Re: Bush, the lesser evil?

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Louis Proyect effectively demonstrates how the concept of "the lesser
evil" becomes nonsense, even on the most pragmatic opportunist
tactical level, as two bourgeois candidates for President, and their
supporters, circle round each other, trying to avoid giving the other
side opportunity for attack.

I am not sure of the history of the concept of the "lesser evil" but
to me it needs unpacking if it is to continue to be used right up to
November. For one thing there is a difference between the day to day
jostling for position which is a bit like the day to day fluctuations
of supply and demand economically - a process of equilibration around
an already existing set point.

This is like the bourgeois sociological theoretical comparison of a
two party electoral system comparison to ice cream sellers on a beach.
If there are two competing ice cream sellers, they will logically
position themselves both as near the middle as possible of a long,
crowded beach. That is a relatively stable enduring pattern. It risks
disruption if a third ice cream seller arrives, and which side this
seller will position the new stall is an anxious calculation which
both must contemplate.

There is however a longer term jostling for position going on
underneath the virtually day to day fluctuations of presidential
electoral tactics: what are the underlying balance of forces. While
bourgeois elections are dominated by bourgeois politics and capitalist
funding, nevertheless they provide some opportunity for a shake down
to occur over a period of six months.

>From a really radical, or even revolutionary perspective, no body
would want to encourage blind faith in either such candidate. But then
if a third candidate arrived, who appeared to be more than a mere
lesser evil, would the danger not be even greater of creating
illusions in such a candidate?

The NYT editorial has now got into Monday's International Herald
Tribune and I see it very carefully skirts around the C word -
conscription.

I read this as a highly tactical editorial, preserving its lofty
dignity, guarding against any hint of lack of patriotism, playing to
the "our brave boys" agenda but actually of course revelling in Bush's
plight, and taking every opportunity of criticising the fundamental
unilateralist strategy of the Neo Cons. They will leave Bush to
consider the option of conscription, and then play the "our brave
boys" agenda for what its worth again. Kerry is a bourgeois
imperialist politician and so are his backers.

The two penultimate paragraphs of the editorial I think illustrate my
point:

>>>
Much of the current trouble could have been avoided if Rumsfeld had
not been so determined to disprove the doctrine named for his rival,
Secretary of State Colin Powell, which posits that force, if it is to
be used at all, should be overwhelming. The United States should have
had a much larger military force ready to actually occupy Iraq and
restore order. As much as we hope that Bush's very belated agreement
to involve the United Nations in Iraq can clear the way for greater
international military assistance, it would be folly to count on more
than symbolic help in the near future. Any real increase in the
military force in Iraq will have to come from the United States.

This page felt it was a mistake to invade Iraq without broad
international support, and since then we have seen few indications
that Bush's notion of establishing a stable democracy there is
anything but a dream. Yet leaving Iraq now would create a situation so
horrific that the United States is obliged to press forward as long as
there seems any hope of making progress. The only possible, but by no
means certain, road to a good outcome is to stick with the plan to
allow the United Nations to set up an interim Iraqi government, to
expand international political support, and to work with moderate
Shiite and Sunni leaders to isolate the violent radicals. The Iraqi
security forces have to be made into something far better than what
they are now.
<<<

Chris Burford
London