The notion that Biden represents a lesser evil compared to the chaotic reign of Trump is a common argument. However, we must not forget that there exists a moral threshold below which neither choice is acceptable. To suggest that enabling a literal genocide can be considered a lesser evil is a morally bankrupt stance.

Saying that voting for Biden is a moral obligation to prevent the return of Trump perpetuates a dangerous fallacy. It implies that the democratic party is immune from scrutiny and accountability, no matter the atrocities they commit. This line of thinking allows for a never-ending cycle of justification, as long as there's somebody considered worse, the democrats are granted a blank check. This is nothing more than a form of gaslighting, manipulating the public into believing that their only choice is between two evils, rather than demanding a better standard of leadership and true representation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think that making reference to a "moral threshold" might be useful in scoring points on libs but is to the detriment of a material analysis.

The reason to oppose both is not any such "moral threshold", it's because we need to build a left that is capable of extracting concessions and eventually of winning power, one that bears fealty to the proletariat and not the bourgeoisie. Surrendering our vote to the less-right of two rightists is not the way to build a left.

The real "gaslighting", if we need to use that term, is therefore in the idea that this is the most important election of our lifetime when that was last election, and the one before that, and will be the next one too! Whatever the current election is will be, according to these miserable liberals, "the most important election". This question-begging obfuscates that there is a future beyond 2027, that all of politics is not totalized in the upcoming election, but part of an ongoing and interconnected series of events where there are things more important than getting the supposedly less-bad president one time.

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Libs are allergic to political power that's not held by the same old dudes as ever shrug-outta-hecks

On the topic of how electoralism connects to building the left, I keep seeing radlibs saying "we have to vote for the candidate that creates preferable conditions for us to organize under." Sounds like a great argument in a vacuum, sure, why shouldn't we try to make it easier to organize and agitate by any means necessary? Except in practice, the only difference you're making is that one candidate will call in the national guard in the 2nd day of a general strike, the other on the 3rd. Not to mention the DHS and the FBI operate exactly the same regardless of admin. The only time we should take this matter into consideration is if a president is genuinely going to take power from those institutions, but an Irish fella got domed the last time a president thought of doing that.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago

Yeah, it's just a recolored "but trump". The Presidential vote should be part of the organizing! Specifically, withholding it! What else are you going to organize around on a national level if not that? How else are you going to do the only valid form of "harm reduction", extracting concessions instead of just supporting Joe unconditionally?

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree, but you'll get CPUSA types going saying that yeah we're trying to build grassroots power, but you still gotta vote for the dems. My argument is that there needs to be acceptance and understanding that neither party is the lesser evil. Voting for either flavor of fascism is still helping perpetuate fascism in the end. What the act of voting accomplishes is to legitimize the system.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

That's true. You probably remember the story where Biden got into an argument with a reporter where the reporter cited a poll saying most people didn't want Biden to run and he countered that most said they would vote for him. Our interpretation of these things is openly also Biden's interpretation in that respect, i.e. support is support, and commentary offered alongside an unconditional vote goes in the trash.