Look, the Dems _are_ the lesser evil. Their election to the presidency means - since IMO this regime is corrupt to the core and can only do harm, unlike in the 1930's - a weak government that will do less harm. To wit, sand in the gears. That's a good thing.
But by no means does it logically follow that the progressive left has to actually _vote_ and _campaign_ for the Dems. Especially in practical logic: the progressive vote is virtually nonexistent, statistically speaking, compared to that of the "swing" vote.
And the historical record shows this: moderate, 'centrist' Dems win, liberal left-fakers lose. Even in the depths of the Great Depression in 1932, FDR ran a very moderate campaign. Same with all the other winners: Truman, (yes) Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton. Losers were: Stevenson, Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale and even Dukakis, guilty of being liberal by Massachusetts association, besides being devoid of charisma. All the losers were dyed-in-the-wool liberals.
And with his last minute fake left panic lurch in the last two weeks, Gore joined the losers list. The stupid Gore campaign, in a case of believing one's own propaganda, probably fell for the anti-Nader hysterics of the Newman-DeWrong crowd and began to think that there was actually a big "progressive constituency" out there that Nader might steal, forgetting that the role of this crowd and their rhetoric in the political regime, in maintaining the _stability_ of that regime - maintaing the status quo, that is - is to block the _emergence_ of an independent progressive party that could begin to build such a constituency. Otherwise, no such constituency exists to be handed over to the Dems. So Gore blew the election.
So, if you really want the lesser evil to win because you want to throw sand in the gears, hope and pray that the Dems nominate a DLC _and_ AIPAC (we don't want Fox hounding them, do we? Liebermans' only problem is that he lacks charisma, otherwise he'd be perfect) approved candidate with a strategy to go for the "center".
And leave progressives to go about their own business.
-Brad Mayer ---------------------------- I don't see that at all. I accept Angela's observation that there is no way to exist outside of ideology. That concession made, however, I can think of a very practical example of why this is such an appealing analysis: lesser evil politics. The Democrats are in no way the lesser evil. But liberal ideologists - Nathan, you here? - can make some pseudo-credible arguments to the contrary. The moment you accept that there's an element of truth to lesser evilism, you're lost. In fact, it's precisely at those moments of appeal that the power of ideology is at its most sinister: that's precisely the lure that seduces even people who should know better into the vortex of compromise and betrayal.
Doug