Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Chomsky Endorses Lesser Evil Voting

Chomsky has just written an "8 point brief" defending Lesser Evil Voting, which he calls LEV, as the most moral choice.

I agree completely, and I am grateful for this.

His telling of LEV is that the outcome (winner) is all that matters.  Those people who can affect the outcome (those who live in swing states wrt the President) have the capability to possible make things better by electing a less bad President.  Slightly less bad means better.  The alternative slightly worse choice will negatively impact, possibly in horrible ways, millions of people, even though it may not as likely affect comfortable voters as much, we should beware of their fate, being concerned for the actual welfare of others--that's the meaning of morality.  It's far less important to identify oneself as moral by picking a "moral" person, that's self image not morality according to Chomsky.

Now he makes it clear that those not in swing states can and should vote their true preference, or a protest vote, non vote, or whatever.  That's part of Chomsky's definition of LEV.

He's also making it clear that it's another issue entirely whether one candidate or another is the militarily less dangerous choice.  He feels that Trump is the worse choice, but some have made interesting claims that Hillary is likely to engage more warfare.  He's feels Hillary is safer than Trump, but he's not going to argue the matter.  Your disagreement may change your definition of the LEV for the President this time from the otherwise standard choice--Democratic Party.  (I'd add "when possible" as they don't always run in some Texas districts.  In those cases vote Green, or even Libertarian, as opposed to Republican.  Republicans generally don't believe in Global Heating, and are the worst on all issues, sometimes unbelievably so.  It is very important that non-Presidential Republicans be universally defeated.  They've done dastardly things like shutting down the government and threatening default to get their way without actually passing new law, all in service of the plutocracy.)

Chomsky says voting shouldn't be taken as a big deal.  LEV makes enough difference to bother doing, but not much more.  There isn't much choice really on offer through electoral politics.  Other aspects of politics are more important, and you should devote more time to them.

I can only quibble.  I think the image matters a tiny bit.  I think the hope for change matters a tiny bit, though not enough to change LEV in any way.

I think we should watch polls for a surprise upswing of a 3rd party.  Several times they have fielded winning candidates, though just once (in over 200 years) with Abraham Lincoln, did a former 3rd Party become one of the 2 dominant parties.  It's very very hard to do, I'd never count on it happening again by way of persuasion (I've been thrice burned by John Anderson, Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader...is your hero going to do better?).  I'd want to see data, though I understand for Lincoln it was a complete surprise to experts of the time (I don't think polling was quite as serious either).  And then, in order to change the system, it needs to be not just one of the two dominant parties but a super majority party.  Show me the numbers.  Surely a supermajority wants a similar kind of change, say--full employment and everyone taken care of, but they've been very capably distracted into different clans who disagree on how it can be done.  And the solution is poison to the other.  Diabolical.








Saturday, August 6, 2016

Let's Hope it remains Trump v. Hillary

Because, obviously, a nosediving Trump gives Hillary a chance to beat the Republican.

But, conversely, and as my friends and I have always said, we prefer Trump to the likes of Cruz (especially) and Rubio, et al.  At least with a Trump you feel there's a chance at something other than theocracy, neoconservatism, and neoliberalism.

That chance has moved other commenters I respect to support Trump, notably many at NakedCapitalism (Yves went for Trump when he said he'd tear up TPP if congress deemed to pass it during the lame duck session) and a few even at Crooked Timber.  And far more who are NOT taking a gung ho Hillary approach simply because they don't see it as a race to much to care about, and in many cases, to care enough to hold their noses.  BTW for me the vote doesn't make any difference and that is the only reason I probably won't vote for Hillary.

I do indeed see this week as "the establishment media fights back," even fearing a Trump dictatorship might bring media persecution, though, generally, they've loved the ratings of Trump--a unfolding disaster, 24+/7, I wouldn't think they'd ever want it to end.

Am I supposed to care that Trump has hinted at not supporting our NATO "committments"?  I'm with those who thought NATO should have been abolished in 1991 and even perhaps never even created.

Am I supposed to care that he might not back our ongoning proxy war in Ukraine with Russia?  I wish we'd denounce any possibility of NATO for Ukraine, just before packing up NATO itself.

We have no business being the policeman of the world.  We're not trusted anyway, and for good reasons...centuries of conquest and imperialism.  Given our position in the world, we shouldn't even take sides.  Let the Prime Directive apply to the USA.

And about the bomb?  Well, such problems shouldn't even exist, and I don't feel they actually do.  I think the system itself works against a hypothetical "mad man" President so that that's not the danger (accidents are THE danger, primarily).  Trump is not actually schizophrenic, he's a very successful con artist primarily.  He's in his element being more far out than anyone else, the #1.  But not actually blowing things up.  (...unlike Clinton...) he has no history of physically blowing things up, just IBGYBG.

