Reich vs. Hedges debate as to who should Bernie voters support now, + Chomsky

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Public House Reich vs. Hedges debate as to who should Bernie voters support now, + Chomsky

Viewing 21 posts - 1 through 21 (of 21 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #49496
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Who Should Bernie Voters Support Now? Robert Reich vs. Chris Hedges on Tackling the Neoliberal Order

    http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/26/who_should_bernie_voters_support_now

    #49548
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/26/who_should_bernie_voters_support_now

    Fascinating discussion for anyone interested in replacing neoliberalism. I find myself torn. Both of these guys recognize the severity of the systemic problem, but have different perspectives on what to do about it. I would like to have heard more of Hedges’ thoughts on what we should DO, though. He never really gets around to answering that question. I think he may be right that Sanders blew it by not running with Stein because there is something unrealistic, it seems to me, about Reich’s proposal that we start forming a third party now for 2020. This was the moment. Running as a democrat in order to get on the national stage was a good idea. If Sanders had run as an independent, he would have been completely marginalized like Nader was, and achieved nothing. But using his profile to jumpstart a third party NOW would have viable.

    #49581
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    LOL.

    You already posted it, huh? I don’t know how I missed it. Not like we’re producing 18 topics a day.

    Good discussion, huh?

    #49583
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    LOL.

    You already posted it, huh? I don’t know how I missed it. Not like we’re producing 18 topics a day.

    Good discussion, huh?

    Yes, good discussion. Hedges got a little impassioned sputtery for my taste, but then, there’s nothing rare about that.

    People double post a lot. Which is no big deal…usually when that happens I delete my original, that is if mine is the original, and let the new one stand (which is why people don’t realize it happens a lot). But this board will be picking up steam and so I thought, maybe do it this way once or twice as a kind of gentle reminder.

    #50357
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    ELECTION 2016
    Noam Chomsky’s 8-Point Rationale for Voting for the Lesser Evil Presidential Candidate

    Critics of “lesser evil voting” should consider that their footing on the high ground may not be as secure as they often take for granted.

    By John Halle, Noam Chomsky / Noam Chomsky’s Official Site August 6, 2016

    http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/noam-chomskys-8-point-rationale-voting-lesser-evil-presidential-candidate

    Among the elements of the weak form of democracy enshrined in the constitution, presidential elections continue to pose a dilemma for the left in that any form of participation or non participation appears to impose a significant cost on our capacity to develop a serious opposition to the corporate agenda served by establishment politicians. The position outlined below is that which many regard as the most effective response to this quadrennial Hobson’s choice, namely the so-called “lesser evil” voting strategy or LEV. Simply put, LEV involves, where you can, i.e. in safe states, voting for the losing third party candidate you prefer, or not voting at all. In competitive “swing” states, where you must, one votes for the “lesser evil” Democrat.

    Before fielding objections, it will be useful to make certain background stipulations with respect to the points below. The first is to note that since changes in the relevant facts require changes in tactics, proposals having to do with our relationship to the “electoral extravaganza” should be regarded as provisional. This is most relevant with respect to point 3) which some will challenge by citing the claim that Clinton’s foreign policy could pose a more serious menace than that of Trump.

    In any case, while conceding as an outside possibility that Trump’s foreign policy is preferable, most of us not already convinced that that is so will need more evidence than can be aired in a discussion involving this statement. Furthermore, insofar as this is the fact of the matter, following the logic through seems to require a vote for Trump, though it’s a bit hard to know whether those making this suggestion are intending it seriously.

    Another point of disagreement is not factual but involves the ethical/moral principle addressed in 1), sometimes referred to as the “politics of moral witness.” Generally associated with the religious left, secular leftists implicitly invoke it when they reject LEV on the grounds that “a lesser of two evils is still evil.” Leaving aside the obvious rejoinder that this is exactly the point of lesser evil voting-i.e. to do less evil, what needs to be challenged is the assumption that voting should be seen a form of individual self-expression rather than as an act to be judged on its likely consequences, specifically those outlined in 4). The basic moral principle at stake is simple: not only must we take responsibility for our actions, but the consequences of our actions for others are a far more important consideration than feeling good about ourselves.

    While some would suggest extending the critique by noting that the politics of moral witness can become indistinguishable from narcissistic self-agrandizement, this is substantially more harsh than what was intended and harsher than what is merited. That said, those reflexively denouncing advocates of LEV on a supposed “moral” basis should consider that their footing on the high ground may not be as secure as they often take for granted to be the case.

