Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

The irony of focusing so much attention on simply opposing the Republicans is that we end up hastening the very things we are against. This is because the more we focus on opposition the more likely we are to lose sight of our goals and compromise our values.

Voting for the lesser of two evils has become so internalize by our culture that it might be better described as a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" voting strategy. Such thinking has caused progressives to steadily lose ground to the right-wing of this county to the point where many of us are now supporting Democratic candidates who are more conservative than Richard Nixon (who at least created the Environmental Protection Agency as a cabinet level department, supported a negative income tax, and proposed a health care plan that was better than Clintons).

In reality, the lesser of two evils voting strategy has allowed the Democratic Party to pull the country even more rightward because the Republicans (who are often aided by the Democrats in enacting their policies) are always a little worse.

The call to vote for the lesser evil is what makes the greater evil possible. By always fearing the negative impacts of the Republican administration we allow Democratic politicians to usurp the political movements. One only needs to look at the demise of the anti-war movement during the 2004 presidential campaign to see how capitulating to the lesser evil can devastate a social movement.

In general, voting for the lesser of two evils has turned progressives into short-term political thinkers who have a hard time visualizing the long-term consequences of their actions.

Given that many people in this country believe in social, economic and environmental justice, we should be working together to develop political strategies for building a state in which

Our current thinking about electoral politics, however, seems hardly adequate to get us headed in this direction.

In order to implement meaningful political change, we must begin to differentiate between short-term and long-term political costs (something the right-wing figured out a long time ago).

It bears noting that no significant social change has ever occurred anywhere in human society by focusing only on trying to minimize short-term costs. Those who seek to democratize society must confront this basic dilemma head on.

Our fear that a rupture with the status quo may be too costly is understandable, but we must also understand that by exercising prudence we will contribute to the perpetuation of current conditions. By definition, breaking free from any vicious circle has short-term costs. The longer we wait, however, the more costly (and hence unlikely) our vision for change becomes.