Reformism has indulged in an obsessive antagonism towards a choice between 'lesser evils' and so avoids the political task of identifying a better choice. Indeed, given the absence of human perfectability we embrace all lesser evils. No reasonable theory of justice could function without relying on choices between greater and lesser evils, and social justice cannot be obtained without similar exercises in choice. Given that human opinion is rarely congruent across broad populations, effective democratic politics concern choices in the direction of least disagreement. The designation 'lesser evil' has become a term of contempt through which to castigate the democratic necessity of viable candidates and electoral compromise.
Elitism establishes itself on such a putative ability to rise above mundane choices.
The concept of a moral elect has an old and ugly presence in Euro-American history, tracing its descent from origins in both Puritan and Catholic moral hierarchies. Nader, with a record of over three decades of social activism, rose to symbolize a claim of moral entitlement. It is precisely this trap of a moral claim that secular progressivism has rejected for so long, and here the American left fell for the same language of decent virtue which the various American right-wings have adopted for so long. Flexibility and contingency disappear. Each sought to rescue National Virtue enchained, one for the right arm and one for the left.