I'm sure the "would you want this man in charge of The Bomb" will be trotted out for anyone anti-Imperialist of any stripe, let alone Leftist of any stripe, just as it had been for Barry Goldwater.

So, I'm not going to be swayed by any of those "he's not our man for Empire and Stability" arguments sway me.  What I fear more is that despite Trump's possible somewhat liberal nature, his election would further the advance of anti-abortionism, erode progress in LGBT rights, and erode the financial underpinnings of the welfare state and the economy itself, as Republicans have done since Hoover.

His not being the great man of Empire is for me a plus.  Just not enough of a plus.

Friday, August 5, 2016

Trump: A Historic Opportunity?

My favorite blogsite Crooked Timber hosts my favorite political scientist Corey Robin, who has invested more than one Original Posts (OP) examining the predictably overheated hyperbole about the unique historic badness of The Donald, and not just concluding that but showing exactly how it breaks down.  I couldn't imagine him as a Trump supporter, but like me he does these things.  One thing, for example, it helps to re-examine the myths about Ronald Reagan, and be glad he was lazy, and Barry Goldwater, and be glad he wasn't elected, but also aware that he and his people engineered the ultimate Reagan era in politics which continues to this day.  And, it's always interesting that Donald may well take the most heat because of saying some things that are actually true.  Corey notes Trump saying the US is not always the best exemplar and therefore messenger in Human Rights, which is true.

The comments section likewise is not a great bastion of Trump support, out of a universe of a few hundred Crooked Timber commenters (I'm one sometimes) there are just a few, it's hard to know how many, Trump supporters, just that there aren't many.  Crooked Timber is famously left, with just a few sturdy stragglers and trolls on the right.

Quite a few Greens and others unwilling to go along with the corporate side of the Democratic Party, best exemplified of course by Hillary Clinton, however.

But one of the most notable pro-Trumpers following this recent OP by Corey goes by the name Kidneystones (which I imagine as meaning one who has been pissed for a long time) who makes a forceful leftist (as he seems to be leftist) case for being affirmatively pro-Trump (this is a link to the main article and all 800+ comments)..

His most positively memorable comment is (or was, beware of possible change) 278:

[...] 
I continue to support Trump because I don’t believe his record shows him to be anything worse than a vulgarian egomaniac brimming with bombast who loves nothing more than garnering attention for himself in the most grandiose fashion.  
Trump doesn’t want to start anymore wars and he wants all people in America to enjoy the same legal protections. And for all his public and private intemperate behavior and bad judgment, Trump has yet to appear allow himself to be filmed laughing about people he helped kill during a CBS interview. So, there’s bad judgment and bad judgment. 
Finally, a question. Which is more important – electing another neocon cause she wears a dress, or helping destroy Ted Cruz’s GOP by electing a NY liberal billionaire who promises to remake the party of Lincoln? 
I mean, if we’re talking about big ideas and the fierce urgency of now. For real.
First, let me say even if I don't agree with this, in some parts I'm very moved by it.  It represents the best defense of Trump, and the best reason the Presidential race needs to be  Trump v. Clinton.

But about this "neocon in a dress" thing?  He later denies that is sexist.  So we see he has some weaknesses.  His case for Trump is interesting.  If Trump is elected, I hope that Trump is as Kidneystones says.  As I write, Trump has been on a downhill spiral in the Huffington Post and lefter media.  I don't pay attention to anything else, I can only imagine the mainstream media is the same, possibly with some exceptions.  The above blog is from more than a week ago.

Sadly I think Kidneystones seems to have lack of memory for things Trump had already said and done when he wrote the above.  He's worked hard--too hard--to ensure he isn't seen as secular or pro-choice or liberal in any way.  It seems in many areas--if not all--he's sold his soul.  That's what immediately came to mind with his VP choice.  Anyway, for me I also fear the disolution of social democracy, I'm still more hopeful that electing Democrats is the best chance (though hardly perfect) for preserving social democracy.

One pundit I respect mostly who remains solidly Trump is Pat Buchanan.  Pat has written some of the best articles on the encroachment of Russia by NATO expansion.  He has been though of as having racist views, but I think I'd love to see him running foreign policy, as I expect it would be away from foreign entanglements.  I'm not sure of his domestic policy, and then there's his party, the Republicans, and their horrible influence on the courts.

Another pundit is Yves Smith of NakedCapitalism, who endorsed Trump after hearing he would tear up TPP if passed by Congress in the lame duck session.

People think of voting as an individual act, but really it's a collective process, by which at great cost the people only make small changes.

I remain firmly in support of voting Hillary in contested states, and voting Democratic when possible otherwise, and Green if no Democrat, and nearly anything but Republican.

