Why should we accept without question the options that have been given to us?
From tiktokers to prominent liberals, people with any kind of message platform are insisting that everyone makes concessions and votes for the lesser evil of Vice President Biden in November. This is not a new election strategy for the Democratic Party.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Biden wins the Presidency in November. Given so many people are using their platforms to insist we make concessions this one time to avoid the disastrous effects of a continued Trump administration, they should insist on either pushing Biden left in in 2024 or primarying him against an actually palatable candidate. Does anyone truly believe that the same “lesser evil” argument won’t be made in 2024? That, regardless of whatever Republican gets their party’s nomination, they won’t be considered the greater evil again, regardless of whether the democrats actually change anything about their candidate or their platform?
The reality is that, to liberals, Democrats of any variety will always be the lesser evil to Republicans of any variety. So, whatever the Democrats do, liberals will always, always insist we make concessions this time, to give them a chance to make the changes they will never really make because they know this simple truth: they don’t need to.
For decades, Democrats have promised meaningful change in environmental policy, immigration, equal protection of black, hispanic, and LGBT+ Americans, foreign intervention, and far more, if only you vote for the compromise this time. This one last time.
We want to believe that the Democrats will make good on their promise. They’re supposed to be the good guys, and Republicans the bad guys! But the reality is that they are but different faces of the same ugly beast. A plutocratic class of over represented, powerful people who are unconcerned with the desires of the mere rabble, and bent on maintaining the status quo at any cost.
Every single year is the last year we will need to hold off on meaningful change. I don’t expect you to take my word for it. Below, find samples of the coverage of presidential elections, tracing back further and further as I find time to update:
2016
2012
2008
2004
2000
1996
1992
2016
Voters say this is the ultimate ‘lesser of two evils’ election
They don’t like either options for President: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Many dub this presidential election the ultimate choice between “the lesser of two evils.”
That exact phrase — “lesser of two evils” — was repeated over and over again when voters talked to CNNMoney as part of a tour in September in the swing states of Florida and Ohio. And that was before the vicious second debate and the release of the bombshell 2005 “Access Hollywood” tape.
“Honestly, I feel like this election is finding the lesser of two evils,” said Michelle, who works in financial services and lives in the key swing area of Tampa, Florida. “I think there’s concern on both sides.”
Michelle, who is white, didn’t want to give her last name. She is leaning toward Trump because she’s fed up with Washington. The refrain came up up with voters leaning toward Clinton and even those who remain undecided.
“You have to choose the least of the two evils,” said Margaret DeBellottee-Torres, an African-American job coach in Tampa, Florida, who just shook her head when asked about the election. “I’m looking at Hillary. I think of the two candidates that she’s the less of the two evils.”
By Heather Long. (October 13, 2016: 9:20 AM ET). Voters say this is the ultimate ‘lesser of two evils’ election. CNN Business. Retrieved from: https://money.cnn.com/2016/09/25/news/economy/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-lesser-of-two-evils/
Voters Choosing Among ‘Lesser of Two Evils,’ Survey Finds
During a campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa, Hillary Clinton today called attention to a common theme in this contentious presidential campaign season: voting for one candidate solely because of a disdain for the other.
“I want this election to be about something, not against somebody,” Clinton said to a crowd of 2,000 at an outdoor park where Trump supporters protested across the street.
A Pew study on voter preferences last week reported findings that highlight the discord in the election cycle, saying that the main factor in choosing a candidate was a dislike for their opponent.
According to the study, 33 percent of Trump supporters and 32 percent of Clinton voters attributed their choice in candidate to an opposition for the other candidate, winning out over all other attributes, like “political outsider” status, policy position, experience and temperament. The margin of error was plus or minus 2.4 percentage points.
Both campaigns have contributed to and been influenced by this trend, increasingly dedicating their rallies to criticizing each other.
Trump’s comments in New Hampshire today followed the trend, bashing Clinton at almost every juncture. He referenced Clinton’s and Bernie Sanders’ rally in the state the previous day, claiming that not many people attended “because they don’t like Hillary and Bernie sold out to the devil.”
Clinton aimed to shift the narrative today, contrasting Trump’s comments at Monday’s presidential debate with her “positive agenda” and her “fighting for kids and family.”
Pew reported an overall negative perspective of the campaign this year among voters, with majorities of Americans saying they are “frustrated” and “disgusted” with the campaign.
Resounding support for both candidates is lacking from this election, according to Pew. Only 12 percent of those surveyed said they would be excited if Clinton won, and only 11 percent for Trump.
In her visit to Iowa, Clinton sought to appeal to voters who are on the fence, while Trump’s New Hampshire rally today sought instead to hold onto his current base.
Some 62 percent of Trump supporters and 50 percent of Clinton supporters acknowledged various downsides to their chosen candidates, with some offering harsh criticisms.
