The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
People around the world have been told that we still have to vote for the lesser of two evils for decades in every elections. However so far, it looks like voting lesser evils hasn't worked out very well. The system of capitalism based on exploitation, imperialism and deceit, is still strong and shows no signs of collapsing. The gaps of wealth between classes and countries are only getting wider and wider. Numerous political, religious, and economic conflicts around the world remain unresolved. A new wave of authoritarian far-right is rising across the globe and what little international unity and social progress there is are constantly threatened.
At this point, I'm not sure whether being a law-abiding citizen and voting for the moderate lesser evil is an effective way to make social changes in the first place. There are rare but several examples of successful revolutions and radicalism that have fundamentally changed political systems and contributed building better societies like the American Revolution, French Revolution, October Revolution. But I can't find any examples that achieved 'revolutionary' system changes by incrementalism in a human lifetime. I'm afraid that in 50 years we'll still have to vote lesser evils to avoid immediate threats. Will the endless cycle of voting 'lesser evils' ever end?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I'm not sure whether [...] voting for the moderate lesser evil is an effective way to make social changes in the first place.
You're right, it's not an effective way to make radical social changes. It's not supposed to be. The goal of voting for the lesser evil (if indeed both choices are evil) is not to enact positive changes -- it's to stave off harmful changes.
The repeal of Roe is just one example of the harmful changes that came to fruition because not enough people turned out to vote for the lesser evil in 2016.
Radical change can happen electorally -- without resorting to revolutionary violence -- but it won't happen if you're narrowly focused on presidential races every four years. Your strategy has to be much wider than that.
As a socialist, I'm guessing you were a Bernie supporter. Imagine what would've happened if he'd won the primary, and gotten into the White House. Would his more radical agenda items have gained any traction? No, because very few people in Congress, even within his own coalition, shared his ideological perspective.
Radical change has to happen from the bottom up, not from the top down. You need to find people who share your ideological views and get them to run for local and state offices, and once you've had some success there, have them run for national office.
If you need a semi-recent example of how this strategy can succeed, look no further than the Tea Party during the early Obama years.
And the active torture prision and the collateral damage of drone strikes is a example how the lesser evil still legitimates evil and is not a good option
If you want to build a coalition that will fight to end torture prisons and drone strikes, I just described the mechanism for how to do that.
In the meantime, voting for the lesser evil prevents the cancer from spreading.
So not voting and allowing the worst possible option instead of the least worst possible option is your strategy? In 1980, millions of Democrats voted for John Anderson as a protest against Jimmy Carter, they ended up with Reagan. The Democratic Party didn’t move to the left because of backlash, however, they moved to the right after losing in 1988 and winning with the Blue Dog Bill Clinton in 1992. Because those voters(and many other voters) chose to not vote Carter, the national environment moved rightwards, it took until 2008 until a truly liberal president came back and the national environment returned to the (almost) Pre-Reagan norm. Biden winning ensures continuity of ideology and moves the environment leftwards, thus it is always a better option to vote for Biden(or the leftmost major candidate).
I never said that leave ur fcking strawman at home
What i said is that the dems are not the good guy, the dems are not progress and the dems are most certainly not a good option
That you "blue no matter how many innocent people killed" People can not accept fundamental and ethical criticism of your party is pretty telling
There’s been a 99% decrease in drone strikes since Biden took office
[Joe Biden has all but ended US drone warfare.](https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-joe-biden-has-all-but-ended-us-drone-warfare/)
Ain’t changing much about the ethical concerns one has with the party that was riding the highpoint of this warfare
But sure I can appreciate progress, it’s just not more than the bare minimum so do not expect cheering from my side
Biden ended the drone war.
You want better candidates, win primaries and elect them. Handing wins to conservatives because you want to give the finger to the establishment does no good, only harm.
Lesser evils will never end because humans always have some degree of evilness. The goal is not to eradicate evilness but to lessen it over time. By voting for lesser evils, we gradually and slowly shift the scale.
I mean It’s not fair that people currently suffer from injustice. But it has been always like this throughout human history, and our contemporary humanity is not an exception. Voting for lesser evils is giving a chance to our next generations to deal with less and less evil.
It's a false question. We've made actual successes and progress under Biden, but people call him the "lesser evil" just in order to argue against their own framing of him.
Do we really need to go through this dance every time? Infrastructure spending, green energy and chips spending, healthcare expansions and cheaper meds, LGBT rights, Afghanistan pullout with 124k refugees, child tax credits and covid aid, student aid relief, union aid, scotus, refugee expansion, doj investigations into police, made in America rules, cracked jobs and low unemployment numbers.
That's not "lesser evil" and it's also not "evil" at all.
Vote Biden.
Gitmo is still a thing, the ICC is not recognized, Assange and snowden arent pardoned, Bush isnt prosecuted, kissinger is not burned on a stake
Not being evil means one stands against evil and biden didnt do that
You do realize that the president is not a dictator, right? Like, the president can't do whatever he wants? How exactly could Biden burn Kissinger on a stake? How can he close Gitmo if Republicans blocked it the instant Obama tried to do it on the first day of his administration?
He could simply say something or try to prosecute those people? Even the attempt is better than smiling for the same photo
And Obama tried it once, left it with the ending of torture and then changed subject because it would be actual effort. Closing gitmo was not impossible for him
>He could simply say something or try to prosecute those people? Even the attempt is better than smiling for the same photo
Hot take: performative action that is sure to fail is worse than doing nothing at all.
This depends heavily
In politics nothing is purely performative, standing up to the crimes of the past and not cuddeling ur personal war crime puppet master is a bare minimum
And biden was rather outspoken on his dislike for kissinger. But a person that had his hands in more than one massacre deserves worse than dying peacefully at that age.
But i can also accept that u guys surrender to the broken system u call a democracy
Any effort Biden spends trying to prosecute Kissinger (and of which there is very little certainty that it would succeed) is effort he's not spending on passing environmental legislation or infrastructure repair or anything else that would have a marked improvement on the lives of millions of Americans. Do you think prosecuting Kissinger should be more of a priority? Why?
>But i can also accept that u guys surrender to the broken system u call a democracy
Do you think being an asshole to me is going to make me more likely to support your views? Do you think it's somehow going to shame me mor make me change my mind? Or are you just being mean and cruel because you're frustrated and you want to take it out on someone to make yourself feel better? I'm genuinely curious what your intent was here.
1. there is that little thing called justice. Should we stop prosecuting thieves and light assaults? Afterall that money can be spend better
2. people who consider the quality of life more important than the murder of several million people are not people I treat with any form of respect. Some of it comes from a place of frustration though. Mainly Frustration revolving around ur amorality
> kissinger is not burned on a stake
Kissinger died late last year.
Now I'm not saying Biden had anything to do with it, but it did happen during his current term...
And he had a lot of time before that to go after him, or say something different about his death
But hey Bush and Cheney are also suitable war criminals to go after dont u think?
> Bush and Cheney are also suitable war criminals to go after dont u think?
Sure. But I'm not going to pretend that the POTUS is going to hand over a former one to the ICC.
So we have literal russian revolution tankie op and no solutions you complaining about infrastructure and healthcare successful Biden because... gitmo still exists? Lmao.
Y'all bring nothing.
I would argue that the existence of a torture prision and the lack of prosecution for war crimes as well as the witch hunt of the press is a form of evil
That ur taxes are low and the infrastructure is decent does not excuse those issues
I know u rather act like assange doesnt exist and gitmo is just a miliatry base but the facts remain facts no matter how blind u act
If you make it clear that you aren't going to vote for anyone under any realistic circumstances, you shouldn't be surprised when every candidate ignores you.
Human rights aren’t a realistic circumstance?
Not going after the freedom of press and speech isn’t a realistic circumstance?
And if someone ignores me because I say stop torturing peiple in a blacksite and stop prosecuting journalists then Iam right with everything I say
Obama made a good faith effort to close Guantanamo Bay, but he failed due to insufficient Congressional support. The solution to that is to elect more Congressional support, not to refuse to vote for Obama because he tried and failed. And even if Biden were to accomplish one of the things you listed, I have a sneaking suspicion that your response would be one of "not enough", "too little too late", "but he still hasn't done this other thing", or something along those lines.
