In basic motorcycle instruction
One of the first things they tell you is “Look where you want to go“. I learned this lesson posthaste, when I took the class, by looking at the pavement and augering the bike right in.
And it works, it makes good sense. If you watch guys who are pros, one sure way to tell an accident is on the way is to see a guy get distracted. A tiny moment’s distraction is more than enough to cause everything to go pear shaped at lightning speed.
This is true of many things in life. Politics and the language of politics is a classic example. Let’s take this specific statement:
“The lesser of two evils is still evil”
This statement is the very definition of a lie; “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.” The purpose of this statement is to make people believe that voting is useless, the purpose of the statement, in effect, is to cause you to auger into the ground.
These two statements are the functional equivalent of one another:
I will vote for the lesser of two evils.
I will vote for the better of two choices.
The real difference between them is perspective. One assumes that there are two bad choices, and chooses the better one. The other assumes there are two choices, and chooses the better one. The perspective is the difference between a pessimist and a realist, but the end result is the same; the better candidate is chosen. (Before anyone can mess with this, remember that an Optimist’s version of this is ‘These two candidates are so great I don’t know WHICH I should vote for!’)
This is where the system breaks:
“I won’t vote for the lesser of two evils because the lesser of two evils is still evil”
This defies reason. No reasoning person can take this attitude about anything, if they but think about it. First, let’s examine the statement on it’s own legs, so to speak. Yes, the lesser of two evils is still evil. Keen observers will note that it’s also still lesser. The lesser is the issue. By way of illustration, let’s assume we have two candidates for sheriff in your county. Lets also assume that they are identical twins, and they are virtually the same in every respect. This is, of course, ludicrous, that never happens, but for the sake of discussion lets say it has. Lets say their names are Randy and Roger. Randy is a womanizer, a tax cheat, an insurance fraud, a wifebeater, and an all around asshole who never even mows his lawn and has a pile of rusty car parts in his yard. Roger is also a womanizer, a tax cheat, an insurance fraud, a wifebeater, and an all around asshole who never even mows his lawn and has a pile of rusty car parts in his yard. But Roger also hates dogs, and he has a habit of responding to domestic disturbances and shooting homeowners pets.
Clearly, then Randy is the better choice. If you can only see the bad things, you might say that Randy is the lesser of two evils. One way or another, you not only shouldn’t stay home on election day, you have a moral imperative to do everything you can to make sure the dogs in your county are protected from that asshole Roger. That’s what moral imperative means; To use reason to do a thing because it is the moral action. And ALL POLITICS is thus: Find the one who doesn’t shoot the dog.
Of course no two candidates are identical twins- in fact no two are even remotely the same- and to make the statement that “X is JUST AS BAD as Y” is a lie you have to tell yourself to absolve yourself of the immorality you display by not making a choice. The major issue with this is that unless you actually live with a candidate, you can’t have a good idea what that person is like. If you get all your information from common media sources, and you base your decision on that, then tell me what it is about those media sources that allows you to trust them? I don’t trust any of them, at all. It is a foregone conclusion that the media will lie in support of someone they like and lie in denigration of someone they don’t like. Unless you have actual personal experience of the candidates, to make the statement “X is JUST LIKE Y” is to say “I believe what the media tells me about X and Y”
I do not.
I’m not what people would refer to as an optimist; I have been around too long, and I’m painfully aware that the vast majority of humanity is made up of morons. The difference between the “Lesser of two evils” attitude and the “I will make the best available choice” is where you are looking, do you want to move forward, or do you want to auger into the ground?
14 comments Og | Uncategorized
I’m pretty sure we will be augering in as while you and I are looking to where we are going we are outnumber by the ones that don’t.
The only time “X is as bad as Y” is when X and Y are the same, as in the candidates are Barack Obama (D), Barack Obama (R), Barack Obama (Libertarian), etc. Even then I’d probably vote for Barack Obama (R) in hopes he’d win, just because a President with an R after his name usually makes the media do their job.
I guess there’s also the situation like in Cuba, North Korea, etc: vote for the current leader, or don’t, and if you don’t you may never be heard from again.
One thing for sure: When there’s an R in the white house, the press actually DOES IT’S JOB and WATCHES WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS DOING instead of spending the whole time wiping off their chins. Never is the president under such constant scrutiny as when he’s a republican, and that is a damned good thing. That is in fact the way I like it best. Of course, we always get to learn every bad thing about them, while the press completely overlooks the heavy lifting they do; most people buy the lies they are told about bush et al, but would you have preferred a Kerry presidency? A Gore presidency? No, don’t bring up any BS adolescent wet dreams about “Hastening the fall” that’s horseshit. The Russians managed to make their shit last for YEARS, and now they’re going BCK to it. SO long as they have other peoples wealth to spend, and America is a very wealthy country, the left will continue to spend it.
If you dont like being forced to choose between x and y then campaign hard for z in the primary.
And if you still get stuck with x and y, you cant go wrong voting out the incumbent. There is always a good choice on the ballot… “the other guy”.
Indeed! The people who whine about the horrible choices they have are as often as not people who don’t vote in the primary.
You can look at a candidates choices in the recent past to determine (or at least predict) his beliefs. Further, you can listen to his definitive statements to extrapolate his future actions with a fair degree of certainty, on at least some issues.
And you miss the point, that voting for the lesser evil is taken by the party of the lesser evil as support for their candidates and support for their policies….which they think means you wish for more of the same.
Voting for the third candidate, especially when the lesser evil has no chance of winning (see also: McCain and Romney) sends a message of disapproval and rejection to the party of the lesser evil. Similarly, not giving campaign contributions to the party of the lesser evil shows a lack of support, requiring that they change to garner more support.
In your scenario, both Roger and Randy have an equal chance of winning. In that oversimplified case, then yes, you would be right and Randy would be the better choice. But if Roger is the clear front runner with a 25% lead, then a vote for Randy is also a “wasted vote”, as he will not win.
And yes, the lesser of the two evils is indeed, still evil. Less evil, yes. And perhaps a better candidate, one who will do *less* damage than the greater evil. But evil still.
And again, you fail to deal with the point that a vote for the lesser evil is seen by his supporters as support, rather than voting *against* the greater evil. Thus you get more of the same…another lesser evil next time, because they think that if they can find a more charismatic lesser evil, or one that is perceived as just lesser enough, they can win. (voting for Randy says you want a Sheriff that is a tax cheat, a womanizer, etc, as long as they don’t shoot dogs) This, again, was the case in the last two elections. Rather than have your vote perceived as a vote for the less bad of the bad choices, your vote for the lesser evil was taken as support. Had that not been the case, you’d not have had Rommney as a candidate, and you would more likely have had a clear choice between “DNC” candidate and “DNC Lite” candidate. Rather than voting *against* a candidate, you might have had one to vote *FOR*.
Your “support” for the lesser evil is taken as assent for the choices the lesser party has made, and they believe that if they can find a better lesser evil they can garner more support, rather than forcing them to find a “good” candidate.
You get the sheriff you voted for, rather than a good one.
I have not failed to address a single thing I intended to address. The sum total of my post revolves aroud the lie and fallacy of “Lesser of two evils is still evil” You can rebut what I said, and attempt to prove it wrong (But you will fail) but please do not bring any irrelevancies into the discussion; Everything your rambling diatribe comments I can and will logically dismantle given time. This post is about that one sentence only. Everything else you have said I will ignore until you either logically prove what I have said about that statement is wrong, or admit that I am correct. There is nothing else to discuss in this post. Everything else relies on getting this right.
I don’t have even half a brain. I wouldn’t know a thought if it snuck up on me. I have these here slogans:
“We aint’ voting our way out of this mess”
and
“The lesser of two evils is still evil”
So I know they make me superior to all you people who get off your asses and work for change, while I sit in mom’s basement and polish my SKS waiting for the zombie apocalypse.
Here’s my brilliant master plan for ruling the universe:
1: Don’t vote.
2: ????????
3: SUCCESS!!!
Basic Roberts Rules of Order — abstentions go to the majority.
Not voting because candidate X is totally unacceptable and candidate Y is less objectionable, but not perfect, is in fact voting for candidate X. If some people cannot get their mind around voting for a less than perfect candidate they should view it is an option to vote against a candidate the really do not want.
Standing by and doing nothing is in fact the greatest of the evils.
Well said Joe.
B, no personal offense intended, but the words “wasted vote” just frost my pair. It’s my vote, given me just because I’m a free man, & guaranteed by myself (in the past) & several million others, some of whom we honor this weekend. If I consider carefully & vote for the candidate I think best, I’ve used my vote well, IMHO.
I’m capable of proving what I suggest will work, but apparently the kool-ade tastes really good because nobody will spit it out.
Your voting premise is correct only if the system still works or is fixable. If you think that the system is beyond repair, vote for the dog shooter, waiting for the day when enough people decide to dress up and throw the tea in the harbor.
Dan: The system is still working and is fixable. There will never ever come a day when people decide to dress up and throw the tea into the harbor.