Reply #35: I think you're overstating the case, at least in your subject line.

[RichM]

Chomsky is making the basic "lesser evil" argument, adding the idea that "This time, voting against the lesser evil matters a lot more than it usually does."

I have no strong objection to that argument. It leaves plenty of room for remaining aware of Kerry's terrible deficiencies, even while recommending a vote for the lesser evil. However, in your subject line, you are starting to eliminate the room for this awareness.

People who believe Kerry is a shameful candidate have plenty of reason to think so. When expressed, that may well be construed as "railing against Kerry." And you sound as if you're starting to move towards telling people, "OK, no more complaining about Kerry." That amounts to taking Chomsky's balanced position, & chopping off an important part of it.

It's of course tiresome & unwieldy to always be adding qualifiers to everything one says. It's hard to run around saying all the time, "Vote for the lesser evil - but remember, he's only the lesser evil, & not much more." It's much easier to just start saying, "Vote for Kerry." But in making this shift, you're amputating half of the argument.

I disagree with how you stated your subject line. People who "rail against Kerry" may well be simply saying that they are bitterly disappointed that the party lacked the courage & vision to nominate someone who tells the truth, like Dennis Kucinich. They may well be simply exercising their intellectual freedom to criticize a shabby & disgraceful nominee. Some of those who criticize Kerry may well even wind up holding their nose and voting for him. I see no need to demonize Kerry's critics. On the contrary, his critics are emphasizing an important part of Chomsky's "two-part" message -- and it's the part that a place like DU will lose track of, if Kerry critics are marginalized.