Radicals and the Lesser Evil

by Dr. Ed Berry

EXB150This series has one goal: To awaken rightwing radicals to their error in rejecting “lesser of evils” Republican candidates when these candidates are the greater good.

In Part 1, Logic of the Lesser Evil, we showed the Evil Mantra, “A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil”, is logically invalid.

In Part 2, Religion of the Lesser Evil, we showed how the Voting Mantra conflicts with advice of all major Christian religions. These religions advise us to vote to achieve the most possible good rather than to punish a “lesser evil”. True religions teach us to focus on positives and to strive for the greater good. We achieve more in life if we view the glass as half full rather than half empty.

But false religions preach negatives and they control the radical votes. You may wonder why I refer to religion in a political article. It’s because religion, good versus bad, true versus false, controls the vote in America. Read on.

David Horowitz, “Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model” tells how Alinsky progressives are the greatest danger we face in America.

Dinesh D’Souza “America: Imagine a World without Her” describes Obama’s plans for America. (Find these books in “Top Recommendations” on bookfall.com.)

Horowitz notes,

Alinsky is the Sun-Tzu for today’s radicals, his book a manual for their political war.

Alinsky begins his text by telling readers exactly what a radical is. He is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer.

The most basic principle of Alinsky’s advice to radicals is to lie to their opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates and liberals.

The current economic meltdown, coupled with the well-laid foundation of socialist radicals throughout this Country, now threaten to bring America closer than we’ve ever been to joining the international collective.  And Barack Obama has demonstrated that he will do anything — anything — it takes to be The One to close their long-envisioned revolutionary deal.

The problem with getting conservative unity

Conservatives talk about bringing together the conservative factions as if it were as simple as a town-hall meeting to elect a dog catcher. We cannot solve this problem until we understand it. The problem is fundamentally different religious beliefs.

Horowitz notes:

In my experience conservatives are generally too decent and too civilized to match up adequately with their radical adversaries, at least in the initial stages of the battle. They are too prone to give them the benefit of the doubt, to believe there is goodness and good sense in them which will outweigh their determination to change the world. Radicals talk of justice and democracy and equality. They can’t really want to destroy a society that is democratic and liberal, and more equal than others, and that has brought wealth and prosperity to so many people. Oh yes they can.

The radical rightwing leadership includes people who will not compromise any more than Obama will compromise. These leaders preach a negative attitude toward conservative politics. They propagate fundamental logical errors and religious errors that have infected the minds of radical conservatives, especially tea party conservatives.

Their fundamental, self-destructive, false Mantras are:

  • The Evil Mantra: “A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
  • The Moron Mantra: “There’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats.”
  • The Suicide Mantra: “People will never wake up until it gets much worse.”

The radical rightwing leadership has trained their flock to believe in these three Mantras as if they were religious teachings from God.

Making false beliefs a part of a false religion is a powerful way to achieve political goals. Both the radical left and the radical right use this method.

For example, to promote the belief in human-caused climate change, progressives wrap themselves in the environmental agenda, that originally was good until it became a place to promote false science for political gain. Now that they are in power, they indoctrinate us with their climate-change religion in presidential proclamations and in our schools and universities.

Climate change is now a government required religion in violation of our First Amendment. But that does not matter to progressives because they believe the end justifies the means. They believe they must lie if it helps them achieve their political goal.

Once, through clever brainwashing, one accepts false science as a core religious belief, the mental damage done by rejecting truth makes it almost impossible to reason. As Walter Cunningham said of climate change believers,

“You can’t reason these people out of their belief in climate change because it was not reason that got them there in the first place.”

Similarly, it is difficult to convince radical voters that their Mantras are wrong when they have accepted the Mantras into their core religious belief.

The Lesser Evil Voting Mantra in America

The Communist-run Progressive Party has taken over the present Democratic Party. For the first time in American history, our country is run by radicals. Not just ordinary emotional, ineffective radicals but Alinsky-trained, focused radicals. We call them progressives.

David Horowitz wrote:

My parents, who were card-carrying Communists, never referred to themselves as Communists but always as “progressives.” The Progressive Party was run by the Communist Party and split off from the Democrats in 1948 (because Harry Truman opposed Stalin), but rejoined the Democrats in the McGovern campaign of 1972 and with the ascension of Barack Obama has become the Democratic Party.

In 1968, the progressives were activated by their extreme disapproval of the US government’s support of the Vietnam War.

The progressives used the Voting Mantra, “A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil” in their attempts to gain control of the political system.

In 1980, progressives abandoned Jimmy Carter because he “was not good enough for them” and this abandonment helped Ronald Reagan decisively beat Carter.