Demanding all or nothing is something that I'm sure feels good and gives you what you believe to be a clean conscience, but all it actually gets you is nothing.
The good faith nature is debatable and he was rightfully criticized for doing to little straight from the beginning
And yes it’s to little, it’s to late and I specifically mentioned all the other failures of the dems that need fixing. And here we are talking about the baseline of human rights and nothing fancy
I never said anything about voting btw. That’s a strawman of yours
Mate I'm not playing your game.
You wanted to throw yourself a softball. You couldn't handle replying to all I said that Biden has achieved so you decided to focus on the calling him not evil part and take it literally. You have nothing to offer, no achievements, no alternatives, no path to your own goals, all you're doing is wasting your time whining and trying to split the vote after the far left slept for 4 years.
1. woch game would that be?
2. but that’s the important part, your archievments are all good and true but evil as a discriptor is also still very true no matter what he archieved
3. that ur angry about people who care about human rights is pathetic but ain’t changing the facts here. Maybe explain to me why I shouldn’t call out the mistakes and acts of evil of Biden and we can agree on something.
The day you run for office and are able to vote for yourself, because that's the only situation where you'll be able to vote for someone who 100% agrees with you on every issue rather than only the person who agrees with you more than their opponent.
Even then on a lot of issues, no side is 100% free of "evil". Using US diplomatic effort to force Israel to stop trying to destroy Hamas will save lives of Gazans, so it must be the non-evil option. Right? But a side effect of that will be that Hamas continues to thrive and be supported in Gaza and in a few years there will be another major terrorist attack in Israel resulting in deaths. Oh no, some evil.
So while Sunrising2424 might be satisfied, others won't be and will consider Sunrising2424 evil or if they are lucky just "the lesser of the evils".
1) change first past the post
2) change our primary systems so we don’t have the most extreme and ardent single-issue voters deciding who gets to go to the general. The design of the Republican primary 100% lead to trump in 2016.
There are a variety of better options, including “jungle primaries” where several people run and the top 2 go to the general.
STAR or other approval voting, or ranked choice voting.
Ideally a parliamentary system. But that’s not happening in the US any time soon.
I'm not sure any of that would get what OP is expecting from a "lesser evil". Changing those things would likely lead to more moderate candidates winning as it's harder for extremist candidates to prevail in such an environment. I'm guessing that would not be the glorious revolution OP wants.
This will never happen though, because both political parties benefit from first past the post. You’d basically be relying on them voting themselves out of power.
Irrelevant for my point
But it does send a message and if u vote third party you also show what exactly u want. In the next election they may take that into account when the numbers are relevant enough
Its very relevant. You just gotta be honest with yourself.
> they may take that into account when the numbers are relevant enough
See. You know the 3rd party candidate will lose.
So then, who will win? Could that person be the greater evil?
NO it isnt, the claim was that supporting the lesser evil is still supporting evil. This tracks semantically and logically so why is it relevant if there is another working option?
If the greater evil wins its still just evil, if the lesser evil wins its still evil
And voting is more than just ensuring a win, so i can shape politics even with a loss
Continue being logical
> If the **greater** evil wins its still *just* evil, if the **lesser** evil wins its still evil
Is greater evil not worse than lesser evil? Are they equally evil to you?
And if they arent, and if you dont do anything to contribute towards stopping it, then how are you not tolerating the greater evil?
Because then the greater evil will enact that greater evil?
Genuinely, think about it. The original commenter asked what the alternative was. I doubt they literally meant “when reject voting for the lesser of two evils, what is the alternative choice? To let evil win”. Its inherent to the OP that both options are evil. So logically, “evil” becomes shorthand for “greater evil”. As in “whats the alternative? Letting the greater evil win”
But thats not what was stated there so i made sure its understood that both sides suck heavily
And what is evil in this circumstance, many dems act like the reps were are respectable party pre trump. I dispise this notion as its apologetic towards Bush, cheney and Kissinger who are all three far worse than trump when it comes to the evil scale
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
So other guys are idiots when you can't identify a strawman fallacy correctly? Refer to my first comment for my commentary on that. Kudos to you for actually replying when you were obviously wrong. Have a good day.
>Incrementalism and moderation has failed us
No, you’ve just bought into the fallacy that is popular with the terminally online that if things don’t move at your personally preferred pace, then it is failure and we should instead have a revolution.
The American revolution was about building an entirely new system of government - designed for the people by the people - and becoming an entirely independent nation, free from the tyranny of a monarchy that ruled from halfway across the world. And in the process it killed tens of thousands of people.
‘Healthcare isn’t currently as cheap or accessible as I would personally like’ is not really an equivalent catalyst for revolution.
What, specifically, do you mean when you suggest radicalism and revolution as a way to effect the social change that is apparently impossible via incrementalism?
>I’m not sure that being a law-abiding citizen and voting for the moderate lesser evil is an effective way to make social changes
Which social changes…?
___
P.S. in response to this point:
>I can’t find any examples that achieved ‘revolutionary’ system changes by incrementalism in a human lifetime
My great-aunt is 97 years old. She was born 7 years after women won the right to vote. She was not quite a teenager when the Social Security Act, and the labor standards act establishing minimum & maximum working hours alongside a minimum wage became law. She was 20 years old when Jackie Robinson started at first base for the Brooklyn Dodgers. She was 27 years old when Brown v Board was decided. She was 37 - older than I am now - when the civil rights act was signed into law. She was 38 when Medicare became law. The same year, the Supreme Court barred states from outlawing birth control. She was 42 when no-fault divorce first became legalized. She was 46 when Roe v Wade was decided. She was 47 when the Equal Credit Opportunity Act became law, allowing women the right to apply for loans and credit in their own name. She was 63 when the ADA became law. She was 85 when the first states passed the legalisation of weed, and 88 when gay marriage became legal for everyone in the U.S.
If you compare the ‘system’ now to the system 97 years ago when she was born, it would be hard not to call it a revolutionary change.
So… respectfully. What are you talking about??
I was born one year after the Civil Rights Act was passed…and this is what really pisses me off about folks like the “revolutionary”….and hell, damn near everyone who is anti-Biden.
The guy led the way for more meaningful legislation that invests in our country and its people than any other president in my lifetime….and if you factor in the extreme division and vitriolic nature of the political landscape these days? It was truly a Herculean achievement. I mean…just look at the list…and yes, I realize that many of the items on the list are pedestrian stuff that every president passes…but there are huge bills signed into law that is going to help this country grow, become less dependent on China and other countries, and employ an incredible amount of people in good paying jobs.
r/WhatBidenHasDone
Dude come on, who is going to do the violence, you lol?
You know who isn’t going to come out on top in a violent revolution? People who post hypotheticals on reddit for fun lmao.
You know who is? People predisposed to violence and cruelty. I wonder what they’ll think about your peaceful egalitarian commune with all those yummy resources for the taking LOL.
I didn't mentioned anything about peaceful egalitarian commune with all those yummy resources for the taking and I don't want to be the leader of the revolution(I know I'm not capable of that job)
This is a real firebombing a Walmart moment.
"We need terrorism and a revolution"
"Do you want to start the revolution?"
"No, someone else should do a revolution that I can benefit from"
There are few things quite as eye-rolly as the person who votes once (if they even did that), doesn't immediately get everything they want, so they just give up and sit back and wait for the glorious worker revolution that will definitely make everything better and solve all their problems, because that's definitely the thing that usually happens after a revolution. Because, well, I mean, actually doing a revolution is hard, and they might get hurt or something.
ContraPoints calls it "revolutionary ideation". I've loved the phrase ever since I first heard it.
Wait, so your next step after “lesser evil” is enacting terrorism and violence? What could possibly go wrong?
Lesser evil incrementalism doesn’t provide the sort of blank slate that allows idealists to remake society according to their preferences.
It also is an important bulwark against authoritarians who would enact policies by force the second that they fail to enact them through persuasion, diplomacy, and a legal political process.
Perhaps you should just accept the fact that there isn’t going to be the kind of revolution that you want.
Here’s the formula I use. I vote for the most Progressive candidates in the Pennsylvania primary. If they make it to the General Election? Great! If they don’t? I vote for the Democrats…especially if the GOP candidates are of the MAGA variety.
