The Evil of Two Lessers
The NY Times‘ Purple State blog offers a nice video retrospective on the Ron Paul candidacy, exploring his bipartisan appeal. Watching this makes me all the more disappointed that Rep. Paul isn’t considering a third party run. I for one would love the opportunity to vote for a candidate without holding my nose, plugging my eyes, ears, and nose like Tommy in the opera by The Who--and guarding other bodily orifices against unconstitutional searches authorized by the Patriot Act.
The key line in the video is the closer, where a smart independent says, “I’m not here voting for the guy I think might win. That defeats the whole point.” Too bad more voters didn’t think so clearly. It’s a grim irony that the Republican primaries chosen a candidate who clings like a fetish to failed and futile war, and immigration policies that are unpopular even among Democrats. What makes the whole thing funnier (in a slow-motion train-wreck involving one’s own immediate family kind of way) is that McCain’s seriously considering as VP a liberal Democrat who supports partial birth abortion. For this, we have to thank those reckless “conservative” opinion-mongers who made support for the Iraq War the litmus test for right-wing orthodoxy.
If the race comes down, as it seems it will, to a choice between McCain and Obama, with no decent third-party alternative, it will be hard for millions of us to decide it’s worth the bus fare and bother to get to the polls. It will feel a lot like going to serve your jury duty during the OJ trial.
Until this year I was privileged, for every presidential election since 1988, to reside in a solidly “blue” state where my vote could not possibly make any difference to the outcome of the election. That freed me up from the need to waste my vote supporting the mediocrities squeezed out by the Republican candidate grinder. I was able to vote for the Constitution Party in 1992 and 1996, for Buchanan in 2000, and the Libertarian Party in 2004—and to feel good that my vote was going for a candidate whose views I largely supported, and wasn’t wasted on supporting the “evil of two lessers.” It didn’t even bear thinking about.
Since I now reside in New Hampshire, a red state quickly purpling like a grape infected with a fungus from Massachusetts, I no longer have the comfort of futility. And I’m really wondering what to do in November. Were Ron Paul running as a third party candidate, this choice would be a no-brainer. I could enthusiastically cast a vote for him, despite his likelihood of winning, in order to support a candidate who was resolutely pro-life, pro-peace, and pro-liberty—and whose name and visibility was sufficient that it might help build a movement in support of those three central social goods which my Christian faith demands I further. Now I doubt very much that there will be any such candidate. Barring his emergence, I’ll be faced with the choice of voting for John McCain, in the faint hope that he will move the Supreme Court a little further in the right direction—or refusing to vote, out of disgust at the wide range of other, appalling and poisonous things he is likely (or has even promised) to do.
It leaves a single-issue voter like me in a genuine quandary. If I (and millions like me) refuse to vote, or write in Ron Paul, and the Democratic nominee wins and promptly packs the Court with like-minded egalitarian feminists, are we not responsible for the loss of unborn lives and the further degradation of our Constitution—not to mention the actual, legislative policies that would be pursued by the (center-left) Clinton or the (far-left) Obama? Conversely, if we vote for McCain and he pushes forward with unjust wars, will the blood of those Iranians/Syrians/Lebanese (fill in the blank) be on our heads? Can America’s heritage of individual liberties stand four more years of Red State Fascism? At what point must we accuse ourselves of voting for the Enabling Act that repeals our fundamental rights in the vain pursuit of safety?
As Pat Buchanan admits, there are no good answers here, and have been none since we allowed that smirking, dry-drunk Bible-polisher, who never deserved to be president of a decent fraternity, to win the nomination in 2000.
Later this week, I’ll try to retrace the steps we took that led us down this rathole, and see if someone might have left a trail of breadcrumbs that might lead us home.
Comments
The best you can possibly hope for out of McCain is another O’Connor or Souter with a Democratic Senate. 7/9 of the sitting SCOTUS justices are Republican appointees. There is simply no way that Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned under a McCain administration. Even if McCain made good on his promise to appoint another Scalia or Alito, they would instantly be shot down in confirmation hearings.
Look at it this way: adults are people too. If McCain wins the general election, he will escalate the Iraq War, and a real possibility exists that he could attack Iran, Syria, or North Korea. More people will die for certain if he is President. At least Obama or Clinton will end the war.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
John, it is coming down to choosing the lesser of two
evils. We **know** that Republicans have no interest
whatsoever in ending abortion, only in promising it to
get the suckers into the voting booth. And either
HillBill and Hopemonger would know that they have a
mandate to end the war.
