morality and lesser-evilism

[Jeff Parcher]

> This might help you understand the thinking of some who have not
> rallied round Gore.  If you can answer THESE arguments, maybe we'll have a
> dialogue.  It's a lot better than Parcher calling us murderers.--mjs

you dropped the mexico city policy. when you answer THAT then we'll have a
dialogue.  technically your not murders - you're just sacrificing people's
lives so you can "feel good" about your vote. i have lot's of other labels
for that.

JP


----- Original Message -----
From: <Stannard67 at aol.com>
To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 2:41 PM
Subject: morality and lesser-evilism


> This might help you understand the thinking of some who have not
> rallied round Gore.  If you can answer THESE arguments, maybe we'll have a
> dialogue.  It's a lot better than Parcher calling us murderers.--mjs
>
> The Immorality of Lesser Evilism
> By Rabbi Michael Lerner
>
> Even in the final days of the presidential election, a substantial
> part of the population expresses dismay at the major candidates,
> feels closer to Nader in terms of the issues he raises, but fears
> that a vote for him might increase the chances for a Bush presidency.
> And the same issue arises for those who respond to the message of a
> Buchanan or John Haegelin. I've seen friends and families rent apart
> by the anger of some Gore supporters who believe that Nader
> supporters have lost their moral compass in their inability to see
> how disastrous a world with Bush-appointed Supreme Court justices
> might be.
>
> Yet lesser evilism may do more to destroy the moral fabric and
> political viability of a democracy than any real or imagined evil
> that might be achieved through the electoral victory of whoever we
> imagine to be the "bad guy" beneficiary of voting our conscience.
>
> Here are some reasons why:
>
> First,  Lesser evilism leads to a moral and spiritual corruption of
> our souls. The habit of voting lesser evil in politics is a slippery
> slope. We start by giving our vote to a candidate who supports and is
> a product of a social reality that we actually deplore, and we end up
> learning to accommodate ourselves to moral corruption in other
> aspects of our lives. Just as lesser evilism teaches us to
> accommodate to "reality" in politics, so we accommodate to the
> reality of our economic marketplace, with its ethos of materialism
> and selfishness. Since everyone else is "looking out for number one,"
> we learn that the way to "make it" is to go along with a set of
> practices that involve cheating or hurting others in our pursuit of
> success, making environmentally destructive or morally insensitive
> choices, and using the excuse that we must focus on "the bottom line"
> and not on the fine points of moral behavior. To the extent that we
> come to believe that we have no alternative but to accept the lesser
> evil, we lose the inner quality of soul that makes it possible to
> fight for anything against the odds. We forget how to stand up for
> our own ideals, and soon we don't see the point in even thinking
> about what kind of a world we really believe in ("it's so
> unrealistic").  Internally we may feel cynical about the world we
> live in, but as long as we've adopted the attitude that we can't
> really fight it and must accept its terms, we have cast our vote in
> favor of keeping what is. Moral courage and hope begin to feel like
> anachronistic concepts
>
> Not surprisingly, as people become used to making this choice in
> daily life, they become most angry not at the forces of evil to which
> they accommodate, but at those who retain their commitment to fight
> for their highest ideal. Thus, the rage in liberal circles  at Nader
> supporters or in conservative circles at Buchanan supporters-both of
> whom insist on standing for their ideals even when they are unlikely
> to win.
>
> Second, lesser evilism disempowers liberal and progressive forces
> because it gives the Democratic Party no incentive to respond to
> progressive ideals. Secure in the certainty that liberals will always
> respond to the demand of lesser evilism, the Democrats can put their
> full attention at repositioning their party to accommodate those who
> might otherwise vote Republican, thus dramatically decreasing the
> differences between the two parties. And your vote for a lesser evil
> gives the corporate media the excuse they seek to ignore progressive
> views throughout the next four years-because the media will say that
> your progressive views were shown to have no real constituency since
> you and others didn't vote for the candidates who articulated those
> views, but chose to empower people who champion the status quo.
>
> Third, lesser evilism is based on an arrogant certainty about the
> consequences of your lesser evil winning. In fact, those of us who
> voted for Clinton as the lesser evil in 1992 found that eight years
> later the gap between the rich and the poor had increased and the
> social supports for the poor had decreased. Conversely, much as
> Richard Nixon hurt me personally (by indicting me and sending me to
> prison for anti-war organizing), the dynamics of his "greater evil"
> presidency were significantly constrained by an idealistic social
> movement-and in that context, Nixon responded by recognizing China
> and by supporting powerful environmental and worker-safety
> legislation that were whittled down under the Clinton administration.
> It is the absence or presence of the very kind of social movement
> that is decisive-and lesser-evilism destroys. Instead of being so
> sure that "the other guy" is going to destroy the world, better to
> have a little humility and vote your conscience rather than your
> crystal ball, because in so doing you make possible a whole different
> configuration of political possibilities.
>
> Fourth, lesser evilism weakens faith in democracy. If people
> consistently feel obliged to vote for candidates in whom they do not
> believe, they end up feeling they are without representation, and
> hence feel that our government itself is less legitimate. Many stop
> voting altogether. Others feel dirtied by a process in which they
> have authorized through their vote the actions of an elected official
> who, acting in their name, supports policies like the death penalty
> and acceleration of the worst aspects of globalization, which they
> actually find morally and environmentally reprehensible..
>
> Finally, voting for a lesser evil entails abandoning and helping to
> disspirit those who share your principles. Many Nader people are
> standing up for the principles that you believe in, and instead of
> supporting them for doing so you are attacking them. Don't be
> surprised if many these people eventually give up on trying to change
> the world. So the next time you look around for allies for some
> visionary idea or moral cause that inspires you, you will find fewer
> people ready to take risks, and ironically you may then use that to
> convince yourself that nothing was ever possible and that's why you
> "had" to vote for the lesser of two evils.
>
> None of this is an argument against those who really are excited by
> Gore or Bush-they should vote their beliefs. But those who succumb to
> the fear tactics that intimidate us into voting for someone whose
> policies are often far from our own beliefs are actually doing a
> great disservice to their country, their fellow citizens, and their
> own inner moral integrity.
>
> Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of TIKKUN Magazine, author of Spirit
> Matters: Global Healing and the Wisdom of the Soul, and rabbi of Beyt
> Tikkun synagogue in San Francisco.
>