With the presidential election drawing near, both sides are dug deeply in their respective ideological trenches, and liberals are breaking out the same old rationalizations and fallacious reasoning from past elections in support of their candidate, Barack Obama. Although it's unlikely most, if any, voters from either camp will change their minds at this point, it's worthwhile, for the benefit of those few genuine truth seekers, to examine these arguments and analyze their content.

Argument #1: The “Lesser of two evils” argument

This argument goes something like this: Barack Obama, though imperfect, is a far preferable choice to his republican counterpart, Mitt Romney. Obama, they say, is the “lesser of two evils”, and in an imperfect world, he is the better choice than Romney.

The first problem with this line of reasoning is that it falls prey to the logical fallacy called a “false dichotomy” or “false dilemma”. It presents only two acceptable choices when, in reality, there are more than 15 candidates running for the office of President, and many more that are officially eligible in at least one state. Also, voters are also free to write in a candidate of their choosing, which expands the choices even further.

Second, it's not a given that Obama really is the lesser of two evils: certainly not on all of the issues. For example, Obama, despite gathering huge support from the anti-war contingent, has actually spent more money on the military than his hawkish republican predecessor, George W. Bush. In addition, Obama has been engaging in numerous illegal wars, resulting in the deaths of thousands, including innocent women and children in Pakistan who just happened to get in the way of Obama's drone's. And when it comes to civil liberties, a case can be made that Obama has done more damage in that area (the NDAA is one glaring example) than any republican president could have done.

Finally, even if there was universal agreement that Obama truly is the “lesser of two evils”, it still does not follow that we should vote for him. In fact, it can be argued rather persuasively that voting for the lesser of two evils has a lot to do with why our current system is in its current pitiful state. The political spectrum, over the last thirty years, has moved dramatically to the right, in large part because the democrats keep moving along with it. What motivation do the democrats have to stand up for progressive issues when they know that liberal voters, come hell or high water, are going to keep voting for them, despite their obvious betrayals on those issues for decades.

In addition, they fail to acknowledge that democrats are just as caught up in the corruption of big money politics in which candidates from both sides of the aisle are auctioned off to corporate interests. In reality, liberal voters are acting as enablers of a corrupt system by continuing to support democrats who are beholden to their corporate sponsors and not their constituents.

Argument #2: The pragmatic argument

When asked why they don't support more progressive third party candidates, like Rocky Anderson or Jill Stein for example, liberals typically respond that third party candidates simply don't have a chance to win. Obama, therefore, is painted as the choice of pragmatists, and those who vote for third party candidates are dismissed as pie-in-the-sky idealists.

But the reason these candidates don't gain any traction is because liberals don't vote for them! How is a third party candidate ever going to have a chance to oust the two corporate party representatives if the people who claim to uphold these values and principles don't actually act on them?

The problem here is that the liberal herd has been paralyzed into inaction, always looking to the other members of the herd for guidance, and they continue to behave in ways that further entrench the very corruption they say they are against. Rather than basing their vote on who they think is going to win, or by voting against a candidate rather than for one, liberals need to exhibit leadership by voting with their conscience instead of their fear. Real leaders, after all, don't stand around and look to the herd for guidance; they lead by example and act upon their values, not because they're placing bets on who will or will not win, but because leaders are guided by their principles above all else. Where are the leaders among the ranks of liberal voters?

Argument #3: A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the republicans

This is perhaps the most absurd argument of all, but since it is so commonplace, it is worth discussing. First of all, this argument contains one giant false assumption: that progressive and liberal voters owe their allegiance to the democratic party. They don't. Politicians need to earn the votes of their constituents, and I have no obligation whatsoever to vote for any politician, let alone one that has so blatantly betrayed the values for which I stand. And to elaborate on the point raised above, voting for candidates who don't actually represent our stated values actually does more harm than good. They send a signal loud and clear to the democrats that no matter what they do, however badly they betray the voters who put them in office, liberals will continue to vote for them anyway.

Ralph Nader, for example, whose ideals and positions most closely resemble the ones liberal voters claim to support, was demonized by those very liberals when Al Gore failed to win the 2000 election. Despite the mathematical and philosophical absurdities behind this argument, liberals continued to blame Nader for Gore's loss, as if Nader voters somehow were somehow under contract to vote for the democratic candidate, even though a significant number of those votes would have gone to other candidates instead.

Finally, this argument simply defies even the most basic logic. Somehow, say liberals, a vote for Gary Johnson is not a vote for Gary Johnson. Huh? If I vote for Gary Johnson, then my intent is to vote for Gary Johnson, and that vote is counted for Gary Johnson, not Mitt Romney. Using this logic, is a vote for Roseanne Barr a vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? It's all very confusing.

The bottom line is that by voting for a candidate who supports the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process, who outspends perhaps the most hawkish administration in US history on the military, who appoints Monsanto shills to key positions in the Department of Agriculture, who betrays environmentalists on countless issues, and who continues to erode our most basic civil liberties, you are contributing to those very problems. Repeatedly supporting politicians with a proven track record of working against your own stated values, and continuing to expect different results, is what Obama supporters call “progress”. I call it “insanity”.