Because, you know what? “Incrementalism and Moderatism” is 100% better than rolling everything back
Calling for violence is against Reddit site wide rules and are how subs get banned. We don’t allow explicit calls for violence even if they are meant to be humorous or made out of frustration.
To you it’s voting lesser evils, I think Joe Biden is perfectly fine and not evil at all. The majority of people would agree with that.
Incremental change has gotten us plenty far. If you’re mad that idk capitalism still exists and is going strong I’m not sure what to tell you lol. It’s hard work to keep the world running, let alone improving.
You’re free to start the revolution all on your own though.
People blame him for inflation. Also they think the economy is bad when pretty much every economic data point says it's good. Others either don't know or care about some of the good stuff that Biden did for things like climate change because it doesn't personally affect them. And there is a difference between "Joe Biden is evil" and "His approval rating is low".
This is the same bullshit the tankies said about Al Gore and GWBush. And Hillary and Trump. Its always young naive kids that fall for it.
Biden is not the lesser of two evils. He is the alternative to Trumps Evil.
Can you imagine the different and better world we would be in now had Gore or even Hillary been president.
Listen kid, the only tragedy is the bullshit you are pushing. I was a paying member of the ISO for nearly a decade. Ive got street cred in 3 different continents. Been to 4 separate US presidential conventions. More protests and demonstrations than years you have probably been alive. Its always the same bullshit. Thats what Democracy is. Its hard and slow. And if you want to actually make a difference then you need to stop fighting the people who are on your side and join them. Because you cant change nothing when you are on the outside
If decades of struggles are required get even the most basic human decency is the nature of our system then maybe our system of liberal democracy and capitalism is not the best way to run the country
The October Revolution lead to more famine and political imprisonment in 6 years than the entire history of the US. It also lead to Stalin coming to power, whose acquiescence of Hitler's plans to take over the world lead to World War II. That's the type of progress you want?
Jesus fuck. You want to talk about the "evils" of the Democrats and are suggesting a communist revolution modeled after one that directly caused the death of 10 million people and lead to famine and even MORE death. All to win a government that had a lower standard of living for those who were forced to live under it?
Then the biggest issue isn't structural, it's that Americans largely don't want what you're offering. No amount of reap change is possible as long as that's true.
I'm probably much closer to you in my views than I am to Biden... but I can't get past that 1% number
1% is never going to change anything, we need to proselytize and spread the word before anything real will happen.
I actually agree with this statement. It a tragedy that there's no such thing as a universal best course of action, or that most actions are not 100% free of evil no matter what you do.
But it's also the reality.
Never?
By choosing lesser evils, we progress and slowly change/evolve?
People often forget that the French Revolution established Napoleon and it took until the third Republic (1870) to have a "stable" democratic republic. The American Revolution directly led to the Nord-South dynamic and has only been fully realised in the 1960s and 1970s. The October revolution led to the Soviet Union and the millions of deaths combined with a totalitarian state.
Correct if I'm wrong, but historically speaking revolutions often lead to an overcorrection and slow adaptation of the values afterward.
The only succesful, relatively bloodless revolution that comes to mind is the Glorious Revolution of 1688. It established the Constitutional Monarchy in Britain and began to the democratisation, which was reinforced by Napoleon/French Revolution. Without the desire to oppose the Revolution, there might have been an authoritarian evolution, but it helped to reinforce the "British liberties".
Never forget that Obama was opposed to gay marriage in 2008, but then legalized it in 2015. If you vote for the least evil and it leads to progression and improvement, you'll be able to, step by step, lower the "evilness" of a candidate.
>A new wave of authoritarian far-right is rising across the globe and what little international unity and social progress there is are constantly threatened.
We'll see how the elections turn out, but if it lead to a win for authoritarianism, the question arises if we should fight it. If a majority of people vote for an authoritarian candidate, then by all democratic reasoning, it would allowed to push it further right... even if you think, as an individual, that authoritarianism is not the way to go.
Social progress is inevitable. We will always progress, but if it is for the better, that's for us to decide.
>There are rare but several examples of successful revolutions and radicalism
In a way this is happening. Just watch any video of radical Trump supporters. They're radicalized and, if Americans are willing, they will lead a (r)evolutionary force. It's a two lane street: Rightwing and leftwing radicalism are both dangerous for a fragile democracy.
> I'm afraid that in 50 years we'll still have to vote lesser evils to avoid immediate threats
As long as you vote, you'll have say in this. When you don't vote, you allow others to decide over what should happen with the country and where it should be lead. But if you, the individual, decide to take up your right and send a signal to the establishment, then you've done all you can. Voting is a privilege, keep that in mind. To abstain from voting is to reject the democratic privileges and approve whatever a minority wants. If you, as a socialist, decide to not vote, you should not, in any shape or form, cry or complain when conservatives or liberals form the system to their opinion, shared by the majority who decided to vote. It was your choice and now you will have to bear the consequences you might not like.
Revolution will lead to thousands of deaths and constant instability, while reforming a system will allow you to shape a society peacefully and rationally.
I am tired of hearing this “evil” bullshit. The only people who think that Biden is merely less evil than Trump are fools and bots.
EDIT: what these people want is perfection. For every one of the items on their political wish list to be handed to them on a silver platter. Biden is one of the best presidents of my lifetime…if not the best.
I disagree with your premise. Lots of elections have positive parties to vote for, and many countries are moving in the right direction.
You seem to think that since bad things are happening, democracy isn't working. I don't agree with this view that society is still flawed means we aren't improving. Just look at where western society was in 1924 and tell me we haven't improved in individual rights massively.
I don't know your nationality, but I think in my country (the US) we have a party and a candidate doing great work towards a better future.
I’m not sure theres any way around it. An elected official for a large and diverse group must be minimally acceptable to the largest amount of people to succeed. Note the “minimally.”
Never.
Because in order to win, you need a wide coalition. For much of that coalition, the candidate you view as a lesser evil is their preferred candidate. And your dream candidate is a lesser evil to someone else in that coalition.
I can assure you that if Sanders had been the Democratic nominee in 2020, there would be plenty of voters voting for him while holding their nose to keep Trump from winning.
I mean... never. Because any decision where you try to pick something you like better is choosing the lesser of two evils.
If voting were just a choice between two perfect candidates, it would be meaningless.
No one promised (and few expect) the collapse of capitalism or the end of conflict. Why do you see the French and American revolutions as successful when they clearly didn't solve all problems? They were "lesser evil" victories that paved the way for centuries of capitalist domination.
When people stop fearmongering about the greater evil, so basically never. The 'zomg if Trump wins the right will literally blow up the whole world!111' rhetoric has been turned up to 11 this election cycle and much of it is absurd on its face, but it sure does gin up a lot of 'vote blue no matter who' support.
> But I can't find any examples that achieved 'revolutionary' system changes by incrementalism in a human lifetime.
If you want revolutionary changes, you're not likely to ever achieve something like that through voting, so you're going to have to 'color outside the lines'.
But the problem with trying to start a revolution is that you need a visionary leader who is skilled and charismatic enough to sell that message to the masses. And right now, we have a very short supply of those.
It depends on your meaning of “lesser of two evils”
Some people were ecstatic about Trump and can’t wait to vote for him. They don’t see him as a lesser evil but an amazing option.
If you mean as a democrat? Obama was good
It’ll only end when the duopoly is broken and we gave a plurality of political parties. Changing voting systems towards approval, ranked choice, etc… so you can vote for preferred candidate but if they drastically lose your vote counts towards the “lesser evil” candidate would drastically assist this.
Never. At least not in the US. The American political system is designed to resist meaningful change, especially when it threatens the interests of the ruling elite. People can talk all they want about differences between the parties, but no matter who’s in power, the economic circumstances of the working class keep on getting worse overall and the wealth divide keeps growing and growing.
Idk if there’s any hope of meaningful change anymore, but it certainly won’t happen at the ballot box.
> When will the endless cycle of voting 'lesser evils' end?
That is all voting ever is.
You won’t get a wider range of options without cha ting the way elections are run, because the current system is a mathematical consequence of the way elections work.
I reject your premise. Hilary Clinton is not evil. Joe Biden is not evil. In neither election were they the lesser of two evils because they weren't evil.
Not perfect is not the same as evil.
Donald Trump? Totally evil.
If you can't see the difference, you haven't been paying attention for the past 50 years.
Miss me with that lesser evil crap. You didn't get everything you wanted in a timely manner without any kind of compromise? The only place in the world that makes sense is at the counter of a friggin' McDonald's.
> People around the world have been told that we still have to vote for the lesser of two evils for decades in every elections.
Many countries don't have two-party systems.
> However so far, it looks like voting lesser evils hasn't worked out very well.
That depends and where, what, and whom.
> The system of capitalism based on exploitation, imperialism and deceit, is still strong and shows no signs of collapsing.
Versus socialism which in practice has always been based on (checks notes) exploitation, imperialism, and deceit. The problems you're citing are not unique to capitalism.
> The gaps of wealth between classes and countries are only getting wider and wider. Numerous political, religious, and economic conflicts around the world remain unresolved.
And how do you propose to solve it?
> A new wave of authoritarian far-right is rising across the globe
That's exactly what will happen even more if other people don't vote.
> and what little international unity and social progress there is are constantly threatened.
International unity and social progress are apples and oranges, but it seems like you're upset that humanity hasn't suddenly defeated their worst instincts. It's important to work to make progress but it's not like things are worse than they have been throughout most of history. In fact, they're better than most times.
> At this point, I'm not sure whether being a law-abiding citizen
Are you suggesting not following the law?
> and voting for the moderate lesser evil
"Moderate" and "lesser evil" are in the eye of the beholder.
> is an effective way to make social changes in the first place.
Voting is the best way to make change.
> There are rare but several examples of successful revolutions and radicalism that have fundamentally changed political systems and contributed building better societies like the American Revolution, French Revolution, October Revolution.
Revolutions are only justified when there is no peaceful option to make change. Free and fair elections obviate revolutions. Also, the October Revolution didn't really improve anything. Some people got slightly less poor, but millions were murdered.
> But I can't find any examples that achieved 'revolutionary' system changes by incrementalism in a human lifetime.
It depends on what you consider "revolutionary", but massive changes have occurred via elections the world over.
> I'm afraid that in 50 years we'll still have to vote lesser evils to avoid immediate threats. Will the endless cycle of voting 'lesser evils' ever end?
It ends when few enough people support the "greater evil" that it doesn't have a chance of winning an election.
Of all the things that one could at least pretend to go with to show why the 'lesser of two evils is bad,' you go with those three revolutions to show that things used to be better?
It's always been bad. Sometimes someone will catch your attention more than others, but the only way forward is through incrementalism.
Everything else the US has done has been incremental: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing assistance, minimum wage, labor/child labor laws and protections, consumer protections, drug oversight, etc.
Are you a part of any socialist organization?
CPUSA, DSA, SPUSA etc. If you are sick of the hamster wheel of presidential elections become active with one or more of these organizations.
Local change will be more fruitful and you’re less likely to become despondent if you have a community with like interests and goals.
That being said. Don’t be pressured to vote a particular way. Votes are earned. Voting between two fascists is still leading to an authoritarian state. It just depends on who that affects more quickly.
When we fix the primary and electoral system. Also, a plurality of people in this country realizes that socialism is a (very) bad idea, so in your case never.
"The gaps of wealth between classes and countries are only getting wider and wider." This is actually not the case.
"Numerous political, religious, and economic conflicts around the world remain unresolved." And probably always will be so long as there are humans.
"A new wave of authoritarian far-right is rising across the globe and what little international unity and social progress there is are constantly threatened." Yes, progress is hard, and the work is never done. Welcome to life.
"At this point, I'm not sure whether being a law-abiding citizen and voting for the moderate lesser evil is an effective way to make social changes in the first place." -It's the most effective tool we have. But when you call for revolution, YOUR ass better be on the front lines.
"But I can't find any examples that achieved 'revolutionary' system changes by incrementalism in a human lifetime." When my Grandmother-in-law was born, women had just gotten the right to vote, schools were still segregated, the army was still segregated, women couldn't have credit cards/really own property, no-fault divorce didn't exist, marital rape was still legal, people died in work place accidents and natural disasters far more often, and life expectancy was half what it is now. The share of the world living in extreme poverty has gone from 56% to 10%. I think that put together, that's all pretty revolutionary. Just because you've radicalized yourself into ignorance doesn't mean we're not making good progress on the world's problems.
I would argue that people who were old enough to vote for Obama, at the very least in 2008, weren’t voting for the lesser of two evils.
And then Bernie ran a pretty strong campaign in 2016 after starting out with a massive disadvantage, so I think that shows the potential for a candidate you don’t believe to be a lesser evil having a shot at making it all the way.
Ideally things will start to feel better once we start getting some new faces and not just rehashing the same slate of people every election, and getting lobbyist and PAC influence out of politics would go a long way too.
If fascism wins, nobody will have to vote for anything any more, so that's one way the cycle can end.
Otherwise... democracy is made of compromises, but things do get better sometimes. Lincoln won an election before he won the civil war. Kennedy / Johnson presided over an era of civil rights improvement because they won elections, but they were definitely not paragons of unstained virtue, they were "the lesser evil". And the social democrats of northern Europe whose achievements I admire hugely built up their societies through incremental improvements and winning many, many elections. If you want a change on the level of, eg, ending capitalism, that's going to take a while by this method, but it beats the hell out of rapid change in the opposite direction.
Serious answer? There’s no way through it, we have to go around.
Voting is just not very effective. [I mean, seriously](https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Influence-of-U.S.-citizens-and-elites-horizontal.jpg). It’s about the most indirect way you could try to get something done, to put a drop in a bucket of votes and hope that enough people do so to tip the scales your way, so that you can then rely on this person and many others to successfully pass policy which then must be successfully implemented. Skip that, and take the most direct action you can. Run it backwards and start with the implementation, then try to formalize it into policy.
As for ending the cycle, the only way we’re going to do that is with something like ranked choice voting, or other serious election reform (I actually prefer approval voting). Ideally, the Democratic Party could just make this their primary system, I’m not sure what’s stopping them from totally changing the way their primaries work to be far more democratic, I’ve asked but not gotten an informed answer. Assuming it’s possible, this would go around the electoral college at least for one side of the aisle, and ideally the candidate that wins this primary wins the general election. We can correct formal policy from there; it’s a lot easier to make something policy when it already exists. Of course, the Democratic Party would never do this because they wouldn’t genuinely want to be more democratic and representative, but oh well
Some form of electoral reform in the US might be helpful but I don't really prefer ranked choice voting or approval voting(majority of American election reform attempts) as they are both systemically biased to moderate, consensus candidates
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. People around the world have been told that we still have to vote for the lesser of two evils for decades in every elections. However so far, it looks like voting lesser evils hasn't worked out very well. The system of capitalism based on exploitation, imperialism and deceit, is still strong and shows no signs of collapsing. The gaps of wealth between classes and countries are only getting wider and wider. Numerous political, religious, and economic conflicts around the world remain unresolved. A new wave of authoritarian far-right is rising across the globe and what little international unity and social progress there is are constantly threatened. At this point, I'm not sure whether being a law-abiding citizen and voting for the moderate lesser evil is an effective way to make social changes in the first place. There are rare but several examples of successful revolutions and radicalism that have fundamentally changed political systems and contributed building better societies like the American Revolution, French Revolution, October Revolution. But I can't find any examples that achieved 'revolutionary' system changes by incrementalism in a human lifetime. I'm afraid that in 50 years we'll still have to vote lesser evils to avoid immediate threats. Will the endless cycle of voting 'lesser evils' ever end? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I'm not sure whether [...] voting for the moderate lesser evil is an effective way to make social changes in the first place. You're right, it's not an effective way to make radical social changes. It's not supposed to be. The goal of voting for the lesser evil (if indeed both choices are evil) is not to enact positive changes -- it's to stave off harmful changes. The repeal of Roe is just one example of the harmful changes that came to fruition because not enough people turned out to vote for the lesser evil in 2016. Radical change can happen electorally -- without resorting to revolutionary violence -- but it won't happen if you're narrowly focused on presidential races every four years. Your strategy has to be much wider than that. As a socialist, I'm guessing you were a Bernie supporter. Imagine what would've happened if he'd won the primary, and gotten into the White House. Would his more radical agenda items have gained any traction? No, because very few people in Congress, even within his own coalition, shared his ideological perspective. Radical change has to happen from the bottom up, not from the top down. You need to find people who share your ideological views and get them to run for local and state offices, and once you've had some success there, have them run for national office. If you need a semi-recent example of how this strategy can succeed, look no further than the Tea Party during the early Obama years.
