The Advocate

Choosing (the Lesser) Evil

Mariya Gluzman
This year we have heard even the most radical Leftists saying that it is essential to choose the lesser of two evils and cast a vote for John Kerry. But, what then? So we mobilize and get the most dangerous president in the history of the United States out of office. But do we really accomplish regime change? Where is the guarantee that, having elected Kerry, a previously energized electorate will not simply fall back into complacency, vulnerable to the ruthlessly powerful once again?

If day after day your company’s cafeteria offered the same two unappetizing and boring soup choices, would you shrug your shoulders and choose the concoction least offensive—in other words, continue to consume whatever is shoveled in your trough? Or would you go elsewhere—even to that little mom-and-pop hole-in-wall Mexican joint down the block that’s barely staying afloat? Mostly, people choose to suffer cafeteria food because it’s convenient, everyone they know eats there, and the little hole-in-wall place is too run-down to risk entering.

But surprise! Those little shabby places will often have just what you've been looking for. Even if they don’t, they're bound to have something that at least tastes better going down. Of course, one might say, “we’re stuck with this cafeteria, let’s try to pressure the owners to spruce up their soup selection.” So, you band together around this idea by choosing the more edible chicken noodle soup. Perhaps as a result, the cafeteria supervisors would even remove that foul-tasting chili from the menu. But then you’re left with only one barely edible soup and the same old cafeteria.

In the upcoming election, there are at least three other important presidential tickets, each with its own distinctive platforms. The Independence Party, the third largest party in New York State, is represented by the one-and-only Ralph Nader. The Green Party is running David Cobb, a candidate who believes that every American is entitled to health care. The Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik, stubbornly claims that “free market” means competition, not monopoly. But because these individuals are backed by “third" parties (which, as in “third world,” apparently implies inferiority), the general public is either unaware of them or views them as a distraction, at best.

Electing Kerry will not prevent the ongoing degradation of the democratic process; it may actually speed it up. Because his position on various issues is nebulous, at best, many people on the Left may actually take him to be on their side of an issue, or at least sympathetic to it. As a result, they will not be as vigilant or critical of him as they should be. While they wait for him to get things right and excuse dangerous policy-making as simple blunders, the private sector will continue to encroach on the public sector, more tax breaks will continue being handed out to corporations—like the $137 billion corporate tax cut recently approved by the Senate—and the middle class will get poorer. It will still cost motorists an arm and a leg to gas up at the pump as they vainly grasp for the shiny promise of hydrogen- and electric-powered cars. Troops will continue to spill blood for oil—their own blood and the blood of those who happen to be in the way of corporate America and its political puppets.

Whatever may be said about Bush’s reign, he did not polarize the country single-handedly. That’s something that took many years of disenfranchising the poor and people of color, handing out tax breaks to the least deserving, cutting public services and using the corporate media to cover it up. Like a boulder rolling down a mountain, polarization of the American people has gained momentum and will only continue to accelerate until the whole thing reaches a sickening, shattering conclusion. Nothing short of regime change can prevent this polarization from fracturing the union. Soon enough, even those middle-class voters who allowed the American Dream to be pulled over their eyes will realize that the corporate government has them spinning their wheels in a ditch that’s only getting deeper and deeper. The American middle class is holding on for dear life at the poverty line, and nothing that Kerry has said will do anything other than throw them a bone, when what they really need is a lifeline.

Whoever wins the elections, liberty will be a loser. We live in a country that is fast becoming a place where ordinary citizens can be followed and investigated without their knowledge or proper court oversight, detained for long periods of time without being charged or afforded legal representation, or fired for holding an unpopular opinion. Kerry made it possible for our own government to do just that, and more by helping to pass the USA PATRIOT Act, and he reaffirmed his commitment to it during the second debate.

Of course, this argument may be nothing but a slippery slope; after all, didn’t Kerry say that he has a plan for balancing the budget, providing affordable health care, and preventing any further abuses of the PATRIOT Act by law enforcement? Sure he did. But you know, George W. Bush, like Bill Clinton before him, has promised some of the same things, most of which were never delivered. But even if Kerry comes through on some of his pledges, we will still be stuck with the war in Iraq, an ever-rising cost of living and divide between the rich and the poor.

This election should not be about choosing the lesser of two evils. Doing so would only further legitimize America’s political duopoly. Cast your vote for someone who you truly believe represents your hopes and dreams, be that person Bush, Kerry, or one of the candidates who don’t have a prayer. While politicians don’t seem willing or able to listen to their consciences, citizens still can.

Mariya Gluzman is a student in the MA program in Philosophy, Web Developer in the Office of the Associate Provost for Instructional Technology, and newly hired Adjunct Project Coordinator for the Doctoral Students' Council.