free Speech on Campus: a Critical Analysis
Dave Lindorff
Beware the Supporter Scorned: Upstate New York Trump Voters Hit Hard in President’s Proposed 2018 Budget
Daniel Read
“Sickening Cowardice”: Now More Than Ever, Britain’s Theresa May Must be Held to Account on the Plight of Yemen’s Children
Ana Portnoy
Before the Gates: Puerto Rico’s First Bankruptcy Trial
M. Reza Behnam
Rethinking Iran’s Terrorism Designation
Brian Cloughley
Ukraine and the NATO Military Alliance
Josh Hoxie
Pain as a Policy Choice
David Macaray
Stephen Hawking Needs to Keep His Mouth Shut
Ramzy Baroud
Fear as an Obstacle to Peace: Why Are Israelis So Afraid?
Kathleen Wallace
The Bilious Incongruity of Trump’s Toilet
Seth Sandronsky
Temping Now
Alan Barber – Dean Baker
Blue Collar Blues: Manufacturing Falls in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania in April
Jill Richardson
Saving America’s Great Places
Richard Lawless
Are Credit Rating Agencies America’s Secret Fifth Column?
Louis Proyect
Venezuela Reconsidered
Murray Dobbin
The NDP’s Singh and Ashton: Flash Versus Vision
Ron Leighton
Endarkenment: Postmodernism, Identity Politics, and the Attack on Free Speech
Anthony Papa
Drug War Victim: Oklahoma’s Larry Yarbrough to be Freed after 23 Years in Prison
Rev. John Dear
A Call to Mobilize the Nation Over the Next 18 Months
Yves Engler
Why Anti-Zionism and Anti-Jewish Prejudice Have to Do With Each Other
Ish Mishra
Political Underworld and Adventure Journalism
Binoy Kampmark
Roger Moore in Bondage
Rob Seimetz
Measuring Manhoods
Edward Curtin
Sorry, You’re Not Invited
Vern Loomis
Winning the Lottery is a State of Mind
Charles R. Larson
Review: Mary V. Dearborn’s “Ernest Hemingway”
David Yearsley
The Ethos of Mayfest
May 25, 2017
Jennifer Matsui
The Rise of the Alt-Center
Michael Hudson
Another Housing Bubble?
Robert Fisk
Trump Meets the New Leader of the Secular World, Pope Francis
John Laforge
Draft Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Unveiled
Benjamin Dangl
Trump’s Budget Expands War on the Backs of America’s Poor
Alice Donovan
US-Led Air Strikes Killed Record Number of Civilians in Syria
Andrew Moss
The Meaning of Trump’s Wall
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail