[einhverfr]

I voted for Obama in 2008 because of the major candidates, he had the best track record regarding civil liberties. I looked at the track record, and I was also deeply concerned that the approaches to health insurance law proposed by McCain would lead eventually to massive federal regulation of the sort we got under the PPACA.

The thing though is I don't think that it's just the security briefings. Obama didn't slowly change. He ran out of the gate running the wrong direction and by April 2009, the EFF was calling the way state secrets privilege was invoked under the Obama administration "Worse than Bush." Instead what have we got for our troubles? more bodyscanners at airports, mobile bodyscanners deployed at various places, the DoJ arguing in court that random body cavity searches in airports would be Constitutional (EPIC v. DHS) and that the President has the Constitutional authority to target any American anywhere in the world with lethal military force (in the Al-Awlaki case) and that state secrets privilege extended to evidence against the accused.

And through this whole process we are told that the Republicans would be worse and so we should just accept what we are given, and support our President as the fundamental protections of our liberty are assaulted again and again by the executive branch.

This is where the voting for the lesser evil leads, because a lesser evil unopposed for fear of a greater one can do far more damage than a greater one where such opposition exists.

[dsplittgerber]

If you think the key to maximizing freedom/civil liberties comes from voting for the lesser of evils amongst Democrats and Republicans, you are greatly mistaken. Both care only about extending their power and playing to the tune of their special interests. Everything else is just marketing.

[einhverfr]

My point is that at this point, voting for the greater evil is likely more productive.

[calcnerd256]

That is counterintuitive and thought-provoking. Thank you for stating it explicitly.

[intellection]

Your words encouraged looking at OPs words, giving that idea of daresay Productivity a second look. Profound.

[presidentx]

I'm stuck on the word "productive". Productive to what ends?

[bencpeters]

I think there's a somewhat decent argument to be made here. I consider Obama to be governing as a somewhat center-right politician, and although I know that's not universally accepted, I think if you look at his policies objectively, it's at least a fairly plausible statement. However, there are right wing factions that have, from the start, been fairly fanatically opposed to Obama (race might play some role, but given the political history of the last 10 years, I would not be surprised if the right would have reacted similarly to almost ANY democratic president). This fanatical opposition led to the rise of the Tea Party, which has moved the Republican party even further right and solidified the congressional republican strategy of opposition at any cost - clearly counter-productive to getting anything done.

Now, in my view, this radical far-right constituency would not have been nearly as vocal if a president such as McCain was in office. That's not to say that they wouldn't be there, but I don't think they would have nearly as prominent of a place in the Republican party, and I don't think that the Tea Party would exist at all. When a party is responsible for governing, it's hard for it to go too far off the deep end (I hope). Even far right Republicans would have had trouble vilifying a center-right Republican president, which is how I believe McCain would have governed. With a bit less opposition, such a president could and perhaps would have governed in a similar way as Obama has, but would have faced far less obstructionism. I'm not saying that McCain would have been a better president than Obama - I think the opposite is true, and Sarah Palin flat-out scares me. Instead, I just think that congressional Republicans have dug in their heels so far that even a Democrat who agrees with them on most fundamental issues is seen as a closet socialist Muslim out to destroy the US as we know it. With that kind of view and a minimum of 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate, it's hard to see how a moderate or even slightly right Democrat could govern successfully.

That being said, this year's crop of GOP candidates is pretty scary, and I don't know how well this logic applies. I think a figure like John Huntsman might be able to successfully tame the far right wing of his party while governing from a fairly centrist position, but he may be the only one. Romney is hard to get a read on - if he's just moved to the right rhetorically to get through the primaries, then he might govern in a reasonable manner. However, if he truly believes some of the things that he has said this summer/fall, or has boxed himself in too much with campaign promises, his presidency could be fairly catastrophic. In my view, the only "productive" reason to vote for the "greater" of two evils is if you think that the two candidates would in reality govern quite similarly but one would be unable to get anything done due to extreme obstructionism. If the two candidates would govern very differently, then it seems highly counter-productive to vote for what you see as the greater of two evils.

[nkassis]

Well, I believe that if the republicans loose again, they will have to readjust their positions anyway. But as you said about Romney, this is the primaries and they are try to find the center of the constituents who will vote in those primaries. So judging them right now is not a very good barometer.

[bencpeters]

I would like to think that, but everyone said that there would be a moderating readjustment on the part of the Republicans after 2008 too...