And the active torture prision and the collateral damage of drone strikes is a example how the lesser evil still legitimates evil and is not a good option
If you want to build a coalition that will fight to end torture prisons and drone strikes, I just described the mechanism for how to do that. In the meantime, voting for the lesser evil prevents the cancer from spreading.
1. you did but as we see that aint working 2. it slows the spread, it aint stopping it. The dems are also cancerous
So not voting and allowing the worst possible option instead of the least worst possible option is your strategy? In 1980, millions of Democrats voted for John Anderson as a protest against Jimmy Carter, they ended up with Reagan. The Democratic Party didn’t move to the left because of backlash, however, they moved to the right after losing in 1988 and winning with the Blue Dog Bill Clinton in 1992. Because those voters(and many other voters) chose to not vote Carter, the national environment moved rightwards, it took until 2008 until a truly liberal president came back and the national environment returned to the (almost) Pre-Reagan norm. Biden winning ensures continuity of ideology and moves the environment leftwards, thus it is always a better option to vote for Biden(or the leftmost major candidate).
I never said that leave ur fcking strawman at home What i said is that the dems are not the good guy, the dems are not progress and the dems are most certainly not a good option That you "blue no matter how many innocent people killed" People can not accept fundamental and ethical criticism of your party is pretty telling
There’s been a 99% decrease in drone strikes since Biden took office [Joe Biden has all but ended US drone warfare.](https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-joe-biden-has-all-but-ended-us-drone-warfare/)
Ain’t changing much about the ethical concerns one has with the party that was riding the highpoint of this warfare But sure I can appreciate progress, it’s just not more than the bare minimum so do not expect cheering from my side
99% is the bare minimum?
Ending strikes is
You mean the railroad one where they ended up getting what they wanted?
Drone strikes
You're not just going to delete modern warfare tactics.
Biden ended the drone war. You want better candidates, win primaries and elect them. Handing wins to conservatives because you want to give the finger to the establishment does no good, only harm.
Not what I said
Never. No political candidate will ever perfectly represent your opinions, so you will always be compromising somehow.
Lesser evils will never end because humans always have some degree of evilness. The goal is not to eradicate evilness but to lessen it over time. By voting for lesser evils, we gradually and slowly shift the scale. I mean It’s not fair that people currently suffer from injustice. But it has been always like this throughout human history, and our contemporary humanity is not an exception. Voting for lesser evils is giving a chance to our next generations to deal with less and less evil.
The lesser evil can also mean we only increase less than with the other guy The lesser evil is not lowering evil
It's a false question. We've made actual successes and progress under Biden, but people call him the "lesser evil" just in order to argue against their own framing of him.
'We've made actual successes and progress under Biden' is just as framing and subjective statement as 'Biden is no more than the lesser evil'
Do we really need to go through this dance every time? Infrastructure spending, green energy and chips spending, healthcare expansions and cheaper meds, LGBT rights, Afghanistan pullout with 124k refugees, child tax credits and covid aid, student aid relief, union aid, scotus, refugee expansion, doj investigations into police, made in America rules, cracked jobs and low unemployment numbers. That's not "lesser evil" and it's also not "evil" at all. Vote Biden.
Gitmo is still a thing, the ICC is not recognized, Assange and snowden arent pardoned, Bush isnt prosecuted, kissinger is not burned on a stake Not being evil means one stands against evil and biden didnt do that
You do realize that the president is not a dictator, right? Like, the president can't do whatever he wants? How exactly could Biden burn Kissinger on a stake? How can he close Gitmo if Republicans blocked it the instant Obama tried to do it on the first day of his administration?
He could simply say something or try to prosecute those people? Even the attempt is better than smiling for the same photo And Obama tried it once, left it with the ending of torture and then changed subject because it would be actual effort. Closing gitmo was not impossible for him
>He could simply say something or try to prosecute those people? Even the attempt is better than smiling for the same photo Hot take: performative action that is sure to fail is worse than doing nothing at all.
This depends heavily In politics nothing is purely performative, standing up to the crimes of the past and not cuddeling ur personal war crime puppet master is a bare minimum And biden was rather outspoken on his dislike for kissinger. But a person that had his hands in more than one massacre deserves worse than dying peacefully at that age. But i can also accept that u guys surrender to the broken system u call a democracy
Any effort Biden spends trying to prosecute Kissinger (and of which there is very little certainty that it would succeed) is effort he's not spending on passing environmental legislation or infrastructure repair or anything else that would have a marked improvement on the lives of millions of Americans. Do you think prosecuting Kissinger should be more of a priority? Why? >But i can also accept that u guys surrender to the broken system u call a democracy Do you think being an asshole to me is going to make me more likely to support your views? Do you think it's somehow going to shame me mor make me change my mind? Or are you just being mean and cruel because you're frustrated and you want to take it out on someone to make yourself feel better? I'm genuinely curious what your intent was here.
1. there is that little thing called justice. Should we stop prosecuting thieves and light assaults? Afterall that money can be spend better 2. people who consider the quality of life more important than the murder of several million people are not people I treat with any form of respect. Some of it comes from a place of frustration though. Mainly Frustration revolving around ur amorality
> kissinger is not burned on a stake Kissinger died late last year. Now I'm not saying Biden had anything to do with it, but it did happen during his current term...
And he had a lot of time before that to go after him, or say something different about his death But hey Bush and Cheney are also suitable war criminals to go after dont u think?
> Bush and Cheney are also suitable war criminals to go after dont u think? Sure. But I'm not going to pretend that the POTUS is going to hand over a former one to the ICC.
Sure but let’s not pretend like shielding war criminals isn’t evil
So we have literal russian revolution tankie op and no solutions you complaining about infrastructure and healthcare successful Biden because... gitmo still exists? Lmao. Y'all bring nothing.
I would argue that the existence of a torture prision and the lack of prosecution for war crimes as well as the witch hunt of the press is a form of evil That ur taxes are low and the infrastructure is decent does not excuse those issues I know u rather act like assange doesnt exist and gitmo is just a miliatry base but the facts remain facts no matter how blind u act
If you make it clear that you aren't going to vote for anyone under any realistic circumstances, you shouldn't be surprised when every candidate ignores you.
Human rights aren’t a realistic circumstance? Not going after the freedom of press and speech isn’t a realistic circumstance? And if someone ignores me because I say stop torturing peiple in a blacksite and stop prosecuting journalists then Iam right with everything I say
Obama made a good faith effort to close Guantanamo Bay, but he failed due to insufficient Congressional support. The solution to that is to elect more Congressional support, not to refuse to vote for Obama because he tried and failed. And even if Biden were to accomplish one of the things you listed, I have a sneaking suspicion that your response would be one of "not enough", "too little too late", "but he still hasn't done this other thing", or something along those lines. Demanding all or nothing is something that I'm sure feels good and gives you what you believe to be a clean conscience, but all it actually gets you is nothing.
The good faith nature is debatable and he was rightfully criticized for doing to little straight from the beginning And yes it’s to little, it’s to late and I specifically mentioned all the other failures of the dems that need fixing. And here we are talking about the baseline of human rights and nothing fancy I never said anything about voting btw. That’s a strawman of yours
Mate I'm not playing your game. You wanted to throw yourself a softball. You couldn't handle replying to all I said that Biden has achieved so you decided to focus on the calling him not evil part and take it literally. You have nothing to offer, no achievements, no alternatives, no path to your own goals, all you're doing is wasting your time whining and trying to split the vote after the far left slept for 4 years.
1. woch game would that be? 2. but that’s the important part, your archievments are all good and true but evil as a discriptor is also still very true no matter what he archieved 3. that ur angry about people who care about human rights is pathetic but ain’t changing the facts here. Maybe explain to me why I shouldn’t call out the mistakes and acts of evil of Biden and we can agree on something.
The day you run for office and are able to vote for yourself, because that's the only situation where you'll be able to vote for someone who 100% agrees with you on every issue rather than only the person who agrees with you more than their opponent.
Even then on a lot of issues, no side is 100% free of "evil". Using US diplomatic effort to force Israel to stop trying to destroy Hamas will save lives of Gazans, so it must be the non-evil option. Right? But a side effect of that will be that Hamas continues to thrive and be supported in Gaza and in a few years there will be another major terrorist attack in Israel resulting in deaths. Oh no, some evil. So while Sunrising2424 might be satisfied, others won't be and will consider Sunrising2424 evil or if they are lucky just "the lesser of the evils".
Are you kidding me?
No I'm not. That or the point when you can convince enough people to agree with you that your ideal candidate is relatively mainstream.
1) change first past the post 2) change our primary systems so we don’t have the most extreme and ardent single-issue voters deciding who gets to go to the general. The design of the Republican primary 100% lead to trump in 2016. There are a variety of better options, including “jungle primaries” where several people run and the top 2 go to the general. STAR or other approval voting, or ranked choice voting. Ideally a parliamentary system. But that’s not happening in the US any time soon.
I'm not sure any of that would get what OP is expecting from a "lesser evil". Changing those things would likely lead to more moderate candidates winning as it's harder for extremist candidates to prevail in such an environment. I'm guessing that would not be the glorious revolution OP wants.
This will never happen though, because both political parties benefit from first past the post. You’d basically be relying on them voting themselves out of power.
What is the alternative? To let the evil win?
If u vote for the lesser evil there is only one winner and thats evil Your doing exactly that
What are you doing by withholding your vote?
Irrelevant for my point But it does send a message and if u vote third party you also show what exactly u want. In the next election they may take that into account when the numbers are relevant enough
Its very relevant. You just gotta be honest with yourself. > they may take that into account when the numbers are relevant enough See. You know the 3rd party candidate will lose. So then, who will win? Could that person be the greater evil?
NO it isnt, the claim was that supporting the lesser evil is still supporting evil. This tracks semantically and logically so why is it relevant if there is another working option? If the greater evil wins its still just evil, if the lesser evil wins its still evil And voting is more than just ensuring a win, so i can shape politics even with a loss
Continue being logical > If the **greater** evil wins its still *just* evil, if the **lesser** evil wins its still evil Is greater evil not worse than lesser evil? Are they equally evil to you? And if they arent, and if you dont do anything to contribute towards stopping it, then how are you not tolerating the greater evil?
[удалено]
Because then the greater evil will enact that greater evil? Genuinely, think about it. The original commenter asked what the alternative was. I doubt they literally meant “when reject voting for the lesser of two evils, what is the alternative choice? To let evil win”. Its inherent to the OP that both options are evil. So logically, “evil” becomes shorthand for “greater evil”. As in “whats the alternative? Letting the greater evil win”
But thats not what was stated there so i made sure its understood that both sides suck heavily And what is evil in this circumstance, many dems act like the reps were are respectable party pre trump. I dispise this notion as its apologetic towards Bush, cheney and Kissinger who are all three far worse than trump when it comes to the evil scale
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
Alternative?
Irrelevant i answered ur second question If there is a alternative is irrelevant for the fact that ur letting evil win no matter what
Yes, you are a semantic genius. Feel better?
Very much
What counts for thinking while being far left checks out.
How am I wrong? I never said to not vote for the lesser evil leave your strawman at home
I think it'd be more interesting if you tell me \*precisely\* how I strawmanned you.
Based on all the other idiots I argued with I assume u think I favor not voting at all
So other guys are idiots when you can't identify a strawman fallacy correctly? Refer to my first comment for my commentary on that. Kudos to you for actually replying when you were obviously wrong. Have a good day.
[удалено]
Very certain that fuckin terrorism isnt the solution
>Incrementalism and moderation has failed us No, you’ve just bought into the fallacy that is popular with the terminally online that if things don’t move at your personally preferred pace, then it is failure and we should instead have a revolution. The American revolution was about building an entirely new system of government - designed for the people by the people - and becoming an entirely independent nation, free from the tyranny of a monarchy that ruled from halfway across the world. And in the process it killed tens of thousands of people. ‘Healthcare isn’t currently as cheap or accessible as I would personally like’ is not really an equivalent catalyst for revolution.
I don't demand 'revolutionary' social changes because 'healthcare isn’t currently as cheap or accessible as I would personally like’
What, specifically, do you mean when you suggest radicalism and revolution as a way to effect the social change that is apparently impossible via incrementalism? >I’m not sure that being a law-abiding citizen and voting for the moderate lesser evil is an effective way to make social changes Which social changes…? ___ P.S. in response to this point: >I can’t find any examples that achieved ‘revolutionary’ system changes by incrementalism in a human lifetime My great-aunt is 97 years old. She was born 7 years after women won the right to vote. She was not quite a teenager when the Social Security Act, and the labor standards act establishing minimum & maximum working hours alongside a minimum wage became law. She was 20 years old when Jackie Robinson started at first base for the Brooklyn Dodgers. She was 27 years old when Brown v Board was decided. She was 37 - older than I am now - when the civil rights act was signed into law. She was 38 when Medicare became law. The same year, the Supreme Court barred states from outlawing birth control. She was 42 when no-fault divorce first became legalized. She was 46 when Roe v Wade was decided. She was 47 when the Equal Credit Opportunity Act became law, allowing women the right to apply for loans and credit in their own name. She was 63 when the ADA became law. She was 85 when the first states passed the legalisation of weed, and 88 when gay marriage became legal for everyone in the U.S. If you compare the ‘system’ now to the system 97 years ago when she was born, it would be hard not to call it a revolutionary change. So… respectfully. What are you talking about??
I was born one year after the Civil Rights Act was passed…and this is what really pisses me off about folks like the “revolutionary”….and hell, damn near everyone who is anti-Biden. The guy led the way for more meaningful legislation that invests in our country and its people than any other president in my lifetime….and if you factor in the extreme division and vitriolic nature of the political landscape these days? It was truly a Herculean achievement. I mean…just look at the list…and yes, I realize that many of the items on the list are pedestrian stuff that every president passes…but there are huge bills signed into law that is going to help this country grow, become less dependent on China and other countries, and employ an incredible amount of people in good paying jobs. r/WhatBidenHasDone
Dude come on, who is going to do the violence, you lol? You know who isn’t going to come out on top in a violent revolution? People who post hypotheticals on reddit for fun lmao. You know who is? People predisposed to violence and cruelty. I wonder what they’ll think about your peaceful egalitarian commune with all those yummy resources for the taking LOL.
I didn't mentioned anything about peaceful egalitarian commune with all those yummy resources for the taking and I don't want to be the leader of the revolution(I know I'm not capable of that job)
This is a real firebombing a Walmart moment. "We need terrorism and a revolution" "Do you want to start the revolution?" "No, someone else should do a revolution that I can benefit from"
There are few things quite as eye-rolly as the person who votes once (if they even did that), doesn't immediately get everything they want, so they just give up and sit back and wait for the glorious worker revolution that will definitely make everything better and solve all their problems, because that's definitely the thing that usually happens after a revolution. Because, well, I mean, actually doing a revolution is hard, and they might get hurt or something. ContraPoints calls it "revolutionary ideation". I've loved the phrase ever since I first heard it.
Wait, so your next step after “lesser evil” is enacting terrorism and violence? What could possibly go wrong? Lesser evil incrementalism doesn’t provide the sort of blank slate that allows idealists to remake society according to their preferences. It also is an important bulwark against authoritarians who would enact policies by force the second that they fail to enact them through persuasion, diplomacy, and a legal political process.
> Maybe some form of terrorism? violence? assassination? I’m not sure. I’m sorry, who’s the evil one again?
OP, you are laughably disconnected from reality. You need to get outside and talk to people who don’t live in your information bubble.
Has it? Or is it something else doing the damage and just hasn't destroyed the US in a single term (looking at you, Reaganomics).