The study surveyed 4,538 randomly selected U.S. adult respondents, including 3,941 registered voters who participated in the survey via web survey or mail.
By MELINA DELKIC. (September 29, 2016, 6:51 PM). Voters Choosing Among ‘Lesser of Two Evils,’ Survey Finds. ABC News. Retrieved from: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/voters-choosing-lesser-evils-survey-finds/story?id=42460153
2012
Nader: Obama’s a ‘war criminal’
It’s no surprise that Ralph Nader isn’t a fan of former President George W. Bush. After all, the longtime activist ran against him in both 2000 and 2004. But Nader’s even less a fan of President Barack Obama, if only because he thinks Obama was capable of so much more.
On issues related to the military and foreign policy, Obama’s worse than Bush, “in the sense that he’s more aggressive, more illegal worldwide,” Nader told POLITICO, going so far as to call Obama a “war criminal.”
“He’s gone beyond George W. Bush in drones, for example. He thinks the world is his plate, that national sovereignties mean nothing, drones can go anywhere. They can kill anybody that he suspects and every Tuesday he makes the call on who lives and who dies, supposed suspects in places like Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that is a war crime and he ought to be held to account.”
Nader called Obama “below average because he raised expectation levels. What expectation level did George W. Bush raise?… He’s below average because he’s above average in his intellect and his knowledge of legality, which is violating with abandon.”
“I don’t know whether George W. Bush ever read the Constitution,” said Nader. “This man taught the Constitution, and this is what we got.”
Nader gave Obama this much: He’s the lesser of two evils when compared to GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
By PATRICK GAVIN. (09/25/2012 12:56 PM). Nader: Obama’s a ‘war criminal’. Politico. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/story/2012/09/nader-obamas-a-war-criminal-081649
2008
To be entirely honest, I was hard-pressed to find “lesser evil” capitulations to then-Senator Barack Obama in 2008. This race was the most hopeful presidential election cycle in U.S. history, at least as far back as I’ve gone here. Obama campaigned on meaningful, progressive change, and at that time inspired a generation of young voters who thought the future might actually be better than it seemed. Obviously, that didn’t go well. President Obama quietly backed out of many of his progressive promises, and expanded unilateral foreign military intervention through drone strikes (often resulting in innocent casualties) to levels that were unthinkable before his election.
2004
Voting for lesser of two evils may prove necessary
Instructions to peace cherishers on how to vote for John Kerry and John Edwards:
Pinch nose firmly at nostrils.
Hold breath or breathe through mouth.
Pull lever.
Utter prayer for forgiveness.
For those of us who opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq and consider the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war utterly immoral and insane, John Kerry’s selection of John Edwards as his running mate stinks. So will voting for the pair come November.
In battleground states (those that could go either way, such as Florida, California, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) that’s the repugnant chore awaiting us. We can’t risk going third-party, can’t afford to help return a commander-in-chief to office who still believes he was right to start a war on false pretenses, absent an imminent threat, and when United Nations inspections appeared to be working. They were working, as the subsequent unfettered and fruitless searches for Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction have proven.
But if Bush has demonstrated he believes that the problem of violence is best solved with more violence, what are we getting with these two Johns (Kerry and Edwards)? A lot less than most people, Democrats especially, are willing to recognize.
Back in February I spent all of one Saturday at the government offices of Niles Township in southwest Michigan, just across the Indiana state line. They were being used that day as a polling place for the Michigan caucus, set up similar to a primary. I was there urging people to vote for Howard Dean, one of the few Democrats openly critical of invading Iraq, before, during and after the operation.
Another Dean volunteer and I took turns sitting at a little table we set up just outside the polling room. We’d offer poll-goers information on Dean’s stances and accomplishments, along with cookies. A couple of supporters of Wesley Clark, also an opponent of the war, handed out miniature Clark bars.
As the poll-goers trooped in, several indicated they were backing the front-runner, Kerry. Some said Edwards. Inwardly I shook my head in discouragement.
Then I got an idea. With the consent of my competitors in the hallway (who included a mother and her son stumping for Dennis Kucinich), I made up a little sign and hung it from the front of the cookie table. It read “Don’t vote for Kerry or Edwards. Ask us why.”
Few asked. To the ones who did, I said, “Were you opposed to the war in Iraq?”
Yes, they said.
“How about Bush’s tax cuts for the country’s wealthiest people?”
Again, yes.
“The Patriot Act?”
Definitely.
“Do you know that Kerry and Edwards both voted in favor of all those measures? And that Edwards was a co-author of the Patriot Act?”
No one knew.
“So why would any Democrat want to reward them with the nomination?”
I’m still wondering. Most likely the majority voting in the primaries perceived Kerry as the most conventional candidate and therefore the safest, best bet to beat Bush.
