Vote Blue No Matter Who?
Roe Is Dead, and the Lesser of Two Evils Argument Should Die With It
The futility of the lesser of two evils argument was revealed by the announcement that the Roe v. Wade (1973) decision—which guaranteed women’s right to an abortion—would be overturned. The lesser of two evils argument is rooted in a hyper-partisan vision of the political landscape, often fed by news media, that reduces one political party as good and the other as evil. For liberals, the lesser of two evils argument contends that Democrats have problems, but they are still good people, and thus better than the Republicans, who they see as evil. Evil in a liberal context refers to the erosion of progressive goals such as abortion rights.
The strategy re-emerges every four years as centrist liberals lecture progressive leftists on why they need to vote for the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate. This lesser of two evils approach is not only misleading, but runs counter to progressive goals. It normalizes the hyper partisan framing of electoral politics which ignores nuance and facts. A liberal’s hyper-partisan frame of the Supreme Court’s recent decision would blame the Republican Party, but in reality both parties, and the people who support them, are to blame. Abortion rights have been an issue exploited by both Democrat and Republican Party. Fifty years ago, Republican leaders adopted anti-abortion rhetoric out of necessity not morality. They saw it as a wining issue that could distract from their unpopular economic policies. It led to them passing 1000 restrictions on the practice, and just this week float the idea of a national ban on abortion.
Meanwhile, Democrats through inaction and support for anti-abortionist politicians have also helped weaken Roe. This is because the lesser of two evils argument reduces the priorities of progressives from large scale policy goals to electing Democrats who will incrementally erode existing progressive policies such as Roe. Twice since Roe, they had super majorities in congress which would have allowed them to override any effort to filibuster the codification of abortion rights. However, when faced with a supermajority in 2009, then President Barack Obama admitted that “[abortion rights] is not the highest legislative priority.” In 2016, after the party colluded to defeat the pro-choice candidate, Bernie Sanders in their party primary, they nominated Hillary Clinton who had stigmatized abortion and Tim Kaine who has supported and signed anti-abortion legislation as Governor of Virginia.
Still, in 2012 and 2016, progressives were told that they had to vote for the lesser of two-evils. In fact, some argued that had progressives demanded a more aggressive agenda and refused to vote for a centrist in 2016, who lost anyways, they would have had leverage to pressure the Democrat party to create and fight for a more robust progressive agenda in 2020. That did not happen.
In fact, in addition to Russians and fake news, party leaders blamed progressives for the lost even though there is no empirical evidence to confirm such an assertion. Yet, in 2020, progressives were once again lectured about how they had to vote for the lesser of two evils. Liberals promised progressives that they were their allies, and that they would pressure Biden to be more progressive. However, Biden has received almost no protest from centrists after he reneged on his promise of $2000 stimulus checks, a $15 minimum wage, a George Floyd police reform bill, and to be the most progressive president since FDR.
When it comes to abortion rights,—which Biden also promised to codify into law—it appears as though that the Democratic Party’s official policy remains: hold out hope that Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG) does not die. Even after RBG expressed concern that legal arguments for Roe were problematic. Nonetheless, Democrats currently have the ability to end the filibuster and pass an abortion rights bill. They seem more concerned at upholding the filibuster than codifying abortion rights into law. To emphasize this point, just this week, Congressperson James Clyburn—who is largely seen as saving Biden’s 2020 Presidential Campaign—campaigned for an anti-abortionist Democrat, who was previously endorsed by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
The Roe decision makes it crystal clear that hyper partisan narratives and the lesser of two evils strategy run counter to progressive policy. Anyone who argues differently—and they will in the 2022 midterms and 2024 elections and beyond—is acting in bad faith or gravely misinformed. In Let’s Agree to Disagree, Mickey Huff and I argue that voters need to get back to basics and reverse the hyper partisan trend that news media and politicians have fueled for the previous thirty years. We provide strategies and call upon people to develop critical media literacies, and engage in constructive dialogue and critical thinking for the purpose of saving democracy. We provide numerous examples of where people’s beliefs have been changed by constructive dialogue. Abortion is no different. For example, conservative writer Andrew Sullivan recently admitted that dialogue helped reverse his opposition to third trimester abortions.
Liberals would be wise to replace vote shaming with good faith and constructive dialogue. They would be even wiser to spend more time organizing and agitating elected leaders than celebrating and defending them on social media. Progressives should withhold their vote until Democrats deliver on desired policy. In the meantime, agitating and annoying elected leaders in restrooms and their homes is a great start, but, as history shows, it must be part of a sustained pressure campaign. That is how change is made, and those who desire such change would be wise to retire the vapid argument about choosing between the lesser of two evils.
 | A guest post by
|
If Democrats want to pretend they care about women's rights while refusing to say what a woman is, that's fine. They can do it without my vote. "Neither hot nor cold I spit you out of my mouth"