A friend points out that Lincoln's party when from nowhere to being, well, the most elected party since 1860 in just a few years.  But I don't have any special hope of this happening now.  Now the most important thing is indeed defeating Republicans, and that is unquestionably the only way a new alternative majority party can be created.

I strongly don't see Donald Trump as not being that kind of agent of change.  Sadly no.

Frankly, I don't see anyone.

That probably says something too.






Trump: A Historic Opportunity?

My favorite blogsite Crooked Timber hosts my favorite political scientist Corey Robin, who has invested more than one Original Posts (OP) examining the predictably overheated hyperbole about the unique historic badness of The Donald, and not just concluding that but showing exactly how it breaks down.  I couldn't imagine him as a Trump supporter, but like me he does these things.  One thing, for example, it helps to re-examine the myths about Ronald Reagan, and be glad he was lazy, and Barry Goldwater, and be glad he wasn't elected, but also aware that he and his people engineered the ultimate Reagan era in politics which continues to this day.  And, it's always interesting that Donald may well take the most heat because of saying some things that are actually true.  Corey notes Trump saying the US is not always the best exemplar and therefore messenger in Human Rights, which is true.

The comments section likewise is not a great bastion of Trump support, out of a universe of a few hundred Crooked Timber commenters (I'm one sometimes) there are just a few, it's hard to know how many, Trump supporters, just that there aren't many.  Crooked Timber is famously left, with just a few sturdy stragglers and trolls on the right.

Quite a few Greens and others unwilling to go along with the corporate side of the Democratic Party, best exemplified of course by Hillary Clinton, however.

But one of the most notable pro-Trumpers following this recent OP by Corey goes by the name Kidneystones (which I imagine as meaning one who has been pissed for a long time) who makes a forceful leftist (as he seems to be leftist) case for being affirmatively pro-Trump (this is a link to the main article and all 800+ comments)..

His most positively memorable comment is (or was, beware of possible change) 278:

[...] 
I continue to support Trump because I don’t believe his record shows him to be anything worse than a vulgarian egomaniac brimming with bombast who loves nothing more than garnering attention for himself in the most grandiose fashion.  
Trump doesn’t want to start anymore wars and he wants all people in America to enjoy the same legal protections. And for all his public and private intemperate behavior and bad judgment, Trump has yet to appear allow himself to be filmed laughing about people he helped kill during a CBS interview. So, there’s bad judgment and bad judgment. 
Finally, a question. Which is more important – electing another neocon cause she wears a dress, or helping destroy Ted Cruz’s GOP by electing a NY liberal billionaire who promises to remake the party of Lincoln? 
I mean, if we’re talking about big ideas and the fierce urgency of now. For real.
First, let me say even if I don't agree with this, in some parts I'm very moved by it.  It represents the best defense of Trump, and the best reason the Presidential race needs to be  Trump v. Clinton.

But about this "neocon in a dress" thing?  He later denies that is sexist.  So we see he has some weaknesses.  His case for Trump is interesting.  If Trump is elected, I hope that Trump is as Kidneystones says.  As I write, Trump has been on a downhill spiral in the Huffington Post and lefter media.  I don't pay attention to anything else, I can only imagine the mainstream media is the same, possibly with some exceptions.  The above blog is from more than a week ago.

Sadly I think Kidneystones seems to have lack of memory for things Trump had already said and done when he wrote the above.  He's worked hard--too hard--to ensure he isn't seen as secular or pro-choice or liberal in any way.  It seems in many areas--if not all--he's sold his soul.  That's what immediately came to mind with his VP choice.  Anyway, for me I also fear the disolution of social democracy, I'm still more hopeful that electing Democrats is the best chance (though hardly perfect) for preserving social democracy.

One pundit I respect mostly who remains solidly Trump is Pat Buchanan.  Pat has written some of the best articles on the encroachment of Russia by NATO expansion.  He has been though of as having racist views, but I think I'd love to see him running foreign policy, as I expect it would be away from foreign entanglements.  I'm not sure of his domestic policy, and then there's his party, the Republicans, and their horrible influence on the courts.

Another pundit is Yves Smith of NakedCapitalism, who endorsed Trump after hearing he would tear up TPP if passed by Congress in the lame duck session.

People think of voting as an individual act, but really it's a collective process, by which at great cost the people only make small changes.

I remain firmly in support of voting Hillary in contested states, and voting Democratic when possible otherwise, and Green if no Democrat, and nearly anything but Republican.

A friend points out that Lincoln's party when from nowhere to being, well, the most elected party since 1860 in just a few years.  But I don't have any special hope of this happening now.  Now the most important thing is indeed defeating Republicans, and that is unquestionably the only way a new alternative majority party can be created.

I strongly don't see Donald Trump as not being that kind of agent of change.  Sadly no.

Frankly, I don't see anyone.

That probably says something too.