I know my bringing up Kerry’s and Edwards’ persistent past backing of President Bush will be considered treasonous by many progressives. Democrats of all stripes are rallying around the presumptive ticket to give it all the bump they can in the polls. But should they? The presumptive nominees’ voting records say that on most issues they were either in agreement with the president’s legislative agenda or extremely gullible.
Even now, when 82 percent of Democrats surveyed say the Iraq War was a mistake, Kerry refuses to express regret over giving President Bush the go-ahead. His forces succeeded in keeping a plank out of the party’s platform condemning the war. And in a Kerry commercial that began airing July 7 he says that to win the war on terror we need to “find and get the terrorists before they get us.” These are not the words of someone morally outraged by the notion of pre-emptive war.
Some months back a friend of mine, looking ahead to the likely Bush-Kerry matchup and the “lesser-of-two-evils” choice it would present, remarked, “You know what you get when you choose the lesser of two evils?”
“What?” I said.
“Evil.”
It’s not that I think John Kerry or George Bush is evil. The president thinks he’s doing God’s work. (What would Jesus do when faced with a terrorist threat? Capture or kill all suspects and possible sympathizers before they can get the jump on you, of course.) Kerry is doing what he thinks it takes to win, which in politics often means spouting generalities and standing firm as a tumbleweed.
My suggestion to those who see the legitimacy of the Iraq War as the most important issue in this election is to use your vote, where practical, to signal your disgust with the 100 percent pro-war slates put forward by the two controlling parties. In battleground states, vote Kerry and Edwards and hope they grow consciences and spines. In states where the outcome is a foregone conclusion, like Texas, Massachusetts and probably Indiana, do as Green Party presidential nominee David Cobb suggests and “invest in change.” Cast your ballot for a third-party — any third-party — candidate or write-in who actually condemned the Iraq War and Bush doctrine.
It won’t help re-elect President Bush and it won’t offend your senses.
By ED COHEN. (July 21, 2004 Wednesday). Voting for lesser of two evils may prove necessary. South Bend Tribune (Indiana). Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.uwec.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:4CYV-M9M0-00W3-D0XM-00000-00&context=1516831.
2000
Vice president is lesser of two evils — with experience
Despite pundits that charge this year’s presidential candidates really aren’t all that different — two centrist products of the American elite — voters today have two distinct choices: Keep the good times rolling by electing a well-schooled, if not a bit annoying know-it-all, or take a risk on an inexperienced baffoon.
Certainly, this choice might be made by selecting the lesser of two evils.
That’s fine by us.
. . .
Because although Al Gore, the Democratic presidential candidate, can come across as smug, stoic and arrogant, his two decades of public service and expert grasp of public policy make him the best man — lesser of two evils, or not — for the job.
Republican George W. Bush, this perennial fraternity boy, has parlayed one of the great family names in U.S. politics into a pseudo-serious presidential bid.
. . .
And don’t be fooled by Ralph Nader-supporting Green Party followers.
While Nader has raised significant issues in the campaign — mainly decrying big-business influence — he won’t attract enough votes to do anything besides detract from Gore’s base of liberal followers.
Staff Editorial, Daily Nebraskan. (November 7, 2000). Vice president is lesser of two evils — with experience. University Wire. Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.uwec.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:41KX-FDX0-00K4-108D-00000-00&context=1516831.
Some Black Voters View Gore as the Lesser of Two Evils; Concerns Go Unaddressed, They Say
“Well, Gore’s better than Bush,” said Evans, 64. “But he’s no Bill Clinton. That’s for sure. If you gave us a chance, most of us would vote for Clinton for a third term. This is going to be kind of like voting for the lesser of two evils.”
The phrase “lesser of two evils” was the common denominator in the interviews. Is the seeming ambivalence of politically aware, middle-class people like Evans and Banks a bad sign for Gore? If they are barely motivated to vote, what about their poorer, less politically aware neighbors in the sprawling, poor to working-class communities south and west of downtown Chicago?
. . .
While only one person said she planned to vote for Bush (a few declined to answer or said they were still undecided), several said they would vote for Gore for no other reason than that they could not stand Bush.
. . .
A couple of people in Chicago said the message they were getting from Democratic leaders was not so much that Gore was great on the issues but that Bush was horrible and that a vote for Green Party candidate Ralph Nadar was tantamount to a vote for Bush.
Terry M. Neal , Washington Post Staff Writer. (October 29, 2000, Sunday, Final Edition). Some Black Voters View Gore as the Lesser of Two Evils; Concerns Go Unaddressed, They Say. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.uwec.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:41HX-RHS0-00RP-M421-00000-00&context=1516831.
THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE POLL;
In Final Days, Voters Still Wrestle With Doubts on Bush and Gore
Even after absorbing three debates and months of campaigning, American voters are thoroughly ambivalent about their choices for president, still vexed by doubts about Vice President Al Gore’s sincerity and Gov. George W. Bush’s preparedness for the White House, the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll shows.
. . .
In follow-up interviews yesterday, many poll respondents expressed misgivings even about candidates they intend to support.
“This is a tough vote this time,” said John Ryan, 61, a high school teacher from Beverly, Mass. “The parties have stuck these two candidates in our faces and you have to take the lesser of two evils.”
Although Mr. Ryan is a Democrat who plans to vote for Mr. Gore, he groused: “Gore looks like somebody molded out of clay. He’s not warm or genuine. Bush might be a friendlier guy and easier to be with, but he either runs out of thoughts or runs out of ways to express them when he’s asked a question.”
Richard Koch, 83, a part-time accountant in Milwaukee, said he was voting for Mr. Bush. But he, too, is not satisfied with the choices.
“My uneasiness comes mostly from the fact that he is not world-wise politically,” Mr. Koch said of Mr. Bush. “This includes foreign policy and basic economics, among other things. He doesn’t have the background in these things and hasn’t indicated that he really knows what he’s talking about. The reason I would vote for him is that I don’t think much of Gore. He changes his positions to temper the moment.”
Indeed, a thread throughout the poll is that support for Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore seems halfhearted, with 4 in 10 of each man’s own supporters saying they had reservations about their candidate. More of Mr. Bush’s backers expressed enthusiasm than did Mr. Gore’s; about half for Mr. Bush and about 4 in 10 for the vice president.
. . .
Echoing many other respondents, Melvin Greene, 42, a physical therapist from Brunswick, Ga., said: “I’m planning on voting for Al Gore because basically I think he is the lesser of two evils. George Bush seems to cater to the wealthy.”
By RICHARD L. BERKE and JANET ELDER , By RICHARD L. BERKE and JANET ELDER . (October 23, 2000, Monday, Late Edition – Final). THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE POLL; In Final Days, Voters Still Wrestle With Doubts on Bush and Gore. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.uwec.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:41GM-8X50-00MH-F3PD-00000-00&context=1516831.
1996
Voter says Clinton “lesser of two evils‘
Barbara McKeehen thinks President Clinton is “completely amoral and a con man” – but she plans to vote for him anyway.
“He’s the lesser of two evils,” said McKeehen, 50, a nurse practitioner.
. . .
McKeehen wishes she had a better choice for president.
She believes Dole would align himself with House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a man she calls dangerous. Together, she believes the Republican team would chip away at programs that help the disadvantaged.
“I feel (Dole) is ultra-conservative and too old,” she said.
Clinton doesn’t impress her either.
“When he ran the first time, I laughed at him … with all his scandals,” she said. “The girls, the crap about, “I didn’t inhale.’ I was born at night but not last night.”
SALLY KESTIN; of The Tampa Tribune. (October 16, 1996, Wednesday,). Voter says Clinton “lesser of two evils’. The Tampa Tribune (Florida). Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.uwec.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:3SD5-S4W0-0094-00DN-00000-00&context=1516831.
POLITICS: THE VOTERS;
For Philadelphia Blacks, Clinton Is ‘the Lesser of Two Evils‘
Camille Edwards, a 27-year-old social worker, said she was especially upset with Mr. Clinton for signing the welfare legislation because it will lead to more crime. “People will be robbing left and right just to eat,” she said. “Nobody is going to allow their children to starve.” Nevertheless, she said, she would vote for Mr. Clinton hoping he “will act more like a Democrat” in a second term.
“I don’t think Clinton is the black man’s friend by any means,” Ms. Edwards said as she shopped along Germantown Avenue with her friend, Vanessa Walker, a 31-year-old nurse’s aid. “He’s kind of like Abe Lincoln who freed the slaves almost by accident.”
Ms. Walker was much more enthusiastic about the President. “Clinton. Clinton. Clinton,” she said. “A lot of people are registering to vote because if Bob Dole gets in, we are going to catch hell.”
Still, most of the voters interviewed said they thought that the welfare system needed reform, and that too many people had turned welfare into “a way of life.” But although most had jobs, from college professors to a laundromat manager, all expressed concern for the millions of Americans who were homeless and hungry, and the millions more who were just slightly better off.
. . .
Philbert Young, 38, who owns a landscaping business, agreed with Mr. Clinton’s decision to sign the welfare legislation “because a lot of people want to make welfare a way of life.” But he said he would vote for the President holding his nose.
“Politicians are all talk,” he said.
Anthony Monteiro, a professor of sociology at the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science, said in a telephone interview that he is tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.
Mr. Monteiro said he will not vote for President this year but will vote in his Congressional race. He said he has been leery of Mr. Clinton for years because of the President’s rightward shifts. But it was Mr. Clinton‘s signing of the welfare legislation “that pushed me over the edge.”
