Lesser of Two Evils

Interviewed by Gregg LaGambina in A.V. Club
September 25th, 2008

AVC: By your own admission, the Bush administration is one of the worst in recent memory. Going by what you've said in the past about how the lesser of two evils is still evil, do you see McCain and Obama as indistinguishable? If you agree that McCain would be an extension of Bush's policy, wouldn't Obama be at least a smidgen less evil? And isn't that reason enough to vote for him?

RN: Let's accept your premise. Here's my response. The lesser of two evils, or the least of the worst, is not good enough for the American people anymore. They've both gone down below the flunk bar. When you consider Democrats today compared to Democrats in the '60s—ha! Democrats today are overwhelmed with what might be called, indelicately, anal flutter.

AVC: Anal flutter? That's a new one.

RN: In other words, they have no political fortitude. They're always trying to engage in protective imitation of the Republicans—"More soldiers in Iraq" or "I'm John Kerry and I'm ready for duty." [Adopts tough-guy voice.] "We wouldn't have pulled out of Fallujah!" he says to Bush in the first debate. So, after the election, Bush blew Fallujah apart. Obama swings back and forth—hope, change, hope, change—like a metronome, inducing hypnosis. And McCain is the candidate of perpetual war and omnipresent military bases.
[for rest of article, go to http://www.avclub.com/content/interview/ralph_nader/1]

There are lots of reasons to support third parties, especially as we've seen in the last few presidential elections that the democrats are not really offering a viable choice for progressives and pro-peace voters.

The question of 'lesser of two evils' often comes up. For some, it is justification to vote for Obama while holding their noses as they pull the lever. After all, we don't want to get that evil McCain.

But for others, Obama does not meet the minimum standards of acceptable leadership values. Obama doesn't support total withdrawal from Iraq. universal health care, reduced military; yet will support 'clean' coal, the FISA bill, and the list goes on. Voting for the lesser of two evils still leaves you with evil. It would be like saying if you would vote for Hitler if he killed half as many people as he did because then is would be lesser of two evils.

The people who allow themselves to support the 'lesser of two evils' should review how social change has occurred historically. Change has never occurred without pressure to the status quo.

“If there is no struggle, there is no progress,” declared Frederick Douglass in 1857, in response to those who suggested that the great abolitionist was pushing too hard for an end to human bondage. “Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”

www.NotOneMore.US