    A third criticism of LEV equates it with a passive acquiescence to the bipartisan status quo under the guise of pragmatism, usually deriving from those who have lost the appetite for radical change. It is surely the case that some of those endorsing LEV are doing so in bad faith-cynical functionaries whose objective is to promote capitulation to a system which they are invested in protecting. Others supporting LEV, however, can hardly be reasonably accused of having made their peace with the establishment. Their concern, as alluded to in 6) and 7) inheres in the awareness that frivolous and poorly considered electoral decisions impose a cost, their memories extending to the ultra-left faction of the peace movement having minimized the comparative dangers of the Nixon presidency during the 1968 elections. The result was six years of senseless death and destruction in Southeast Asia and also a predictable fracture of the left setting it up for its ultimate collapse during the backlash decades to follow.

    The broader lesson to be drawn is not to shy away from confronting the dominance of the political system under the management of the two major parties. Rather, challenges to it need to be issued with a full awareness of their possible consequences. This includes the recognition that far right victories not only impose terrible suffering on the most vulnerable segments of society but also function as a powerful weapon in the hands of the establishment center, which, now in opposition can posture as the “reasonable” alternative. A Trump presidency, should it materialize, will undermine the burgeoning movement centered around the Sanders campaign, particularly if it is perceived as having minimized the dangers posed by the far right.

    A more general conclusion to be derived from this recognition is that this sort of cost/benefit strategic accounting is fundamental to any politics which is serious about radical change. Those on the left who ignore it, or dismiss it as irrelevant are engaging in political fantasy and are an obstacle to, rather than ally of, the movement which now seems to be materializing.

    Finally, it should be understood that the reigning doctrinal system recognizes the role presidential elections perform in diverting the left from actions which have the potential to be effective in advancing its agenda. These include developing organizations committed to extra-political means, most notably street protest, but also competing for office in potentially winnable races. The left should devote the minimum of time necessary to exercise the LEV choice then immediately return to pursuing goals which are not timed to the national electoral cycle.

    *****

    1) Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites.

    2) The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will be (if in a contested “swing state”) to marginally increase or decrease the chance of one of the major party candidates winning.

    3) One of these candidates, Trump, denies the existence of global warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take us to a catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his rallies, stated his “openness to using nuclear weapons”, supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and regards “the police in this country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood” while having “done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order.” Trump has also pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare “safety net” despite pretenses.

    4) The suffering which these and other similarly extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a Clinton presidency.

    5) 4) should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a vote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, “swing” state.

    6) However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration.

    7) Often this charge will emanate from establishment operatives who will use it as a bad faith justification for defeating challenges to corporate hegemony either in the Democratic Party or outside of it. They will ensure that it will be widely circulated in mainstream media channels with the result that many of those who would otherwise be sympathetic to a left challenge will find it a convincing reason to maintain their ties with the political establishment rather than breaking with it, as they must.

    8) Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.

    #50358
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    Well, yeah, thats the argument for voting for LEV.

    I dont know that i buy it, but I’m not in a swing-state (wv is about as red as they get) so, I dont really need to agonize over it — Jill gets my vote.

    My main problem with the LEV analysis is…i just dont think it’s easy
    to measure the differences between Trump and Hillary. I know people disagree
    with me on that. But I see Hillary as REALLY REALLY bad. Trump is more of a
    wildcard to me. I never know what he’s serious about and when
    he’s just being all ‘talk-radio-spontaneous-goofy’.

    Doesn’t matter to me. I aint in a swing state ; and Hillary
    has it won, now.

    w
    v

    #50359
    waterfield
    Participant

    To me its simple. You always vote for the lesser of two evils-always-because if you don’t your voting FOR the greater evil-even if you don’t vote at all. Sometimes stuff is just so simple.

    #50363
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    To me its simple. You always vote for the lesser of two evils-always-because if you don’t your voting FOR the greater evil-even if you don’t vote at all. Sometimes stuff is just so simple.

    ————–

    So you are conceding Hillary is indeed a “lesser Evil”
    and not a good candidate for the Presidency?

    w
    v

    #50365
    Avatar photonittany ram
    Moderator

    His stylish sport coats alone prove he’s the man for the job…

    Aej

    #50368
    PA Ram
    Participant

    His stylish sport coats alone prove he’s the man for the job…

    Aej

    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick

    #50369
    waterfield
    Participant

    To me its simple. You always vote for the lesser of two evils-always-because if you don’t your voting FOR the greater evil-even if you don’t vote at all. Sometimes stuff is just so simple.

    ————–

    So you are conceding Hillary is indeed a “lesser Evil”
    and not a good candidate for the Presidency?

    w
    v

    w
    v

    [/quote]

    No. It is a matter of simple logic. Between two individuals there will ALWAYS be one that is less evil just as there will ALWAYS be one that is more angelic. There has to be. Its comparative logic. Between Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela there has to be one who is “less evil”. Between Hitler and Stalin there HAS to be one who is more “good”.

