Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 7 Share on Twitter 1 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds    H1'ed 10/30/16

The Lesser of Two Evils: why Noam Chomsky is wrong in advocating this principle in the 2016 US Presidential Election

By       (Page 5 of 7 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.
(# of views)   13 comments
Author 57353
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Mark John Maguire
Become a Fan
  (17 fans)

4) "The suffering which those and other similarly extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalised and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a Clinton Presidency."

The reverse could (and is) argued and this therefore is no more than personal opinion. In the absence of a discussion of Clinton's political direction (war being of especial concern to many of her detractors on the left) there is little or nothing to support the justifiability of this statement. Furthermore, if we are minded to accept Chomsky's own ethical basis concerning the notion of consequences, we may point to the longer term risks of accepting LEV: that of perpetuating a system which ultimately may do more substantive damage than a short term adverse Presidency. However, we should not accept this as an argument either, if we are to be scrupulous in our consistency, because both are wrong.

5) "4) should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a vote is potentially consequential ie. in a "swing State." In view of the previous statements' being wrong and improperly advanced it is impossible to accept this which is directly consequent on the former. It assumes that 1)-4) are sound, which they are not.

6) "The left should recognise that should Trump win based on its failure to support lacks concern."

This simply does not follow: it may be argued that it shows political opportunism rather than sound principle. It is more of an election slogan and the argument of the political bully: eg. Brexit:"Vote to stay in EU or we will all be poor and ruined." Hitler: "Vote for Nazis or we will be taken over by Communists." Neither are sound or logical arguments, but rather arguments designed to persuade. "Do this or else this" is a variety of logical fallacy of the veiled threat, ad baculum variety.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7


Valuable 2   Must Read 1   Interesting 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Mark John Maguire Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram Page

I was educated at the University of Manchester, Swansea University and the Polytechnic of Wales, where I studied History, Philosophy and Intellectual and Art History (MA). I have lived and worked in Ireland, Germany and Holland and the UK as a (more...)

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Tony Blair, War Crimes and the Plot to Remove Jeremy Corbyn

Obama v Hitler: a shocking depiction and a shocking truth

Je Suis NOT Charlie

Who Leaked the Panama Papers?

The risks of pursuing Julian Assange

The Lesser of Two Evils: why Noam Chomsky is wrong in advocating this principle in the 2016 US Presidential Election

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: