I think you misunderstood me. Voting for the “lesser evil” is a valid strategy if it comes up every once in a while and you can use it to avert disaster, but when every single election comes down to voting for the “lesser evil”, then you just end up on a steady march toward an evil outcome.
We’ve been on this path for decades, with today’s Democrats being far to the right of where Republicans were fifty years ago. Even if Harris wasn’t as bad as Trump (which she almost certainly wouldn’t be), she would help build the framework for the next Trump-like monster that followed her.
You don’t fix an evil system by voting for evil over and over again, evil if it’s the lesser evil. We need to stop seeing Democratic candidates like Harris and the like for any movement away from evil to happen.
We need to stop seeing Democratic candidates like Harris and the like for any movement away from evil to happen.
And we need to stop electing fascists if we ever want a chance to “see” (read: vote for) such a candidate. It’s actually not about this abstract, undefined “greater evil vs lesser evil” bullshit, it’s about what the two viable candidates were actually likely to do once in power. Everyone knew Trump was a fascist who would try to literally end democracy, he’s done it before and it was essentially his entire platform. Yet here we are. Dems, as experience has taught us, were likely to piddle around for four to eight years and do some performative but ineffectual lip service to their base, while keeping what passes as democracy in place. Seems like a pretty easy choice to me. You can’t fix a system from within if the system has been burned to ground.
I totally agree. I think keeping the extreme evil of Trump out of power was worth voting for a controlled opposition establishment Democrat (and of course I voted for Harris and didn’t sit the election out).
A campaign based on lesser evil drives down voter turnout if it’s used every single election, which it has been for so long. The one reprieve we’ve had was Obama (the first time, when he still seemed progressive) running on a campaign of hope and change. Trump is the worst we’ve seen so far, but all of the Republican candidates back to at least Reagan were pretty awful people and the Democratic stance was mostly just pointing out how awful they are.
If we consistently don’t get opposition candidates with a positive message and plan for fixing things, we end up with low voter turnout and monsters like Trump in office.
I think you misunderstood me. Voting for the “lesser evil” is a valid strategy if it comes up every once in a while and you can use it to avert disaster, but when every single election comes down to voting for the “lesser evil”, then you just end up on a steady march toward an evil outcome.
We’ve been on this path for decades, with today’s Democrats being far to the right of where Republicans were fifty years ago. Even if Harris wasn’t as bad as Trump (which she almost certainly wouldn’t be), she would help build the framework for the next Trump-like monster that followed her.
You don’t fix an evil system by voting for evil over and over again, evil if it’s the lesser evil. We need to stop seeing Democratic candidates like Harris and the like for any movement away from evil to happen.
So the answer is yes.
Minorities are collateral damage to your moral crusade.
Maybe look in the mirror every so often before repeatedly spouting off about evil.
And we need to stop electing fascists if we ever want a chance to “see” (read: vote for) such a candidate. It’s actually not about this abstract, undefined “greater evil vs lesser evil” bullshit, it’s about what the two viable candidates were actually likely to do once in power. Everyone knew Trump was a fascist who would try to literally end democracy, he’s done it before and it was essentially his entire platform. Yet here we are. Dems, as experience has taught us, were likely to piddle around for four to eight years and do some performative but ineffectual lip service to their base, while keeping what passes as democracy in place. Seems like a pretty easy choice to me. You can’t fix a system from within if the system has been burned to ground.
I totally agree. I think keeping the extreme evil of Trump out of power was worth voting for a controlled opposition establishment Democrat (and of course I voted for Harris and didn’t sit the election out).
A campaign based on lesser evil drives down voter turnout if it’s used every single election, which it has been for so long. The one reprieve we’ve had was Obama (the first time, when he still seemed progressive) running on a campaign of hope and change. Trump is the worst we’ve seen so far, but all of the Republican candidates back to at least Reagan were pretty awful people and the Democratic stance was mostly just pointing out how awful they are.
If we consistently don’t get opposition candidates with a positive message and plan for fixing things, we end up with low voter turnout and monsters like Trump in office.