Progressives and Libertarians Against the Politics of Infinite Deferral

Partisans of the Democratic-Republican two-party state are often willing to entertain the idea of third party and independent opposition to the political status quo; sometimes they are even willing to concede the superiority of third party and independent strategy over acquiescent accommodation with the ruling parties. However, more often than not, they do so with the caveat that "now is not the time," that it is more important to side with the lesser evil against the supposedly greater evil than it is to organize against the system of competing evils as such. This is the reactionary politics of infinite deferral, the primary ideological support for the reproduction of the corporatist Democratic-Republican two-party state. Independently minded progressives and libertarians recognize this canard for what it is. At FireDogLake, Michael in Ohio makes the case against the politics of deferral while arguing in favor of building a progressive third party:

At what point do progressives stop being Democrats’ whipped dogs and start acting like a movement capable of putting the Dems in their proper place as the party of the people? . . . My political activities now are focusing on the building of a viable third party as a tool of a reinvigorated and independent progressive movement. No efforts to reform the Democratic Party from within can succeed so long as the upper-level of the party establishment is able to crush dissent from within . . .

This won’t happen overnight; it will take decades for a fully functional progressive political organization to be built, and we will be opposed every step of the way by Democrats, Republicans, and corporations now empowered to spend as much money as their executives want to sway public opinion against us. But we have got to start sometime, and now is as good a time as any.

Those who claim this isn’t the right time will not tell us that the "right time" is never going to come — there will always be the next election cycle to worry about, too much at stake to "risk throwing it to the GOP." Never mind that all Democrats ever do is throw elections to Republicans simply by behaving like they’re members of their counterpart political party. We must ignore such admonitions and press on. There is no such thing as perfection in politics, to be the enemy of good things that will never come to fruition so long as the existing political structure continues.

Meanwhile, at the Campaign for Liberty, Adam de Angeli argues that "the lesser of two evils is really the greater evil":

It is a popular, understandable belief; an intuitive tactical judgment. But upon close examination, it is principally due to this belief that our politicians get away with betraying us. Indeed, it is essential for success that we defeat acceptance of the lesser of two evils. . . .

Rothfeld notes an example: Following the Columbine massacre, the NRA "A"-rated governor of Colorado, Bill Owens, introduced a set of anti-gun bills and a ballot initiative against gun shows. When a reporter asked Owens whether the move would alienate his conservative base, Owens arrogantly laughed, "what are they going to do, vote Democrat?"

This argument addresses the major problem with supporting the lesser evil: it leads directly to unaccountability. In this way, this argument is pretty tough. However, it still does not directly address the major argument about the lesser of two evils, which is that less evil is still preferable. Even if it does demoralize us, even if it does send a bad message to politicians, even if it is morally offensive, it is still pragmatic. However, this third potential counter-argument is one aspect of the larger, vital argument, and the one that must be made whenever the "lesser of two evils" argument is made: It just isn't true at all. . . .

What, then, is left to say of the "lesser of two evils" argument? Rothfeld calls it "the biggest lie in politics." Politicians use it to keep the base in line when they betray them. Parties use it to keep the herd from leaving the ranch. But sadly, it is an appealing argument, and many well-meaning and political activists will accept it, without realizing how embracing it actually sets the cause back.