>[!summary] Summary >- Finlayson critiques the "lesser evil" (LE) argument in politics, arguing that short term gains made by lesser evil voting are outweighed by a gradual rightward political shift and long-term greater evil. >- She also claims LEism often flattens the dimensions of evil, placing them on a simplified linear scale. >- Lastly, Finlayson argues UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer could be seen as more harmful that Conservatives in some respects. ### Introduction - The article critiques the “lesser evilism” (LEism) argument in politics, particularly in the context of the UK general election and the Labour Party under Keir Starmer. - Keir Starmer is a prominent British politician who currently serves as the leader of the Labour Party and UK Prime Minister as of July 2024. Born on September 2, 1962, he has had a distinguished career both in law and politics. - Starmer’s politics are described as uninspiring, fueled by petty authoritarianism, 'fiscal discipline', and alignment with the White House. ### 1. The Lesser Evil Argument - The lesser evil (LE) argument suggests that choosing the least bad option is logical and moral. - Critics of the LE argument are often labeled as immature or privileged. - Electoralism distracts us from other effective means of change and politics. ### 2. The Limits of Voting - Some argue that voting doesn’t really matter because it doesn’t lead to significant change. This is often criticized as immature or nihilistic, but it isn’t necessarily either. - There are many other ways to create social change beyond voting, and sometimes voting might not be effective. - While liberal democracy may seem ineffective, the outcomes of elections often still matter, sometimes even life and death, especially for the most vulnerable. ### 3. Criticizing the Lesser Evil Argument - Criticizing the LE argument by saying we should focus on bigger issues doesn’t directly address the argument itself; it says only that we should be talking more about other things. - The LE-ist responds by saying you still need to vote for the least harmful candidate. - It’s curious: In 2017 and 2019, there was no widespread call to support Labour under Corbyn to avoid the "greater evil" of the Conservatives. In fact, many thought Corbyn needed to be stopped. ### 4. Lesser Evilism is Practical - It’s often practical to choose the least bad option when faced with multiple undesirable choices. - Questioning the LE argument isn't about saying it's always wrong. ### 5. Flaws in the Lesser Evil Argument - The LE argument is a crude consequentialism. - Most people aren’t crude consequentialist though; other things matter. - There comes a point where choosing the LE feels unacceptable. >But lesser evilism is not the watertight construction of common sense that it purports to be. In fact, it’s full of holes. For one, the argument as it is usually voiced is crudely consequentialist: you must do whatever can be expected to produce the best (or least bad) consequences. ### 6. Teaching a Lesson, Instead of Voting LE - LEism often focuses on the immediate outcome of which party is in power. This view is too narrow, as voting has broader implications beyond just who wins. - A vote can signal approval of a party’s actions or highlight important issues to those in power. - "Teaching a lesson" to a party might bring more positive change than choosing the LE. - Tony Blair’s re-election in 2005 suggested that, despite public opposition to the Iraq War, people would still vote for him. ### 7. LE Voting Encourages Rightward Shift Long Term - LE voting works short term but longterm leads to a rightward shift. >The problem with a politics of the lesser evil is that it entrenches an incentive structure which rewards politicians for warmongering, privatizations and corruption, placing no limits on the depths to which they can sink, thereby facilitating a ‘great moving right show’. ### 8. Rightward Shifting Political Spectrum - For example, British Conservative policies now resemble those of the far-right National Front in the 1970s, while Labour has shifted rightward. >Far from being a hypothetical scenario, this picture matches recent British political history with uncanny precision: the policies of the far-right National Front in the 1970s—like stopping immigration, rejecting the common market and scrapping overseas aid—are more or less indistinguishable from the current platform of the Conservative Party; the Labour Party, in turn, is now more or less indistinguishable from the Tories. - The paradox of LE voting: you end up with a greater evil in the end. >The paradox of the lesser evil, then, is that by always choosing the lesser evil you can end up with a greater one. ### 9. The Incomparability of Evil - LE voting incorrectly assumes that evils can be measured on a single linear scale, which oversimplifies the complexity of political choices. - Parties can be bad in different ways, making it difficult to compare them directly. - Insipid vs brazen evil, competent vs incompetent malevolence, etc. ### 10. Weak Case for Starmer's LE - Starmer has abandoned several progressive policies, making the case for LEism weak. ### 11. Starmer's Positions Undermine LE Claim - Starmer has taken positions that undermine the LE argument: - Supported siege on Gaza - Prevented Labour MPs from supporting a Scottish Nationalist motion - Supports bombing campaigns in Yemen - Promised to speed up deportations and off-shore asylum seekers - Committed to strict fiscal rules - etc... ### 12. Starmer Could be a Greater Evil - There's grounds to think Starmer could be the greater evil, proving allegiance to Washington and possibly dragging the world to war. ![[Lorna Finlayson, On Lesser Evilism, NLR 145, January February 2024.pdf]]