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by waterfield.
    • This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by waterfield.
    #50372
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    To me its simple. You always vote for the lesser of two evils-always-because if you don’t your voting FOR the greater evil-even if you don’t vote at all. Sometimes stuff is just so simple.

    ————–

    So you are conceding Hillary is indeed a “lesser Evil”
    and not a good candidate for the Presidency?

    w
    v

    w
    v

    No. It is a matter of simple logic. Between two individuals there will ALWAYS be one that is less evil just as there will ALWAYS be one that is more angelic. There has to be. Its comparative logic. Between Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela there has to be one who is “less evil”. Between Hitler and Stalin there HAS to be one who is more “good”.

    [/quote]
    ————–

    Ok, i see what you are saying.

    Just curious, what do you like about Hillary
    besides the “experience” thing ?

    w
    v

    #50396
    waterfield
    Participant

    Several things. One is her husband. Smart guy and our economy thrived under him. We can’t do a thing for the less fortunate unless we have a stronger economy. Another is her strength in the face of combat. She’s no pushover. I believe she’s sincere in her views on the struggles of those who are poor and sick. I supported her in her run against Obama even though my entire family supported Obama. I think her record as both Senator and Secretary of State was outstanding. I recognize there are issues that if you dislike her you can focus on (i.e. emails, etc) but that’s true of anyone running for office. Does she use political gamesmanship to accomplish stuff. Of course. Is she a “politician” as that word has come to mean over the years-of course. Can she be trusted-I don’t know and I doubt anyone does. Does she grate on my nerves when she speaks. Yes.

    But even if I had nothing but negative views on her policies I would vote for her because of who she’s running against. The man is certifiable. I don’t want us to withdraw from the world. I think that is dangerous to all including my grandchildren who must grow up in a world that will be greatly impacted by this election. I do not want his administration picking the next Supreme Court justices.

    Anyway I could go on about the pluses and minuses of Hillary along with the comparisons with Trump but I don’t have the time now to do that. Hopefully, that addresses your question.

    #50397
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    Several things. One is her husband. Smart guy and our economy thrived under him. We can’t do a thing for the less fortunate unless we have a stronger economy. Another is her strength in the face of combat. She’s no pushover. I believe she’s sincere in her views on the struggles of those who are poor and sick. I supported her in her run against Obama even though my entire family supported Obama. I think her record as both Senator and Secretary of State was outstanding. I recognize there are issues that if you dislike her you can focus on (i.e. emails, etc) but that’s true of anyone running for office. Does she use political gamesmanship to accomplish stuff. Of course. Is she a “politician” as that word has come to mean over the years-of course. Can she be trusted-I don’t know and I doubt anyone does. Does she grate on my nerves when she speaks. Yes.

    But even if I had nothing but negative views on her policies I would vote for her because of who she’s running against. The man is certifiable. I don’t want us to withdraw from the world. I think that is dangerous to all including my grandchildren who must grow up in a world that will be greatly impacted by this election. I do not want his administration picking the next Supreme Court justices.

    Anyway I could go on about the pluses and minuses of Hillary along with the comparisons with Trump but I don’t have the time now to do that. Hopefully, that addresses your question.

    —————–
    Ok. As you know i see her and Bill completely differently. Totally differently.

    But i’m sick of ‘arguing’ with people 🙂 I dunno about you, but
    I’m sick of ‘that’.

    I’ll vote for Jill, You vote for Hillary, and lets us
    continue on our human-paths, into the wonder and mystery of life 🙂

    w
    v

    #50417
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    We can’t do a thing for the less fortunate unless we have a stronger economy.

    I don’t believe that.

    The economic numbers are actually really good right now.

    Everyone thinks the economy is weaker than it really is because all of the money is going to the top 1%.

    So. We can do plenty for the less fortunate.

    #50420
    waterfield
    Participant

    Of course it is. But until the economy is “perceived” by the American public to be doing well few will be voting for individuals who are willing to do what’s necessary. If the American public believes that we have banked some dough they tend to actually want to help people. They don’t believe that today.

    #50424
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Everyone thinks the economy is weaker than it really is because all of the money is going to the top 1%.

    So. We can do plenty for the less fortunate.

    Very true.

    The economy is working. The question is for whom.

    Well set it up so it works differently and better. For most.

    Like, you know…before.

    .

    #50435
    Avatar photoEternal Ramnation
    Participant

    The problem for me is if I were to ever vote the lesser of two evils I would have to vote Trump. It’s really not even close . Trump has a record of failing at whatever he does. Hillary has done terrible things , Iraq, Libya , Syria ,Honduras , Haiti, the Ukraine and lot’s more. Trump talks about using nukes/ Hillary referring to nukes says nothing is off the table. Trump denies Climate Change , Hillary has promoted fracking all over the world and a tar sands oil pipeline
    right here at home. You know the US has killed 1.3 million Muslims over a 5 year span with Hillary’s support , meanwhile Trump screwed some would be con men out of money at Trump U. Also a Trump presidency would last maybe 4 years, Clinton and the DNC blatantly cheated in the primary and got off scot-free, if she is not stopped now we’re looking at 8 years of this shit.

    #50436
    Avatar photonittany ram
    Moderator

    The problem for me is if I were to ever vote the lesser of two evils I would have to vote Trump. It’s really not even close . Trump has a record of failing at whatever he does. Hillary has done terrible things , Iraq, Libya , Syria ,Honduras , Haiti, the Ukraine and lot’s more. Trump talks about using nukes/ Hillary referring to nukes says nothing is off the table. Trump denies Climate Change , Hillary has promoted fracking all over the world and a tar sands oil pipeline
    right here at home. You know the US has killed 1.3 million Muslims over a 5 year span with Hillary’s support , meanwhile Trump screwed some would be con men out of money at Trump U. Also a Trump presidency would last maybe 4 years, Clinton and the DNC blatantly cheated in the primary and got off scot-free, if she is not stopped now we’re looking at 8 years of this shit.

    That’s an interesting take and I can’t say I disagree with your premise that Hillary has done worse things over her political career than Trump has as a slimy business tycoon. However, her position and power gave her the ability to do greater evil. I think if Trump had that power he’d do even worse things. I guess that’s what this election is about – choosing between a known evil and a potentially greater evil.

    What about the Supreme Court? If Trump is elected we could have a conservative SC for the next 30 years.

    #50437
    Avatar photonittany ram
    Moderator

    Everyone thinks the economy is weaker than it really is because all of the money is going to the top 1%.

    So. We can do plenty for the less fortunate.

    Very true.

    The economy is working. The question is for whom.

    Well set it up so it works differently and better. For most.

    Like, you know…before.

    .

    To do that you have to convince people to vote for their own best interest instead of continually propping up the current system that makes the wealthy even wealthier. But the only viable candidates are committed to maintaining that system. And if you speak out against the system you’re shouted down or dismissed as an America hating commie by the very people you’re trying to help.

    • This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Avatar photonittany ram.
    • This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Avatar photonittany ram.
    #50451
    Avatar photoEternal Ramnation
    Participant

    The problem for me is if I were to ever vote the lesser of two evils I would have to vote Trump. It’s really not even close . Trump has a record of failing at whatever he does. Hillary has done terrible things , Iraq, Libya , Syria ,Honduras , Haiti, the Ukraine and lot’s more. Trump talks about using nukes/ Hillary referring to nukes says nothing is off the table. Trump denies Climate Change , Hillary has promoted fracking all over the world and a tar sands oil pipeline
    right here at home. You know the US has killed 1.3 million Muslims over a 5 year span with Hillary’s support , meanwhile Trump screwed some would be con men out of money at Trump U. Also a Trump presidency would last maybe 4 years, Clinton and the DNC blatantly cheated in the primary and got off scot-free, if she is not stopped now we’re looking at 8 years of this shit.

    That’s an interesting take and I can’t say I disagree with your premise that Hillary has done worse things over her political career than Trump has as a slimy business tycoon. However, her position and power gave her the ability to do greater evil. I think if Trump had that power he’d do even worse things. I guess that’s what this election is about – choosing between a known evil and a potentially greater evil.

    What about the Supreme Court? If Trump is elected we could have a conservative SC for the next 30 years.

    Honestly all the Supreme Court means to me is whether I prefer an AK/AR or an abortion. I do not believe we have 30 years to worry about if the status quo is maintained for 8 more years.

    Margaret Davidson, NOAA’s senior advisor for coastal inundation and resilience science and services, and Michael Angelina, executive director of the Academy of Risk Management and Insurance, offered their take on climate change data in a conference session titled “Environmental Intelligence: Quantifying the Risks of Climate Change.”

    RIMS16_conference logoDavidson said recent data that has been collected but has yet to be made official indicates sea levels could rise by roughly 3 meters or 9 feet by 2050-2060, far higher and quicker than current projections. Until now most projections have warned of seal level rise of up to 4 feet by 2100.

    These new findings will likely be released in the latest sets of reports on climate change due out in the next few years.

    “The latest field data out of West Antarctic is kind of an OMG thing,” she said.

    http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/04/12/405089.htm

Viewing 21 posts - 1 through 21 (of 21 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.