Even small policy differences, the argument goes, can have a drastic effect on people's lives. Ergo, though while it may help one feel more righteous, voting for a third-party candidate is actually pretty irresponsible. It's a compelling argument. But if one is to take that line, we must then determine which "evil" is the "lesser evil." So let's have a look.

As regards foreign policy, there doesn't appear to be any difference whatever. In fact, Kerry/Edwards have, if anything, staked out a position further to the right than the Bush Administration on the subjects of Palestinian rights ("[John Kerry's] Pro-Israel voting record is second to none," crows the Senator), and of the "Preemption Doctrine." At least the Bush Administration thinks the United States ought to lie about the "threat" posed by countries it wants to wipe off the map. Kerry just thinks wiping Third World countries off the map is the "right authority" for the President to have--existential "threat" or no--should the desire arise.

Kerry says he has a "plan" to bring the United States' traditional allies on board to help "win" the war in Iraq. This is highly doubtful, if we can believe statements to the contrary made by the Allies themselves. But to the extent that it is true, this is not good news for the Third World: an isolated, stalemated, bogged down US military is far preferable, from the potential victims' standpoint, than a revitalized NATO rampaging throughout the Middle East and South America.

As regards domestic issues, Kerry is clearly less extreme than Bush (though his trumpeting, during the debates, of his role in the passing of Welfare Reform isn't exactly the stuff that dreams are made of). But simply saying so doesn't take into account the mitigating effect of domestic protest. This is the big X-factor, and while we can hope that self-identified liberals and progressives won't return to their Clinton-era quiescence, do we really have any reason to believe that it will be the case?

As it is, it took the Democrats to straight-arm Welfare Reform and NAFTA and GATT through the Congress. The late David Brower, the dean of the American environmental movement, stated in 1996 that the Clinton Administration's environmental record was worse than the Reagan-Bush record. The prison population skyrocketed during the Clinton years, while military spending remained anchored at 50% of the budget--but the availability of abortion services and the percentage of unionized workers declined. The economic boom was built on a mirage of debt and speculation--and at any rate, wages remained stagnant for all but the super-rich.

In short, the New Deal was under ferocious assault, yet barely a peep was heard.

Now then, not only is the Bush agenda running up against constraints imposed by resistance from abroad, at home, and, lately, in the judiciary; but the junta also appears to be unraveling from within.

Rare is the month that passes without a former member of either of the two Bush Administrations, a veteran of the intelligence services, or a military big-wig issuing a scathing denunciation--often at book-length--of the Bushoids. None of which, frankly, would have found purchase were the Iraqi Resistance not bollixing the "Multinational Force" ten ways from Sunday in the sands of Iraq. But it is, and so they have--and now even the grunts on the ground are openly disobeying their superiors.

The upshot? A few months back, Capitol Hill Blue "revealed" what was perfectly obvious to anyone who's looked at a picture of him, or listened to him speak: the President is highly medicated. "President George W. Bush is taking powerful anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression, and paranoia," is how they put it. Regent Cheney, himself prone to outbursts (and severely delusional), is facing incoming fire over his Halliburton ties. Tom DeLay (a spawn every bit as malevolent--and possibly even more powerful--as his brethren in the Executive Branch) is time and again being called out for his ethical improprieties. Colin Powell apparently wants nothing to do with a second Bush Administration. Ashcroft--who couldn't even win elective office against a deceased opponent--is probably the most despised man in the Administration. Rumsfeld's name has been forever besmirched. McClellan can't buy a vowel from the White House Press Corps.

And the wracking may be only just beginning. No American President since Eisenhower has completed a full eight-year term without being waylaid by scandal during his second term. The opportunities for Bush to add another notch to this impressive record are many: the Plame leaks, Abu Ghraib, rigged voting machines, the Sibel Edmonds case, the Medicare Bill hijinks, Cheney's Energy Task Force, and others. A second Bush Administration could well be too busy putting out fires to be able to concentrate on destroying the world.

So in choosing a "lesser evil," we have to rely on speculation. How severely and how timely the Bush Administration meltdown? How crippling the inevitable scandals? How robust the opposition to Kerry's, as opposed to Bush's, policies? Reading these tea leaves is nothing like an exact science. But, sez here, a second Bush Administration is probably less damaging than a Kerry Administration.

Voting is no substitute for activism. And voting for the "lesser evil" may not, in the long run, be a very wise course of action. But if you are planning to cast a "lesser evil" vote, it probably oughta be for The Superbrain. (Meanwhile, Patty Murray's latest campaign ads are enough to make one retch--or to vote for Green candidate Mark Wilson. What the fuck are the Democrats eating these days, anyhow?)

Citations available at http://feedthefish.org/blog/archives/000444.html.