The Lesser of What Evil?

Cornel West and the Third Party Dilemma

About a month ago I attended a talk between presidential candidate Cornel West and professor Norman Finkelstein at the Comedy Cellar in Greenwich Village. Israel was ramping up its ground offensive in Gaza and the frenzied coastal heads of peace and humanity were bobbing for some public figure to say the right thing. They were looking for representation. 

The venue was an interesting choice given its smaller size. They had to add on a second talk earlier in the day and offered a signed poster to those who were willing to move their ticket time. I obliged but ultimately skipped the poster (where would one hang that thing?). 

The talk was glitchy at best. In the first 20 minutes, a video played on stage of a split-screen virtual convo between West and Finkelstein…a video that is available on YouTube. I stayed with it a first, but as it dragged, on my dirty Hendricks martini began hitting the bloodstream and the atmosphere deflated. 

The audience was losing patience. One man yelled, “Bring them out, there’s people dying in Gaza.” I caught Finkelstein leaning against a column on the side nearly the entire time from the corner of my eye. He appeared more tired than the fervent professor I’d seen in clips passionately going on about the Holocaust and Palestine. 

The team abruptly cut the vid. It seemed they had finally read the room.

West and Finkelstein took the stage with awkwardness…both men seeming unsure of what to talk about. They touched on racism and Noam Chomsky, neoliberalism, and yes, the conflict/genocide/occupation/war/terrorism/…….. in the Middle East. 

And although I am an advocate of long-form and free-flowing conversation (as an avid podcast listener), it felt disconcertingly unfocused. But most curiously it became impossible for me to ignore the juxtaposition between West’s pronounced criticism of neoliberalism and the current: two academics using five-dollar words at a comedy spot in downtown Manhattan amongst old fashions and dirty martinis. 

Who was this for? Certainly not the poor middle of America people West is concerned about. The language that West uses isn’t for the working poor any more than the suits Trump has dry-cleaned. It’s not to say that West should dumb down his speech, but I can’t help but feel it may be his campaign’s blind spot. It’s hard to imagine the working poor of rural Missouri are watching reruns of West’s talk on the historical philosophy of W.E.B. Dubois at Dartmouth. 

And yet, West is a veritable opportunity rummaging through the American campaign fracas where, at best, one may win the presidency simply because they were the lesser of two evils—a sentiment I never could get down with. 

What can we say? The process of campaigning is simply inhuman. It is impossible to reach and connect with so many diverse people throughout the nation, even when the campaign starts a year and a half before the election. It’s a dispiriting scene to watch a candidate run from a union protest to a university speech to an employee walkout and so on. Sure, the message is solidarity and concern, but when you string them all together, it feels undeniably performative and vain. 

It must be filmed. It must be posted. It must get reshares and clicks. I wouldn’t place West on the spectrum of the two evils. But when it comes to the campaign trail, he’s slogging through the inferno. 

Not unlike Trump, West’s greatest campaign strength is his oratorship (if he could just simplify the vernacular). He knows how to be funny, and how to incite passion. He’s engaging in a way that inspires. A seasoned civil rights leader.  A rare feat amongst the two-party political ruling class. Hilary’s inspiration was purely visible. A woman. This is mostly what people talked about during the 2016 election, even though that probably wasn’t her fault. But constituent mindset wants what it wants so much so that it will form the candidate more than the candidate’s policies. One may argue that in the age of social media, the court of public opinion holds more weight than an actual court. Sure Gypsy Rose is a criminal. But is she really?

There is no clear representative of the American people. The grand experiment of such a melting pot has proven that even though they say all people have the same basic needs, it may be true that people aren’t voting with only basic needs in mind. There is no representative of the everyday American because there is no “regular” everyday American person. The meth-addled gay and the insidious careerist. The elusive Hasidic landlord and the obese rural farmer. The fertile single mother and the lone road warrior. And so even though West says that he is for the everyday working and poor person, it may be them that are not for him. 

A third-party candidate is often mocked and considered a nuisance to whatever party their few votes may detract from. The smear is nothing more than a ploy from the two political parties to reassure the foundation that supports both of them and the disposition that they are too big to fail. Gazing at their cable boxes and watching a fake rote debate, Americans are often asking “are these two people really the best we have to offer?”. No, they’re not. But when another candidate buds from the cracks of a depressed sameness that alternative candidate is shoved under the biased microscope that resents their interception. Just ask Williamson, or Nader, or Sanders, or Perot. It's antithetical to ask for something else only to then constantly deny that something else’s value. 

West certainly has value even if he doesn’t have a real shot. The campaign trail may reduce his image to that of a split screen spat in five-minute segments on divisive failing cable “news” programs, but I believe there is an integrity that remains intact nonetheless. West is willing to sit down with Candace Owens and have a civil long-form conversation where he ponders and considers points of view. After all, he is a philosopher, a theologian, a teacher. 

Where most presidential candidates avoid the uncomfortable, credit has to be given to West’s humility and curiosity. He expresses his faith whilst honoring others where there is real engagement and not lip service. Although his campaign can resemble the methodical pattern of American politics, the figurehead is alien to processed characters of political family dynasties or selfish power-hungry motives. 

As the campaign heats up and cable news shows project fake debate, the masses will once again feign a rehearsed outrage where “love thy neighbor” dissolves into a silly proverb. 

West will be ridiculed and dissected. But his constant salutation of “brother” and “sister” will not waver, so that it is maybe impossible to ignore the civility of a man that seems to practice what he preaches. Perhaps it's the year we leave evil in the spiritual realm and instead of choosing the less evil candidate, we choose the best one. 

Brennan is a writer and artist living in New York City.  @brennanvickery

Also check out Brennan’s article Shriek of the Devil from the zine here, his critique of the second Republican debate, profile of Mo’Nique, profile of George Santos the Crafty Queen, and appearance on Cracks in PoMo the pod here.

And check out Stephen’s article on the Conservative Case for Cornel West, and his interview with West in 2020.

Please consider signing up for a paid subscription to this page for more riveting content. If you’re new to Cracks in Pomo, check out the About page or read up on our Essentials. Also check out our podcast on Spotify, Apple, and YouTube and follow us on Instagram and Twitter.

MASA tortilla chips by Ancient Crunch is offering our followers 10% off their order with the promo code CRACKSINPOSTMODERNITY. Click here to redeem.

image courtesy of Getty Images by Anthony Barboza, edited using Filto