“That bill will throw one million children into poverty,” he said, his voice raising on the other end of the telephone. “Clinton has literally become a Reagan Democrat. And Dole is a Reagan Republican. I don’t think there is a lesser of two evils in this race. There’s just evil.“
For Linn Washington Jr., a journalism professor at Temple University, the choice between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Dole boils down to which man “am I going to oppose.”
“I’m going to oppose the conservative movement in the country as symbolized by Bob Dole,” Mr. Washington said. “Don’t get me wrong, Clinton has not excited me at all, either.”
By DON TERRY , By DON TERRY . (October 5, 1996, Saturday, Late Edition – Final). POLITICS: THE VOTERS; For Philadelphia Blacks, Clinton Is ‘the Lesser of Two Evils’. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.uwec.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:3S89-3H40-0005-G3JX-00000-00&context=1516831.
LESSER OF TWO EVILS STILL HAPPENS TO BE EVIL
For the best single analysis of the so-called ”contest” between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, I defer to the editorial writers at the Washington Post, who wrote this week: ”The choice for president this year is pretty bleak. There are days of the week when the strongest single argument that can be made for either candidate is that he’s not the other.”
. . .
Polls suggest that the vast majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the Clinton-Dole choice, and why shouldn’t they be? Clinton’s presidency has been hapless at best, corrupt at worst and disappointing even to his most ardent supporters; Dole’s challenge has been a uniquely pathetic exercise in futility, marred by disparate changes of direction and a harshness that demeans the Republican challenger as much as it does the Democratic incumbent.
Anyone who watched the joint appearances by the two candidates had to notice how real debate was scrupulously avoided by a pair of politicians who actually agree on most issues — including NAFTA, GATT, welfare reform, the death penalty, deficit reduction, and the need for a bipartisan commission to reform the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
The point of this recounting of the flaws that the major-party presidential candidates so openly display is not to discourage anyone from tossing a vote in either of their directions. Most Americans who vote Tuesday will do just that, and I have too much respect for democracy to criticize anyone for sincerely exercising their right to vote for the candidate of their choice — however lame he may be.
But to those who are disgusted with the lesser-of-two-evilism that has infected this year’s campaign for the post once held by Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, I would offer a twist on Bob Dole’s failed attempt to speak to America’s youth: ”Just don’t do it.”
. . .
Author Studs Terkel told me a few weeks back that he’s considering a vote for Nader. Disgusted with Clinton’s signing of the welfare reform bill, Terkel says he can’t stomach the nominee of the Democratic Party he has traditionally backed.
Besides, he says, at age 84, this could be his last vote. ”I’ve voted for too many compromise candidates,” he says. ”I figure I might as well go out voting for somebody I want.”
John Nichols. (October 31, 1996, Thursday,). LESSER OF TWO EVILS STILL HAPPENS TO BE EVIL. Capital Times (Madison, WI.). Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.uwec.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:3SD5-BM90-0094-41KT-00000-00&context=1516831.
Gay Rights Victory Is Not Without Hitches;
Vote No Evil
To the Editor:
Your May 23 front-page article on President Clinton’s declaration that he would sign the “defense of marriage” act quotes his aide George Stephanopoulos as saying, “It’s wrong for people to use this issue to demonize gays and lesbians.”
The President is participating in the martyrdom of gay men and lesbians, and virtually assuring his own demonization. He banks on the assumption that we have no choice but to support him as the lesser of two evils. But the lesser of two evils is still evil, and I for one may vote for Santa Claus.
CHAN CASEY
New York, May 23, 1996
(May 27, 1996, Monday, Late Edition – Final). Gay Rights Victory Is Not Without Hitches; Vote No Evil. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.uwec.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:3S89-4NY0-0005-G48T-00000-00&context=1516831.
[Note: the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted by other states.]
How 3 Young Voters See the Election and the Choices
April Smith, 21
‘Clinton Is the Lesser Of Two Evils’
Ms. Smith said that she believed that this year’s Republican candidates were spouting platitudes, and that she would vote for Mr. Clinton.
Yet she supports the Republican push for lower taxes and smaller Government and opposes abortion.
But Ms. Smith, like Mr. Rogers, is deeply concerned about education cuts. Last year, at the end of her sophomore year at the University of North Texas at Denton, she dropped out because she did not have money for the $2,400-a-year tuition, despite holding down two part-time jobs.
She now works 40 hours a week as a saleswoman in Gordon’s jewelry store at the Denton mall and manages to save $100 a month. She can only go back to college, she said, if she gets financial aid.
“The Republicans seem to be more for the upper class instead of the poor or the elderly,” Ms. Smith said. “Clinton is the lesser of two evils.”
Ms. Smith also said she was worried about the environment. “I plan on having kids,” she said. “Will there be a planet?”
Health care is another issue that concerns Ms. Smith, who said she had a strict Southern Baptist upbringing in Naples, Tex. Her parents helped her financially the first year in college, but now she is independent of them.
Her health insurance has a $500 deductible, and she fears that if she had an accident or became sick, her dreams of going to college could be put back years or wiped out.
Carlos Hernandez, 24
‘Liberal Leaning,’ But Feeling Fed Up
With a degree in international affairs from Georgetown University, Mr. Hernandez is the associate director of the National Hispanic Institute, a nonprofit organization in Maxwell, Tex., that conducts leadership training programs for Hispanic youths. He said he was just as passionate in his beliefs as those under 30 were in the 1960’s.
He earns in the $20,000 range, he said. To save money and pay off a college debt of $15,000, he has moved in with his sister. He said he did not want to be like his parents whose savings were wiped out when they sent him to college.
Mr. Hernandez, a first-generation Mexican-American, said that he was “liberal leaning” but hated being labeled and was fed up with politicians. Nonetheless, he has voted every year and will this time, he said, probably for President Clinton because the Democratic agenda was closest to his concerns.
Still, he said he was disappointed with the President’s performance on health care and welfare. And he added that Gen. Colin L. Powell would have been an attractive option.
Mr. Hernandez’s father died of a heart attack at 48 so he said he worried about his own health and benefits. He said that he wanted to see his siblings and relatives go to college but that Republican cuts in education might make that dream impossible. The budget deficit gnaws at him, he said.
“I think we’re mortgaging our future,” he said in an interview at a restaurant in Austin. “As a young responsible citizen of this country, I’m responsible for balancing my checkbook. It’s very difficult to run a government or a business if 40 percent of your payments are debt payments.”
He does not believe the Government is responsible for providing him with a job but he believes it should provide training for those who do not have the chance for an education.
Like many other young people, Mr. Hernandez said his philosophy and beliefs were gleaned from his parents’ experiences. His mother, a migrant cotton picker, was the first in her family to put herself through college.
And his father left Mexico to grow up in the projects of Brownsville, Tex., where he would break into people’s houses to steal cans of tuna. The church changed his father’s life and he put himself through college and earned a degree in electrical engineering.
“I’m just a Mexican-American concerned about where my community is going,” Mr. Hernandez said.
Kevin Rogers, 23
10 Years Ago, ‘A Common Goal’
Mr. Rogers has taken a year off from studying philosophy and political science at the University of Central Arkansas in Conway to work full time at the college bookstore. Next fall he plans to transfer to a bigger college in California, he said. The youngest of six children from a Southern Baptist family in Hot Springs, Ark., he and a brother are the only ones to have gone to college.
“I could leave college and go home and live a comfortable life,” he said. “But that’s a dead end.”
Mr. Rogers talked of friends who are struggling to make ends meet in college only to return to their hometowns to work low-paid jobs. And he said he was worried about cuts in education threatened by the Republicans and wanted better benefits for college students. At the same time, he said he supported downsizing of the Federal government.
Like many in his age group, he finds himself thinking conservative on economic questions, and more liberal on social issues.
“I think 10 years ago, we as a generation had more of a common goal to fight over,” he said. “Now there are so many stands to be had. It really divides up a generation.”
By DONATELLA LORCH . (March 30, 1996, Saturday, Late Edition – Final). How 3 Young Voters See the Election and the Choices. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.uwec.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:3S89-56W0-0005-G0KP-00000-00&context=1516831.
BORED VOTERS VIEW ELECTION AS ‘EVIL OF TWO LESSERS’
ERIE, Pa. – Tony DiEugenio would rather talk about Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan than Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. “There’s no one in politics to make you proud anymore” is his lament.
A few doors down is a waitress who gives her name as Lisa. She refuses to give her last name and is piqued, swatting away bees in the restaurant’s courtyard.
“I hate Clinton. He doesn’t know how to tell the truth,” the 35-year-old single mother says as the lunchtime crowd dwindles. “But what is my choice? I’m not voting for Perot again. Bob Dole? Come on. Too old.“
And so it goes, not only here in Erie, but in town after town during a week spent visiting four industrial states critical in presidential elections: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Missouri and Ohio.
In five weeks, voters will pick the last president of the 20th century, and the man who will sit in the Oval Office at the dawn of the 21st. Yet, if dozens of random interviews this past week are any guide, the voters are a largely disinterested, often frustrated and sometimes grumpy lot, quick to complain about the quality of their choices and the tone of this year’s campaign, if they have paid any attention to it.
“Who cares?” said DiEugenio, rolling his eyes as he sewed a new sole on a loafer in his downtown Erie shop.
Four years ago, Clinton was a fresh face and Ross Perot a miniphenomenon as voters tired of a sluggish economy turned out in record numbers and denied President Bush a second term. “I remember it being exciting,” said Jenny Hatcher, an insurance company secretary in suburban St. Louis.
Now 21, Hatcher can vote in her first presidential election. But she hasn’t registered. “I guess I should because I don’t like Clinton,” she said. “I’m just not into it. None of them excite me.”