Understand that I'm making this a bit as a devil's advocate argument - I will still almost certainly be voting for Obama in 2012 (the only republican I could even consider voting for would be Huntsman, based solely on their acceptance of science). But I was responding to the question of how it could be at all productive to vote against the "lesser of two evils" in such a choice. I think there is a valid devil's advocate argument that in the face of such unmitigated obstructionism, the government as a whole might be more productive with a moderate republican in office than a democrat acting like a moderate republican (like we have now). I'm NOT saying that I approve of that situation, or that it's a good situation, I just think that it's one way to look at the situation we're in. Not sure why that view got down-voted...

[presidentx]

Change will likely not happen within the current electoral system. Don't get forced into a "lesser of two evils" choice. Think outside the box. Think outside your current broken political system.

[freehunter]

Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. This, however, drastically relies on that notion being true. A backfire would be catastrophic.

[xer0]

If the jackal is breaking your windows you'll probably do something direct and immediate to defend yourself. If it's slinking just beyond the tree line you might decide to put another log on the fire and sip hot chocolate.

[Zirro]

I'd have to say that the American political system is broken. Just two parties, with similar ideas. You need to have more opinions represented. Right now, you're choosing between "bad" and "worse".

[mcherm]

Should we vote for the greater evil instead? Not vote? I think that in a first-past-the-post voting system the best option is to vote for the realistic candidate you think is best, then spend a lot of time and energy loudly making your beliefs heard.

[einhverfr]

Opposing someone whose policies are opposed to civil liberties (like Bush) limits them far more than opposing someone who talks a lot about how important the civil liberties are but erodes them anyway (like Obama). So yes. Voting for the greater evil strikes me as a very rational approach here.

[CWuestefeld]

Opposing someone whose policies are opposed to civil liberties (like Bush)

Not that I disagree with you, but I'd like to point out that "civil liberties" is a very broad category. I think that if you examine the question deeper, you'll find that Obama also explicitly eschews some kinds of civil liberties.

Liberals, and specifically Obama, are openly hostile to one's right to property and the fruits of one's labor. And they're not too keen on the sovereignty of the individual: their right to decide their own values, and act as they deem best to maximize their own values.

The way our current system, with a single "left/right" dimension, divides up support for these seems to demand that we all take a position on which grouping -- column A or column B -- are more important, and that's very unfortunate. But even more unfortunate is that the media seem to implicitly consider only those in Column A to really be civil liberties, while either ignoring, or considering as an entirely different species -- those from Column B.

[king_jester]

> Liberals, and specifically Obama, are openly hostile to one's right to property and the fruits of one's labor. And they're not too keen on the sovereignty of the individual: their right to decide their own values, and act as they deem best to maximize their own values.

I'm sorry, but this is a gross oversimplification. There are those that call themselves liberal but have a point of view exactly as you describe, but there is nothing that requires someone who is liberal to be against property rights and determination in individual's work.

[CWuestefeld]

this is a gross oversimplification.

Of course it is, but so is the claim that Conservatives hate the "Column A" civil liberties. For example, despite it seeming to be a core GOP plank, I only know 2 people opposed to gay marriage (one of them my father <sigh>).

So: yes, it's an oversimplification. But part of what I was saying is that when we're stuck with only 2 parties (in practice), and a single "left/right" dimension, then these awful generalizations are all that we have to work with.

[bencpeters]

I don't think that the two oversimplifications are on the same level. Lots of prominent GOP politicians espouse positions that are very openly against gay marriage (as do some Democrats, unfortunately). But you'd be very hard pressed to find many "liberal" politicians who are against property rights and an individual being allowed to reap the fruits of their labor. Yes, liberals are marginally more likely to see situations where public good might trump these to some extent (e.g. more progressive taxation to pay for a social safety net), but to say that liberals are "against" these things flat out is not accurate.

Finally, the fact that someone else made an oversimplification isn't really a great justification to do it yourself...

[CWuestefeld]

As I watch my score on this post waver up and down, it seems that this is a controversial point.

I find this surprising. Perhaps some down-voters could respond regarding their downvotes.

I believe that my post is topical, certainly with respect to its parent; and it's at least trying to add a finer level to the discussion, rather than just a throwaway.

Is it that you don't regard those "Column B" things like property rights as "civil liberties"? Is it that you think this A/B distinction along left-right lines is the natural order of morality, and I should just accept it?

[king_jester]

This doesn't make any sense to me. This argument assumes that the output of Bush is the same as the output of Obama, which is most certainly not the case. I agree that there are disturbing similarities, but economic and social outlook is very different between those two presidents.

The main problem is that the system does not allow for effective involvement of the people. The key to solving this isn't to vote for the worst option possible, but rather to reform and change the system itself.