Ending abortion will have to come from civil society
action - and that might make common cause with
economic leftists who at least can point out that our
economic system does punish childbearing and rewards
abortion financially.
I know thata choosing the lesser of two evils is
distasteful but then, as the saying goes “Cthulhu
for President, if you are tired of choosing the lesser
of two evils”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
You’ve sold me, Adriana. I think Americans could make a stronger point not by writing in Ron Paul but “Cthulu.” Here’s one vote for the Old Ones!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
There’s a third choice other than McCain and Obama: the Congress. One paleo has suggested that a grassroots operation might have more success electing a pro-life, pro-border control, low tax and spend CONGRESSMAN. Once “our side” controls the Congress, we don’t vote money for McCain’s wars and Obama’s socialism. I admit that this chance is remote—remote because electing a Congressman isn’t as telegenic and president. It’s worth a try.
As for prolife’s chances: Except for his support for Obama (surprising for a racialist), Prozium has written something that I actually agree with.
There’s also a 4th choice, the choice of the League of the South. On “our side” it’s only the Sam-Francisians who would oppose the League’s answer.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
A pious fool with the blood of a million Iraqis on his hands, conned by an even bigger moron in the White House. Go to confession and ask God for foregiveness and mercy
Catholics need to wake up and do what the founding fathers intended in these cases and call for a Constitutional Convention. The system is broken and those who crap into their hands and make a wish and squeeze get everything they deserve.
Voting just gives them the veneer of permission. Demand a none of the above option.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I hope I’m not the pious fool above. I didn’t vote for Bush either time, and have consistently been denouncing the war since 2002!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Abortion is merely a wedge issue that Republicans use to get Americans to vote for their pro-business agenda. The same is true of gay marriage, affirmative action, illegal immigration, etc. This is so transparently obvious that it is hard to believe that the GOP is still taken seriously.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
3rd party run = Dr. Paul getting blamed for the Republicans defeat for all eternity, even though it was going to happen anyway.
If you want Dr. Paul’s legacy to be that he got Billary elected by siphoning votes from McCain, then by all means, keep pushing the 3rd party route. Even if it isn’t true, that is how it will be spun, and that is how Dr. Paul will be remembered, if it all, by Boobus Americanus.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I would rather be set on fire than vote for Juan McCain and his fellow neocons.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Why do you have to vote for someone only on the basis that their name has been typed there for you? Vote for whomever you think is best suited, even if they do fail to get a nomination by the two big parties. That’s what I’m doing. It’s what millions of Americans do every election because the Two Parties have a monopolistic strangle hold on the countries political system. If you think Dr. Paul, Kucinich, or even Micky Mouse is better suited to the Presidency then write them in (millions of Americans have write in votes for M. Mouse over the years for one reason or another).
Click to flag this comment as abusive
At this moment I am leaning towars voting Democratic
after reading the latest headline that the Air Force
is falling apart and desperately needs funding.
A Republican administration, with a Republican congress
got into war without any thought of funding it properly
How more stupid can you get?
Compared to the Republican policies of “spend money that
you don’t have” and “do not spend on what you need to
spend” the democratic mantra of “tax and spend” looks
mighty good by comparison. At least they have the sense
a) that some things have to be paid for and b) if you
are going to pay for it, make sure that you have the
money for it. Instead we have the equivalent of
running up your or credit card, and then refusing to
having your brakes fixed to save money.
Fools like that should not ***ever*** be in power.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“If I (and millions like me) refuse to vote, or write in Ron Paul, and the Democratic nominee wins and promptly packs the Court with like-minded egalitarian feminists, are we not responsible for the loss of unborn lives and the further degradation of our Constitution—not to mention the actual, legislative policies that would be pursued by the (center-left) Clinton or the (far-left) Obama? Conversely, if we vote for McCain and he pushes forward with unjust wars, will the blood of those Iranians/Syrians/Lebanese (fill in the blank) be on our heads?”
No, and no. That we may be morally obligated to vote doesn’t change the fact that one out of over a hundred million votes hardly qualifies as material cooperation with any evil that may result.
IMHO.
(Can you imagine the confession lines after the last election....:-)
P.S. I’m a “paleo” who isn’t “racially conscious” (whatever that means, if it means something that is suggested by the term “pro-white"). I don’t know any other paleo who is. Call me a fool for Christ, Mr. Burke. I hope you mean something other than the sin of racism, which your statement formally sounds like. Please pray for me, and I will pray for you.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.