Desperate Democrats and Liberal Lesser-Evilism: If You Vote Democratic, You Cease to be a Liberal or Progressive Precisely When It Matters Most

Faced with the prospect of large gains for the GOP in the House and Senate this fall, Democrats are becoming ever more desperate in their efforts to rally the dwindling number of duopolist dead-enders to support their faction of the ruling two-party state and duopoly system of government. Democratic strategists are clearly concerned about the possibility that liberal and progressive voters will cast their ballots for liberal and progressive third party and independent candidates for office rather than continue to support Democrats and their corporate overlords. Many progressives are considering the possibilities for alternative electoral alliances in the interests of defeating the Democratic-Republican bipartisan front. At FireDogLake, Jim Moss considers potential allies:

As progressives think about the prospect of a third party, many are looking in unlikely places for new allies – even as unlikely as the Tea Party . . . Instead, progressives should be looking for allies closer to home. Moderate liberals, independents, libertarians, and even some reasonable conservatives are the fields we need to be plowing.

On the other hand, self-described liberals and progressives who have yet to liberate themselves from the ideology that binds them to the mindless reproduction of the two-party state, are hell bent on ensuring that others do not act upon their individual declarations of independence. Consider a recent piece by Stephen Harrington at the Huffington Post. In the article, Harrington addresses the supposedly common claim that "there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans." He begins by accepting the premise, but then quickly notes that Republicans vigorously dispute it:

You hear that a lot these days, that there is no difference between the Democrats and the GOP. Both of America's political parties are run by corporations. So it doesn't matter which you vote for, the results will be the same. You equally hear that we need a third party that will be ideologically pure and immune from influence by special interest money. Good points all.

It is curious though. Republicans don't share the sentiment that there is no difference between the parties. In fact they are acting as if they find the distinction to be rather greater than at any time in the last century. The GOP is behaving as if the world will end if a single one of them compromises with the Democrats on anything.

The latter observation is true to a great extent. But, like their counterparts in the Democratic Party, the professional politicians and strategists in the Republican Party are, of course, professional liars and charlatans. The conceit that "the world will end if you do not vote Republican" is nothing more than an electoral ploy, which has proven successful in the past. Indeed, it is so successful, Harrington avails himself of its Democratic variant in the remainder of his article, conveniently providing us with an object lesson in the narcissism of small differences that characterizes the politics of Democratic-Republican party government. He writes:

In heading off the disaster that would have been a McCain/Palin administration, the Democrats and left have headed off the second self destruction of the capitalist GOP world, for 20 months. . . . It is enough to make you sick, as the exact same arguments from the right and disillusionment on the left wracks the first term of a potential second New Deal as they did on the outset of the first New Deal . . . Now the far right has conceived an attack on liberty . . . to make it easier to evade responsibility to the public . . .

This is a critical year, a year in which the fate of the nation is at stake as much as if it were invaded by a foreign power. The foreign power that currently threatens is not Islam, it's not socialist outsiders, it is a Republican party intent on imposing a feudal rule of corporations. . . .

Godless by American standards, the soulless corporations and GOP agentry are the clear and present danger, while they ridiculously and bigotedly purport Islam as a threat to hide behind . . .

the right will lead to the greatest economic and social havoc this nation has seen since the Civil War . . .

So Harrington admits the kernel of truth contained in the claim that "there's no difference between the Republicans and Democrats." He goes on to point out that Republicans do not share this view, and rather see their political opposition to the Democratic Party as a world historical struggle against the forces of evil, leaving the impression that this is nothing but rhetoric or a function of ideology, part of the party's electoral strategy. But then Harrington continues by arguing that opposition to the Republican Party is a world historical struggle against self-destruction, open attacks on liberty, racism, neo-feudalism, neo-Confederacy etc. in which the very fate of the nation is at stake!

It is difficult to know how to respond to these sorts of articles, which are quite common in the Democratic and Republican commentariat. Is Harrington a clever or not-so-clever ironist, a parodist of Republican rhetoric? Or is he actually oblivious to the fact that his discursive practice proves, yet again, how little difference there is between Republicans and Democrats? Whatever the case may be in that regard, in end effect, Harrington subscribes to the political theology that underpins Democratic-Republican party misrule: he is nothing more than a garden variety lesser-evilist. He writes:

you can complain that the Democrats are agents of the corporations too, but Democrats under the corporate thrall are fewer and with less, or no, allegiance to corporate power than have Republicans. . . . It is not a time to complain about how much the Democrats are under the thumb of corporations, not until after November 2nd. . . . Deal with the GOP first, with your vote, then you may deal with errant Democrats at your leisure.

In short: Harrington is a propagandist of the political status quo, a proponent of the reproduction of the two-party state and duopoly system of government, a reactionary supporter of the admitted evil that is Democratic-Republican party misrule. If you consider yourself a progressive or a liberal, but you vote Democratic, you cease to be a progressive or a liberal precisely when it matters most.