Are good people sometimes obligated to "support the lesser of two evils"?

 

Why or why not?

 

As a constitutional conservative, I believe telling people to support McCain/Romney over Obama only hurts our cause. I couldn't re-frame the language any better, so I copy and pasted an argument against supporting the lesser of two evils, below:

 

Is Barack Obama really so much worse than John McCain? I see nothing in John McCain to suggest it. On every major issue, John McCain is with Barack Obama. Both are utterly pro-war. Both staunchly backed the massive bailouts. Both vote routinely for expanding government. Both demonstrate utter disregard for privacy, for property, and for individual liberty.

 

Indeed, the major difference between Obama and McCain is not their policies, but their party affiliation and the public's reaction to them.

 

And that is why, one could argue, John McCain had to lose.

 

If McCain had won, there would have been no rejection of neo-conservatism, no repudiation of the Bush years and the immense harm he inflicted on our country and around the world. The Republican Party and the Republican politicians would see that they could get away with everything.

 

There would have been no tea parties. Where were all the principled conservatives during the Bush years, when he doubled the size of government, passed a prescription drug bill that increased the obligations of Medicare by $8 trillion, and signed the tyrannical PATRIOT Act?

 

Like a forest fire rejuvenating the soil for future growth, or like a recession to correct market distortions for future prosperity, a down-and-out Republican party is one that is ready to listen to us and learn what must change for them to bounce back. They aren't shrugging us off anymore, and that's a positive change.

 

Really, which do you prefer: an out-and-out socialist like Obama, or a crypto-socialist like George W. Bush?

 

Yes, the coming years are going to be rough under Obama. They would have been rough anyway. But being in the minority is sometimes a good thing. This is the best climate for political organizing for liberty in the last decade. This is a fertile climate for developing resources and building our movement.

 

What, then, is left to say of the "lesser of two evils" argument? Rothfeld calls it "the biggest lie in politics." Politicians use it to keep the base in line when they betray them. Parties use it to keep the herd from leaving the ranch. But sadly, it is an appealing argument, and many well-meaning and political activists will accept it, without realizing how embracing it actually sets the cause back.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/2442534/posts

Edited February 10, 201412 yr by Know It All

I reject the notion that either Barak Obama or John McCain is evil. They each have political positions I support and positions I oppose. That doesn't make them evil. The real evil in our civic life is the notion that somehow anyone that doesn't agree with me is evil and intent on destoying the country.

If you do not vote, you fail as an American citizen. It is your duty to vote for who you feel is the best candidate.

I reject the notion that either Barak Obama or John McCain is evil. They each have political positions I support and positions I oppose. That doesn't make them evil. The real evil in our civic life is the notion that somehow anyone that doesn't agree with me is evil and intent on destoying the country.

 

Not evil in a literal sense. . .

"What, then, is left to say of the "lesser of two evils" argument? Rothfeld calls it "the biggest lie in politics." Politicians use it to keep the base in line when they betray them. Parties use it to keep the herd from leaving the ranch. But sadly, it is an appealing argument, and many well-meaning and political activists will accept it, without realizing how embracing it actually sets the cause back. "

 

Nailed it.

 

This is the price of the monopolized two party system.

 

It has infected the voting mindset, the process and even the media. It seems all designed to create false drama to create classic antagonistic story-lines. This creates the illusion of debate and choices.

Not at all.

 

First election I could vote, I voted for President Bush, and while I don't regret that vote, I didn't necessarily feel good about it.

 

The past two I've cast votes for Bob Barr and Gary Johnson. Still feel very fulfilled and satisfied with those votes.

If you do not vote, you fail as an American citizen. It is your duty to vote for who you feel is the best candidate.

 

I think it depends. If you're a person who constantly complains about the way things are, I agree. I know quite a few people that are completely apathetic about politics and seriously never give any of it a thought. I'd rather those people not vote.

If you do not vote, you fail as an American citizen. It is your duty to vote for who you feel is the best candidate.

 

Completely disagree. If there are 2 choices and neither is what I want I'm suppose to just pick one? In my mind a vote for neither is still a vote.

Completely disagree. If there are 2 choices and neither is what I want I'm suppose to just pick one? In my mind a vote for neither is still a vote.

 

I don't disagree, however there are never simply 2 choices.

I don't disagree, however there are never simply 2 choices.

 

Sometimes there's only one choice.

I don't believe that I have an obligation to vote. I hate when people say, "How many died for you to have the right to vote." No, they died in attempt ensure that our country remained free of tyranny. Part of that is the guarantee of certain personal liberties. The right to choose to vote falls into that category. Not the right to vote. It is the ability to choose, or not choose to do it, that is sacred. I didn't like Obama, and the Republican party was never going to nominate my choice in Ron Paul. Therefore, I didn't feel comfortable selecting either Obama or Romney to represent me.

Preaching to the choir.

 

If you truly believe that the two major-party choices in an election are terribly objectionable, grow a set and vote for someone else.

I am, I do, I will

I don't disagree, however there are never simply 2 choices.

 

With the presidential election I agree but that isn't always the case with state or local elections. As Getslow stated, sometimes there is only 1 choice.

Sometimes there's only one choice.

 

Not true. You can almost always cast a write-in vote.