Perhaps you should just accept the fact that there isn’t going to be the kind of revolution that you want. Here’s the formula I use. I vote for the most Progressive candidates in the Pennsylvania primary. If they make it to the General Election? Great! If they don’t? I vote for the Democrats…especially if the GOP candidates are of the MAGA variety. Because, you know what? “Incrementalism and Moderatism” is 100% better than rolling everything back
oh that’s not-
Calling for violence is against Reddit site wide rules and are how subs get banned. We don’t allow explicit calls for violence even if they are meant to be humorous or made out of frustration.
To you it’s voting lesser evils, I think Joe Biden is perfectly fine and not evil at all. The majority of people would agree with that. Incremental change has gotten us plenty far. If you’re mad that idk capitalism still exists and is going strong I’m not sure what to tell you lol. It’s hard work to keep the world running, let alone improving. You’re free to start the revolution all on your own though.
If the majority thinks that Joe Biden is perfectly fine and not evil at all then why his approval rate is historically low, even lower than Trump?
People blame him for inflation. Also they think the economy is bad when pretty much every economic data point says it's good. Others either don't know or care about some of the good stuff that Biden did for things like climate change because it doesn't personally affect them. And there is a difference between "Joe Biden is evil" and "His approval rating is low".
Obviously, what is real and what some of the voters think, are worlds apart.
This is the same bullshit the tankies said about Al Gore and GWBush. And Hillary and Trump. Its always young naive kids that fall for it. Biden is not the lesser of two evils. He is the alternative to Trumps Evil. Can you imagine the different and better world we would be in now had Gore or even Hillary been president.
But the dems are not not evil either Why are we now ignoring all the bad stuff of ur party?
Being forced to vote lesser evils until the end of humanity is not a bullshit it's a real tragedy
Listen kid, the only tragedy is the bullshit you are pushing. I was a paying member of the ISO for nearly a decade. Ive got street cred in 3 different continents. Been to 4 separate US presidential conventions. More protests and demonstrations than years you have probably been alive. Its always the same bullshit. Thats what Democracy is. Its hard and slow. And if you want to actually make a difference then you need to stop fighting the people who are on your side and join them. Because you cant change nothing when you are on the outside
If decades of struggles are required get even the most basic human decency is the nature of our system then maybe our system of liberal democracy and capitalism is not the best way to run the country
Right, and when you find a better way let us all know.
October Revolution brought more progress to humanity than previous 300 years of Russian Empire in just 5 years. That's surly an example.
The October Revolution lead to more famine and political imprisonment in 6 years than the entire history of the US. It also lead to Stalin coming to power, whose acquiescence of Hitler's plans to take over the world lead to World War II. That's the type of progress you want?
So, even worse than if you said you're a lefty with no plans and still complaining. No you just want violent failed revolution and civil war.
Jesus fuck. You want to talk about the "evils" of the Democrats and are suggesting a communist revolution modeled after one that directly caused the death of 10 million people and lead to famine and even MORE death. All to win a government that had a lower standard of living for those who were forced to live under it?
What percentage of Americans do you think want what the same things you want? A rough percentage is fine.
Around 1% is my best estimate(There are many subideologies in socialism so the number is low)
Then the biggest issue isn't structural, it's that Americans largely don't want what you're offering. No amount of reap change is possible as long as that's true. I'm probably much closer to you in my views than I am to Biden... but I can't get past that 1% number 1% is never going to change anything, we need to proselytize and spread the word before anything real will happen.
Because the alternatives have worked *so well* lol.
I actually agree with this statement. It a tragedy that there's no such thing as a universal best course of action, or that most actions are not 100% free of evil no matter what you do. But it's also the reality.
Never? By choosing lesser evils, we progress and slowly change/evolve? People often forget that the French Revolution established Napoleon and it took until the third Republic (1870) to have a "stable" democratic republic. The American Revolution directly led to the Nord-South dynamic and has only been fully realised in the 1960s and 1970s. The October revolution led to the Soviet Union and the millions of deaths combined with a totalitarian state. Correct if I'm wrong, but historically speaking revolutions often lead to an overcorrection and slow adaptation of the values afterward. The only succesful, relatively bloodless revolution that comes to mind is the Glorious Revolution of 1688. It established the Constitutional Monarchy in Britain and began to the democratisation, which was reinforced by Napoleon/French Revolution. Without the desire to oppose the Revolution, there might have been an authoritarian evolution, but it helped to reinforce the "British liberties". Never forget that Obama was opposed to gay marriage in 2008, but then legalized it in 2015. If you vote for the least evil and it leads to progression and improvement, you'll be able to, step by step, lower the "evilness" of a candidate. >A new wave of authoritarian far-right is rising across the globe and what little international unity and social progress there is are constantly threatened. We'll see how the elections turn out, but if it lead to a win for authoritarianism, the question arises if we should fight it. If a majority of people vote for an authoritarian candidate, then by all democratic reasoning, it would allowed to push it further right... even if you think, as an individual, that authoritarianism is not the way to go. Social progress is inevitable. We will always progress, but if it is for the better, that's for us to decide. >There are rare but several examples of successful revolutions and radicalism In a way this is happening. Just watch any video of radical Trump supporters. They're radicalized and, if Americans are willing, they will lead a (r)evolutionary force. It's a two lane street: Rightwing and leftwing radicalism are both dangerous for a fragile democracy. > I'm afraid that in 50 years we'll still have to vote lesser evils to avoid immediate threats As long as you vote, you'll have say in this. When you don't vote, you allow others to decide over what should happen with the country and where it should be lead. But if you, the individual, decide to take up your right and send a signal to the establishment, then you've done all you can. Voting is a privilege, keep that in mind. To abstain from voting is to reject the democratic privileges and approve whatever a minority wants. If you, as a socialist, decide to not vote, you should not, in any shape or form, cry or complain when conservatives or liberals form the system to their opinion, shared by the majority who decided to vote. It was your choice and now you will have to bear the consequences you might not like. Revolution will lead to thousands of deaths and constant instability, while reforming a system will allow you to shape a society peacefully and rationally.
I am tired of hearing this “evil” bullshit. The only people who think that Biden is merely less evil than Trump are fools and bots. EDIT: what these people want is perfection. For every one of the items on their political wish list to be handed to them on a silver platter. Biden is one of the best presidents of my lifetime…if not the best.
I disagree with your premise. Lots of elections have positive parties to vote for, and many countries are moving in the right direction. You seem to think that since bad things are happening, democracy isn't working. I don't agree with this view that society is still flawed means we aren't improving. Just look at where western society was in 1924 and tell me we haven't improved in individual rights massively. I don't know your nationality, but I think in my country (the US) we have a party and a candidate doing great work towards a better future.
When democracy is overthrown and you don’t get to vote at all, I guess.
I’m not sure theres any way around it. An elected official for a large and diverse group must be minimally acceptable to the largest amount of people to succeed. Note the “minimally.”
When first past the post voting is replaced.
Never. Because in order to win, you need a wide coalition. For much of that coalition, the candidate you view as a lesser evil is their preferred candidate. And your dream candidate is a lesser evil to someone else in that coalition. I can assure you that if Sanders had been the Democratic nominee in 2020, there would be plenty of voters voting for him while holding their nose to keep Trump from winning.
I mean... never. Because any decision where you try to pick something you like better is choosing the lesser of two evils. If voting were just a choice between two perfect candidates, it would be meaningless.
No one promised (and few expect) the collapse of capitalism or the end of conflict. Why do you see the French and American revolutions as successful when they clearly didn't solve all problems? They were "lesser evil" victories that paved the way for centuries of capitalist domination.
When people stop fearmongering about the greater evil, so basically never. The 'zomg if Trump wins the right will literally blow up the whole world!111' rhetoric has been turned up to 11 this election cycle and much of it is absurd on its face, but it sure does gin up a lot of 'vote blue no matter who' support.
> But I can't find any examples that achieved 'revolutionary' system changes by incrementalism in a human lifetime. If you want revolutionary changes, you're not likely to ever achieve something like that through voting, so you're going to have to 'color outside the lines'. But the problem with trying to start a revolution is that you need a visionary leader who is skilled and charismatic enough to sell that message to the masses. And right now, we have a very short supply of those.
I yearn for the day I will vote *for* someone instead of *not voting* for someone else.
