| perhaps a topic for salon | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Patty Guerrero (pattypax earthlink.net)
|
|
| Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:46:52 -0800 (PST) | |
Open discussion is Tuesday. Here is an article we could discuss if you
want. patty
Begin forwarded message:
Begin forwarded message:
--------10 of 13--------
The Immorality of Lesser Evilism By Rabbi Michael Lerner November 03, 2000 [note the date]
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
dispirit 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. www.tikkun.org
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.