In 2000, progressives gave some 3 million votes, or 2.7%, to Ralph Nader, United States Green Party candidate, and thereby elected George W. Bush as president. Had Nader’s Green Party votes gone to Gore, Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000.

Progressives finally realized, with a little help from Alinsky, that their Voting Mantra not only failed to achieve their goals but also empowered their enemy.

Sanford Jay Rosen spoke for progressives (whom he erroneously calls “liberals”) on September 27, 2012, in the Huffington Post:

Beginning with the 1968 presidential election, I often have heard from liberals that they could not vote for the lesser of two evils. Some said they would not vote; some said they would vote for a third party candidate. That mantra delivered us to Richard Nixon in 1972 until Watergate did him in. And it delivered us to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in 2000 until they were termed out in 2009.

Repeating the lessons of Saul Alinsky, Rosen warned progressives that their best interests are served by voting for Obama:

The complainers declare they will vote for a third party candidate or simply not vote in 2012 presidential election. They often point to the Obama Administration’s national security activities as a reason to vote against the President. Some of them even declare that Romney will be better for civil rights and civil liberties than President Obama. Really? I say to my friends who take this position, “Be very careful what you wish for.”

Some of those who say they will not vote for President Obama take comfort in the belief that because they vote in solidly red or blue states, it will not matter. Nonsense! These threats and complaints are like a virus spreading through the liberal community. Like all viruses, it will not stop at the borders of solidly red and blue states, but will deny the President votes in swing states and could threaten his reelection; this could result in turning the federal government over to the Tea Party fringe.

We have seen it all before and would be fools to let it happen again. I hope that some of my unapologetic reasons for voting for President Obama, and a reminder of other presidential elections, can serve as an antiviral that keeps some liberals from turning their backs on the President.

I too am not happy with everything President Obama is doing. But I have never been happy with everything that my winning presidential candidates have done, and long ago figured out that I never will.

Rosen offered his advice to leftists who might not vote for Obama because he was, in their eyes, the “lesser of two evils”. Rosen said they cannot expect to accomplish all their leftist goals in any one person but Obama would help their cause by his appointments to the Supreme Court, federal courts, and the federal bureaucracy:

Withholding votes from President Obama will not advance civil rights. Withholding votes from President Obama would have consequences similar to what happened in the 2000 elections in which votes were withheld from Gore especially in Florida and possibly in Ohio. Just as we still are living with the impact of the Gore and Kerry defeats, for the rest of our lives we would be living with the impact of an Obama defeat on the composition of the Supreme Court and federal judiciary, as well as the federal bureaucracy, guaranteeing adversity for the issues about which we care. And surely Romney appointments to the Supreme Court would guarantee perpetuation of Citizens United.

I know where President Obama stands on many issues. I stand with him on most, and apart from him on some. He is not merely the lesser of two evils. I will vote for him gladly and am doing everything in my power to get him re-elected. In his second administration, I will stand with him when I should and I will oppose him when I should.

Lesson for Tea Party voters

After their loss in 2000, progressives finally learned the hard way that voting according to the “lesser of two evils” mantra caused the election of their worst enemies and a loss of their power.

Progressives got their act together in 2008 and 2012, while tea party voters remained derailed in their voting tactics.

Tea party voters do not realize their precious Voting Mantra came not from intellectual or religious sources (as we discussed in Parts 1 and 2) but from the failures of the progressives.

There are two more Mantras the progressives bestowed on unthinking tea party voters.

In 2000, Ralph Nader dubbed the difference between Gore and Bush as “Tweedle-Dum” and “Tweedle-Dee”. This is the Moron Mantra now phrased as:

 “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats”.

Finally, there is the Suicide Mantra directly imported from the progressives:

“People will never wake up until it gets much worse.”

There are tea party voters who rationalize their Libertarian votes by claiming “they must make things worse before they can get better”. Excuse me, but this is like saying that to get a touchdown and win, we must force our football team to begin the game with the ball on their 5-yard line. Or like saying in order to win a Monopoly game, we should first give our opponent all the hotels.

Tea party voters have told me:

Sometimes, to get to our goal with a stubborn subject we have to get worse before it gets better. Sometimes a person or culture needs disciplined before it will wake-up and turn to what is right.

Sometimes you have to let a wayward son go and allow Satan to buffet him before he will turn and go the right way. This is a Biblical principle.

Tea Party voters also say:

I’ll start supporting Republicans when they stop playing Democrat lite.

This statement comes directly from this progressive statement:

I’ll start supporting Democrats when they stop playing Republican lite.

Saul Alinsky’s main lesson 

According to David Horowitz, Saul Alinsky’s main lesson to progressives was they must stop focusing on all their political problems and instead focus on winning elections. Only by winning elections will they ever have the power to change America into their image. And to win elections, they must give up their false Mantras.

Mantra voting is “hate voting.”

“Hate voting” is rejecting a “lesser of evils” candidate because we feel that candidate has betrayed us by not agreeing with one or more of our political desires.

Some “hate voters” justify their positions by claiming they are obeying God’s commands and quoting from the Bible. Wisdom suggests, however, we follow the Biblical and philosophical views on voting as agreed upon by the major religions.

Progressives used “hate voting” from the 1960’s until in 2000 they finally realized “hate voting” not only does not achieve their objectives but also empowers their opposition. Rightwing “hate voters” have not yet learned this lesson.

Rightwing “hate voting” combined with progressive “smart voting” in 2008 and 2012 caused the loss of personal wealth in America by losing Republican positions in the US Senate and the presidency.

Rightwing “hate voters” elected Obama, an Alinsky professional, as our president and put Hillary, the other Alinsky professional, in standby to continue the progressive change of America until 2024.

Obama appointed 2 activist leftist judges to our Supreme Court, which now pits 5 conservative votes (appointed by Republican presidents) against 4 progressive votes (appointed by Democratic presidents). One more Obama appointment will change America. That is only one cost of radical rightwing “hate voting.”

The danger we face in America is so great, yet so hidden from the voters, that radical tea party and Libertarian voters can no longer afford to play their “hate vote” political game, but they do not understand this.

How to convert rightwing radicals to conservative voters

The only way to convert radicals to Republican voters is use Saul Alinsky’s advice to progressives. Today’s rightwing radicals are the political mirror image of the 1960 to 2000 progressives. Other than their political positions, their thinking and behavior is similar.

Rightwing radicals, like the early progressives, are political activists but they have not learned how to achieve their own political goals. Alinsky taught progressives to win their political battles by attacking conservative beliefs and conservative leaders.

Not fair? Alinsky was concerned only about what wins, not about what is fair. Horowitz writes Alinsky taught progressives that

The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.”

In “Rules for Radicals”, Alinsky wrote:

“From the moment an organizer enters a community, he lives, dreams, eats, breathes, sleeps only one thing, and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army.”

According to David Horowitz, progressives were nihilists (until Alinsky reformed them). They would rather cut off their nose to spite a Democrat who did not meet their definition of perfection, than to win an election.

Today’s rightwing radicals are also nihilists. They would rather cut off their nose to spite a Republican who does not meet to their definition of perfection, than to win an election.

David Horowitz notes regarding radicals:

“This, in a nutshell, is why conservatives are conservative and why radicals are dangerous. Because conservatives pay attention to the consequences of actions, including their own, and radicals don’t.”

Horowitz’s radicals include rightwing radicals just as much as leftwing radicals.

Horowitz cautions that conservatives do not understand radicals because conservatives do not understand those who do not play fair.

Challenge their Mantras and their leaders.

To gain the voting strength to win elections in 2014 and beyond, conservatives must attack the rationality of the three Mantras and the allegiance and sanity of the leaders who promote the Mantras. The three Mantras are not only illogical but also evil, and their promoters are illogical and evil.

Dick Morris reveals Obama’s secret strategy in his powerful new book “Power Grab: Obama’s Dangerous Plan for a One-Party Nation.”

Mantra believers bash our two-party political system. They think they can gain their political goals by voting for third-party candidates. When Obama achieves his one-party system, these radicals will wish they had our two-party system.

Progressives originated the three Mantras but now reject them so they can win.

Progressives originated the three Mantras beginning in the 1960’s. They voted for third-party candidates. Finally, with the defeat of Al Gore when they voted for Nader in 2000, they woke up and realized Saul Alinsky was right: they can never reach their political goals until they support the Democratic Party.

Saul Alinksy told them in the 1960’s they needed to make their issues secondary and first focus on winning. They finally learned they needed to reject their three Mantras and work with the mainstream Democratic Party in order to win. It took them 40 years to understand Alinsky was right.

Unfortunately, the radical rightwing voters have not woken up to this reality. Rightwing radical voters still believe in the three Mantras that progressives originated and have now rejected. This is the reason Democrats now win and Republicans now lose.

A simple test of “tea party” conservative allegiance

In 2012, I asked Montana tea party leaders and voters a simple question concerning Denny Rehberg’s run for US Senate and Rick Hill’s run Montana Governor. In 2014, I asked this same question again concerning Ryan Zinke’s run for US Congress:

“Will you vote for Ryan Zinke for US Congress?”

More than half of the tea party leaders who responded, first took issue with my audacity to even ask them this question and then replied,

“We always vote for conservatives.”

That’s their buzz phrase for saying, “No.” It’s their cop-out because in their minds Ryan Zinke is “not a conservative”.

Their answer means they will vote according to their defunct Voting Mantra.

This attitude is still as prevalent in Montana in 2014 as it was in 2012 and it does not bode well for the 2014 elections. Here’s a recent comment on PolyMontana.com:

“I’m afraid Zinke isn’t qualified to polish my shoes either. Let’s support candidates who believe in Liberty for all not liberty for some.”

This comment shows how the radical leadership keeps their followers brainwashed. The leaders are dumbing down conservative voters and assimilating voters into their Negative BORG where they can no longer think for themselves. Clearly this commenter has no understanding of politics and no appreciation of the significant value Ryan Zinke will bring to the US Congress.

Where are Montana’s primary candidates?

Normally, Republican candidates in primary election will openly back the primary winner, understanding that the Republican winner is far closer to their political beliefs than the Democrat.

Where are the 2014 Republican primary candidates?

It’s clear that second-place Corey Stapleton’s backers now back Ryan Zinke. But what about Matt Rosendale who came in a close third place in the Montana primary?

During his campaign, Matt openly sided with the rightwing radicals who promote the three Mantras. These radicals are conservative’s enemies. Therefore, Matt’s reluctance to openly tell his followers to vote for Ryan Zinke tells the real story about Matt Rosendale. Is he really a conservative?

And where is Ken Miller, 2012 third-place candidate in the Republican governor primary? Ken openly criticized Ryan Zinke during the primary so he is not irrelevant. It’s time for Ken Miller to tell his tea party followers to support Ryan Zinke.

Conclusion

Radical rightwing leadership has trained their flock to believe these three Mantras will bring them political salvation:

  • The Evil Mantra: “A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
  • The Moron Mantra: “There’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats.”
  • The Suicide Mantra: “People will never wake up until it gets much worse.”

We showed in Logic of the Lesser Evil that the Voting Mantra is logically invalid.

We showed in Religion of the Lesser Evil that all major Christian religions reject the Voting Mantra. The Catholic Church makes it sinful.

The major Christian religions advise us to vote to achieve the most possible good rather than to punish a “lesser evil”. True religions teach us to always strive for the greater good. But false religions preach negatives and they control the radical votes.

Republican leaders must stop radical rightwing leaders from gaining a wider audience.

Conservatives can counter the illogic and conflict with Christianity teaching of radical rightwing leaders and their Mantras. The goal is to wake up the followers to realize they are being led astray by their false prophets.

Republican leaders must also call upon their candidates in the primary election to openly support Ryan Zinke for US Congress.

4 thoughts on “Radicals and the Lesser Evil”

  1. Interesting article but "it did just get worse."
    Daines shot himself in the foot with his visit to the Washington State Coal Export Port. If he wanted to talk about COAL he should have been doing it in Montana. On top of that, he chose the day when Absentee Ballots were in the mail. Political suicide.

    This is an example of political supporters putting their interests before the candidates. It kills election viability every time.

  2. Dr. Berry,
    While I agree with your general premise, I cannot embrace the whole idea of blindly following candidates and electing them just because they have won the nod from the majority of the electorate in a primary race. The hope of a change the minute they win the seat and become a paragon of sensible voting, is one I cannot fathom. You cannot hold a person accountable if they do not agree with you on basics. I concur that as the winner of a primary they should be able to expect support from the losers in the primary. By the same token, the minority voice still has a valid message and the candidate must pay at least a token heed to it or risk losing the support of those voters. To blindly insist on one hundred per cent agreement between conservatives is akin to expect the herding of cats to be successful. That is a given but to completely reject good conservative reasoning in the name of party peace is just exactly that, the herding of cats. I will not support a candidate that is completely unreasonable to the thinking of a conservative.

  3. Thanks Dr. Berry for your article. This election is extremely important. With Obama still being in office no voter should help him and that means we must vote Republican over Democrat or Libertarian. It is really that simple and watching what is happening in the world right now should make this election an easy one. America is in deep trouble.

  4. Gary: So when Republicans were taking away our civil liberties with things like the Patriot Act, increasing government, government spending and increasing the debt, we were all supposed to vote Republican? I'll vote for good candidates who actually want a smaller government, but I won't blindly support Republicans or Democrats who just want the power to control US.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.