Weak participation in this year’s primaries, and the disinterest voiced in voter interviews and dozens of state and national polls, has many campaign operatives and analysts predicting a low turnout.
“Don’t any of them have anything positive to say?” asks Kim Rickard, a bank worker in the St. Louis suburb of Clayton, Mo.
Like many 1992 Clinton backers, she said she was likely to support him again. But she seemed resigned to doing so, not enthusiastic about it. Like Lisa in Erie and Adele Rubenstein in Royal Oak, Mich., Rickard is full of doubts about Clinton but not convinced Dole is an acceptable alternative.
“The lesser of two evils still seems to be Clinton,” said Rubenstein, who manages a shoe store. She calls Dole’s plan to cut taxes by 15 percent unrealistic and winces when talking about Clinton’s morals.
Her views are a snapshot of a conflicted electorate.
“It doesn’t necessarily mean that Dole can catch up easily, but Clinton’s support is not deep,” said GOP pollster Neil Newhouse.
The latest NBC-Wall Street Journal poll found that Dole had a 2-to-1 advantage over Clinton when voters were asked which candidate was more honest, and Dole had a 30-point edge when voters were asked which candidate has higher ethical and moral values. Dole led handily as well when voters were asked which candidate stuck by his beliefs. Yet voters believed by 46 percent to 39 percent that Dole is a bigger risk.
“Clinton wins the warm and personal elements. Dole wins the professional elements,” said Democratic pollster Peter Hart. “I think Dole has elements that people respect, but he is having trouble turning that into votes.”
JOHN KING AP Political Writer. (September 29, 1996, Sunday,). BORED VOTERS VIEW ELECTION AS ‘EVIL OF TWO LESSERS’. South Bend Tribune (Indiana). Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.uwec.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:3V5K-84B0-00JN-X0Y0-00000-00&context=1516831.
1992
On The Day the People Speak Their Piece
Child psychologist John Sikorski and his wife, Susan Mitchell, voted in a mausoleum, the San Francisco Columbarium, a domed building that shelves the cremated remains of 15,000 people in urns and boxes.
“This,” said Sikorski, “is an appropriate place for this election.”
He chose Clinton, “lesser of three evils.”
“I love voting here,” his wife said.
Cheryl Morris, 34, a lifelong Republican, went to the polls in Jacksonville, Fla., intending to vote for Perot. There she changed her mind; what if Clinton were to win?
She would have stuck to her guns if Perot had had a chance, “but I didn’t want to throw my vote away,” she said.
As for Clinton: “A snake in the grass,” said this Bush voter.
Perot didn’t get a vote from Don Moser, either. He’s a professor at the University of Pittsburgh who went for Clinton, but appreciated Perot. Perot forced the others to talk about issues they otherwise would duck, especially the deficit, he said. “He added to the process.”
The breeze wrapped the American and Texas flags around the flagpole at the J.W. Ray Elementary School, polling place for Precinct 3542 in a poor, largely black neighborhood in Dallas.
Clyde Counter, 75, a native of Oklahoma, voted there, for Clinton. He said he has voted in every election since he was able. “I haven’t missed, haven’t missed,” he said.
Iraq and Iran-Contra turned him against Bush, who “pumped Saddam up” and who must have known more than he admits about arms-for-hostages. “He was the vice president and the vice president knows what the president knows,” he said.
In Harpers Ferry, a pregnant voter, Deborah Warshaw, stood beside her husband, John Stokes. She voted for Clinton because of two issues – abortion and the environment.
“I don’t care if we’re poor,” she said. “But I do care about what happens to the environment around us.”
Poor? She’s a freelance architect with a graduate degree from the University of Virginia. Her husband works for an outfit that maintains the Appalachian Trail here.
“No,” she took it back. “Not poor. But low down in the middle class. We can buy food and pay off our student loans and pay for health insurance. Can’t buy a house. Can’t buy a car. Can’t buy furniture. I guess we’re not poor. I don’t know anything about economics. I know about the environment. I don’t want it ruined.“
(November 3, 1992, Tuesday, AM cycle). On The Day the People Speak Their Piece. The Associated Press. Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.uwec.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:3SJF-2YH0-005H-01BX-00000-00&context=1516831.
Blacks can’t let Clinton take votes for granted
Remember Rutherford B. Hayes?
Back in 1876, he was the Republican presidential candidate at a time when black voters clung to the GOP in much the same way we now blindly support Democrats. Hayes was a candidate of change.
During his campaign, he publicly promised to move the party away from its liberal roots while assuring black voters – the party’s most loyal constituency – that he’d protect their interests in the process.
Hayes was aided in his campaign by black politicians who put their loyalty to the Republican Party ahead of the interests of their people. They chose what for them was the lesser of two evils: a Republican moderate over Democrat Samuel Tildon, the candidate of the party that then stridently opposed civil rights.
Once in the White House, Hayes turned his back on blacks in favor of the white voters his campaign brought into the Republican fold, while virtually all of the political, social and economic gains made by blacks following the Civil War were wiped out.
Can it happen again? You’re damn right it can.
With the presidential election just a week away, black voters cling to Bill Clinton like barnacles to a ship. He, too, is a candidate of change.
What Clinton promises is to move the Democratic party away from its liberal roots. He actively courts the support of white voters who have been offended by the party’s embrace of civil rights, while assuring black voters that he’ll safeguard our interests.
And just as in 1876, black politicians justify their support of Clinton by saying he’s the lesser of two evils. But for me that’s not good enough.
With Clinton’s lead in the polls shrinking, now is the time for black leaders to find the courage to lead. They should go to the Arkansas governor and demand – that’s right, demand – that he publicly state his position on issues of importance to African-Americans.
They should say, ”Governor, it’s not enough that you say you want to put America back to work. We want to know specifically what you plan to do to reduce black unemployment, which for the past 40 years has been double that of whites?”
They should ask him what he plans to do, specifically, to reduce school dropout rates among blacks and Hispanics, and to increase standardized test scores among these two groups? What will he do about the discriminatory practices among mortgage lenders that exclude many black families from home ownership; or of banks which deny business loans to black entrepreneurs?
Bill Clinton says he supports affirmative action but not quotas. That’s like saying he favors sex but not intercourse. One doesn’t work very well without the other. The black leaders who now blindly back Clinton know this.
A few years ago, when a Republican-dominated Supreme Court ruled that the use of quotas by the city of Richmond, Va., in an affirmative action program designed to increase the number of minority-owned businesses getting local government contracts was unconstitutional, black leaders cried foul.
But when Clinton accepts affirmative action and rejects quotas – as the Supreme Court did – black leaders simply talk about the need for black voters to be pragmatic in order to put a Democrat in the White House.
But how do blacks gain by allowing Clinton to duck and dodge on the issues of importance to us, while he campaigns to win the votes of white-flight Democrats (those who stopped voting for Democratic presidential candidates after the party embraced the civil rights movement)?
Sure, re-electing Bush would be a national disaster, and giving Perot the keys to the Oval Office is tantamount to playing Russian Roulette with three bullets instead of one, but that’s no reason for black voters to give Clinton a free ride.
The lesson of history is clear.
If we allow our interests to be disengaged from this presidential campaign; if we permit our party’s candidate to run for the White House by running away from us, we court an even greater disaster than would result from the election of one of his opponents.
”Power,” Frederick Douglass once said, ”concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will.”
The time has come for black leaders to demand much of Bill Clinton.
DeWayne Wickham. (October 26, 1992, Monday, FINAL EDITION). Blacks can’t let Clinton take votes for granted. USA TODAY. Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.uwec.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:3SKM-YGX0-005H-J3PH-00000-00&context=1516831.
Swing Voters Unsure of Clinton
While Clinton has tried to provide that inspiration to voters, most of whom had never heard of him before last winter, Bush has been working overtime trying to plant doubts about the governor. He has called into question Clinton’s character, experience and mettle and framed the campaign around the issue of trust.
But if there is any prevailing mood in these centuries-old towns of southwestem Ohio, where more students attend parochial than public schools and where American flags are as common as pansies in front yards, it’s a lack of enthusiasm for, and a lack of trust in, either of the candidates.
There are no bumper stickers, no signs, no campaign buttons or T-shirts. If you had a nickel for every person who said they were voting for “the lesser of two evils,” you probably could buy the Cincinnati Bengals football team.
One recent national poll showed 35 percent of the vote firmly committed to Clinton, 30 percent solidly behind Bush, and 35 percent either tilting one way or undecided.
Republican poll-taker Ed Goeas thinks that with the economy in such a shambles, the only reason Clinton’s lead isn’t even greater among committed voters is that “he’s still largely undefined.”
And indeed, voters like Dave Carrell, a law enforcement officer in the northern Kentucky town of Covington, speak of “taking a chance” on Clinton.
“I’m at a loss,” says the former Bush supporter. “Do I go for change even though I’m not sure Clinton’s the man, or do I go with what I know and let things be?”
(September 13, 1992, Sunday, City Edition). Swing voters unsure of Clinton. St. Petersburg Times (Florida). Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-com.proxy.uwec.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:3SJB-0HT0-000R-D1JN-00000-00&context=1516831.
Note the concerns from those making concessions and voting for the Democrat. In almost 30 years, they remain unaddressed in any meaningful way by the Democratic party, despite the concessions of unsatisfied voters. Every single time, the party has failed to meet the promises of “next year.” Every year is a concession to a party that is disinterested in meaningful change.
CLAYTON CAVANAUGH 