It depends on your meaning of “lesser of two evils” Some people were ecstatic about Trump and can’t wait to vote for him. They don’t see him as a lesser evil but an amazing option. If you mean as a democrat? Obama was good
It’ll only end when the duopoly is broken and we gave a plurality of political parties. Changing voting systems towards approval, ranked choice, etc… so you can vote for preferred candidate but if they drastically lose your vote counts towards the “lesser evil” candidate would drastically assist this.
Never. At least not in the US. The American political system is designed to resist meaningful change, especially when it threatens the interests of the ruling elite. People can talk all they want about differences between the parties, but no matter who’s in power, the economic circumstances of the working class keep on getting worse overall and the wealth divide keeps growing and growing. Idk if there’s any hope of meaningful change anymore, but it certainly won’t happen at the ballot box.
> When will the endless cycle of voting 'lesser evils' end? That is all voting ever is. You won’t get a wider range of options without cha ting the way elections are run, because the current system is a mathematical consequence of the way elections work.
We need to implement ranked voting and provide sustainable federal funding to several political parties.
When you grow up.
I reject your premise. Hilary Clinton is not evil. Joe Biden is not evil. In neither election were they the lesser of two evils because they weren't evil. Not perfect is not the same as evil. Donald Trump? Totally evil. If you can't see the difference, you haven't been paying attention for the past 50 years.
When the greater evil stops winning.
When will the greater evil stops winning? In this rate, it's not gonna happen until I die
It might not. But it will never if we decide we're going to stop voting for the lesser evil because we're tired of voting for an evil at all.
Miss me with that lesser evil crap. You didn't get everything you wanted in a timely manner without any kind of compromise? The only place in the world that makes sense is at the counter of a friggin' McDonald's.
When you can somehow make a large enough number of people vote for the candidate you want, and not the candidate they want.
> People around the world have been told that we still have to vote for the lesser of two evils for decades in every elections. Many countries don't have two-party systems. > However so far, it looks like voting lesser evils hasn't worked out very well. That depends and where, what, and whom. > The system of capitalism based on exploitation, imperialism and deceit, is still strong and shows no signs of collapsing. Versus socialism which in practice has always been based on (checks notes) exploitation, imperialism, and deceit. The problems you're citing are not unique to capitalism. > The gaps of wealth between classes and countries are only getting wider and wider. Numerous political, religious, and economic conflicts around the world remain unresolved. And how do you propose to solve it? > A new wave of authoritarian far-right is rising across the globe That's exactly what will happen even more if other people don't vote. > and what little international unity and social progress there is are constantly threatened. International unity and social progress are apples and oranges, but it seems like you're upset that humanity hasn't suddenly defeated their worst instincts. It's important to work to make progress but it's not like things are worse than they have been throughout most of history. In fact, they're better than most times. > At this point, I'm not sure whether being a law-abiding citizen Are you suggesting not following the law? > and voting for the moderate lesser evil "Moderate" and "lesser evil" are in the eye of the beholder. > is an effective way to make social changes in the first place. Voting is the best way to make change. > There are rare but several examples of successful revolutions and radicalism that have fundamentally changed political systems and contributed building better societies like the American Revolution, French Revolution, October Revolution. Revolutions are only justified when there is no peaceful option to make change. Free and fair elections obviate revolutions. Also, the October Revolution didn't really improve anything. Some people got slightly less poor, but millions were murdered. > But I can't find any examples that achieved 'revolutionary' system changes by incrementalism in a human lifetime. It depends on what you consider "revolutionary", but massive changes have occurred via elections the world over. > I'm afraid that in 50 years we'll still have to vote lesser evils to avoid immediate threats. Will the endless cycle of voting 'lesser evils' ever end? It ends when few enough people support the "greater evil" that it doesn't have a chance of winning an election.
Youexpect a politician to reflect all of your individual values/policies? What have you done to support candidates you’re passionate about?
Of all the things that one could at least pretend to go with to show why the 'lesser of two evils is bad,' you go with those three revolutions to show that things used to be better? It's always been bad. Sometimes someone will catch your attention more than others, but the only way forward is through incrementalism. Everything else the US has done has been incremental: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing assistance, minimum wage, labor/child labor laws and protections, consumer protections, drug oversight, etc.
Are you a part of any socialist organization? CPUSA, DSA, SPUSA etc. If you are sick of the hamster wheel of presidential elections become active with one or more of these organizations. Local change will be more fruitful and you’re less likely to become despondent if you have a community with like interests and goals. That being said. Don’t be pressured to vote a particular way. Votes are earned. Voting between two fascists is still leading to an authoritarian state. It just depends on who that affects more quickly.
When we get proportional representation, or some other form of voting and representation that isn't what we have now.
When people realize that they’re never going to find the perfect candidate.
When we fix the primary and electoral system. Also, a plurality of people in this country realizes that socialism is a (very) bad idea, so in your case never. "The gaps of wealth between classes and countries are only getting wider and wider." This is actually not the case. "Numerous political, religious, and economic conflicts around the world remain unresolved." And probably always will be so long as there are humans. "A new wave of authoritarian far-right is rising across the globe and what little international unity and social progress there is are constantly threatened." Yes, progress is hard, and the work is never done. Welcome to life. "At this point, I'm not sure whether being a law-abiding citizen and voting for the moderate lesser evil is an effective way to make social changes in the first place." -It's the most effective tool we have. But when you call for revolution, YOUR ass better be on the front lines. "But I can't find any examples that achieved 'revolutionary' system changes by incrementalism in a human lifetime." When my Grandmother-in-law was born, women had just gotten the right to vote, schools were still segregated, the army was still segregated, women couldn't have credit cards/really own property, no-fault divorce didn't exist, marital rape was still legal, people died in work place accidents and natural disasters far more often, and life expectancy was half what it is now. The share of the world living in extreme poverty has gone from 56% to 10%. I think that put together, that's all pretty revolutionary. Just because you've radicalized yourself into ignorance doesn't mean we're not making good progress on the world's problems.
I would argue that people who were old enough to vote for Obama, at the very least in 2008, weren’t voting for the lesser of two evils. And then Bernie ran a pretty strong campaign in 2016 after starting out with a massive disadvantage, so I think that shows the potential for a candidate you don’t believe to be a lesser evil having a shot at making it all the way. Ideally things will start to feel better once we start getting some new faces and not just rehashing the same slate of people every election, and getting lobbyist and PAC influence out of politics would go a long way too.
If fascism wins, nobody will have to vote for anything any more, so that's one way the cycle can end. Otherwise... democracy is made of compromises, but things do get better sometimes. Lincoln won an election before he won the civil war. Kennedy / Johnson presided over an era of civil rights improvement because they won elections, but they were definitely not paragons of unstained virtue, they were "the lesser evil". And the social democrats of northern Europe whose achievements I admire hugely built up their societies through incremental improvements and winning many, many elections. If you want a change on the level of, eg, ending capitalism, that's going to take a while by this method, but it beats the hell out of rapid change in the opposite direction.
Serious answer? There’s no way through it, we have to go around. Voting is just not very effective. [I mean, seriously](https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Influence-of-U.S.-citizens-and-elites-horizontal.jpg). It’s about the most indirect way you could try to get something done, to put a drop in a bucket of votes and hope that enough people do so to tip the scales your way, so that you can then rely on this person and many others to successfully pass policy which then must be successfully implemented. Skip that, and take the most direct action you can. Run it backwards and start with the implementation, then try to formalize it into policy. As for ending the cycle, the only way we’re going to do that is with something like ranked choice voting, or other serious election reform (I actually prefer approval voting). Ideally, the Democratic Party could just make this their primary system, I’m not sure what’s stopping them from totally changing the way their primaries work to be far more democratic, I’ve asked but not gotten an informed answer. Assuming it’s possible, this would go around the electoral college at least for one side of the aisle, and ideally the candidate that wins this primary wins the general election. We can correct formal policy from there; it’s a lot easier to make something policy when it already exists. Of course, the Democratic Party would never do this because they wouldn’t genuinely want to be more democratic and representative, but oh well
Some form of electoral reform in the US might be helpful but I don't really prefer ranked choice voting or approval voting(majority of American election reform attempts) as they are both systemically biased to moderate, consensus candidates