The "lesser of two evils" strategy

[lizzie]

This is something that I, and I suspect a good portion of other voters, have struggled with for the past few election cycles. Do we vote for the lesser of two evils because we can't stomach the thought of the greater evil? Or do we vote for someone we really like, on principle? I can identify with the points the author of this piece makes, but the realist in me says that more people today desire a benevolent tyrant over liberty. What say you?

Campaign For Liberty — The Lesser of Two Evils?   | by Adam de Angeli

excerpts:

The Lesser of Two Evils is Really the Greater Evil
I recently read a member post that argued that one must sometimes support the lesser of two evils. The author explained it with a metaphor, by saying that, on the one hand, if offered two unhealthful foods, one could refuse to eat either of them, but if being forced to choose between an unhealthful food and poison, one would have to take the unhealthful food to avoid the poison. Likewise, he argued, having no choice but John McCain or Barack Obama, he should have voted for John McCain rather than the third-party candidate.

It is a popular, understandable belief; an intuitive tactical judgment. But upon close examination, it is principally due to this belief that our politicians get away with betraying us.

Indeed, it is essential for success that we defeat acceptance of the lesser of two evils. Therefore, let us examine what's wrong with supporting the lesser of two evils.

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.

When people make the argument, never hold them at fault for it. It's a perfectly understandable belief, just one that must be corrected. And it is one that all groups geared toward liberty should avoid making.

 

[Madmax]

I have to agree with what you say but I don't see the tea party movement as any different. The powers that be have a hold of them in my opinion. True reform may only be able now the same way this country was started and I don't think many have what it would take in this country. We have become fat, lazy and ignorant.

 

[lizzie]

True reform may only be able now the same way this country was started and I don't think many have what it would take in this country. We have become fat, lazy and ignorant.

Agreed. We have become complacent sheep.

 

[Diogenes]

Rather than think of the choice as the lesser of two evils, I recognize that no candidate is perfect and cast my vote for the least imperfect. IMO the solution is to become an activist on the local level, and promote the careers of those candidates who see things correctly (i.e., the same way I do); after all, that's how the bad guys took over the Dem party forty years ago.

 

[Donc]

Rather than think of the choice as the lesser of two evils, I recognize that no candidate is perfect and cast my vote for the least imperfect. IMO the solution is to become an activist on the local level, and promote the careers of those candidates who see things correctly (i.e., the same way I do); after all, that's how the bad guys took over the Dem party forty years ago.

It’s strange how people look back in history and see two different forks in a road. Myself, I see the current problems beginning not forty years ago; I see it starting to germinate around January 20, 1981.

 

[Goshin]

It’s strange how people look back in history and see two different forks in a road. Myself, I see the current problems beginning not forty years ago; I see it starting to germinate around January 20, 1981.

Reagan's inauguration? Dude, wtf?

 

[lizzie]

It’s strange how people look back in history and see two different forks in a road. Myself, I see the current problems beginning not forty years ago; I see it starting to germinate around January 20, 1981.

You must have slept through the Carter years.

 

[Donc]

Reagan's inauguration? Dude, wtf?

Its all in this 865 post thread.Enjoy :2wave:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/64215-ronald-reagan-good-bad.html

 

[American]

The 'lesser of two evils' has been part of politics since the beginning. Nothing to see here, might as well move along folks.

 

[Diogenes]

It’s strange how people look back in history and see two different forks in a road. Myself, I see the current problems beginning not forty years ago; I see it starting to germinate around January 20, 1981.

George McGovern and a few other lefties were annoyed that they didn't get what they considered their due respect at the Dem convention in 1968, so they set out at the grassroots to change the rules. They were successful in changing the rules; McGovern was nominated in 1972, and went down to one of the more stunning defeats of the century. The next step was to more broadly undermine the party by promoting politicians who could promise one thing and do another without blushing. The process took many years, but eventually all respectable Democrat politicians (those with integrity - e.g., Zell Miller, Henry Jackson) were forced out of the party or retired, to be replaced with zealots and gangsters who will do anything to retain their seats (e.g., Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, and their crowning achievement, the Obama sock puppet).

The election of Reagan in 1980 was merely a national reaction to the colossal incompetence of the candidates fielded by the Democrats in 1972 and 1976. After nominating clowns again in 1984 and 1988, they finally found a candidate in 1992 who could successfully talk out of both sides of his mouth and get people to believe him. They blew it again with more clowns in 2000 and 2004, but they finally got a winner in 2008 - and Obama was a real winner in that he ran a very successful campaign promising everything to everybody and got enough people to believe him. Unfortunately his woefully inadequate governing skills make Carter look good, and Dems should prepare themselves for another dozen years in the wilderness.

 

[lizzie]

The 'lesser of two evils' has been part of politics since the beginning. Nothing to see here, might as well move along folks.

Of course it's been here all along, but the lesser of two evils wasn't putting us in the poor house all along. We have reached the point that continuing our current trends will destroy us.

 

[American]

Of course it's been here all along, but the lesser of two evils wasn't putting us in the poor house all along. We have reached the point that continuing our current trends will destroy us.

Here is where the problem is.

On the other hand, here is defense spending which is the second most important duty of the federal government after assuring liberty.

 

[lizzie]

On the other hand, here is defense spending which is the second most important duty of the federal government after assuring liberty.

It's not defense spending I have a problem with. It's all the unconstitutional spending, which amounts to much much more.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

It's not defense spending I have a problem with. It's all the unconstitutional spending, which amounts to much much more.

Actually, the Dept. of Defense is one of the most inefficient departments we have; with billions going down to waste and graft.

Medicare IS killing us; but that's because it's out of whack. In general, though, it's much more efficient at collection and distribution than most private insurance companies AND the Dept. of Defense.

The Tea Partiers are anything new at all. They're just Reagan worshippers who fail to recognize that tax levels for most Americans (even under Clinton and Obama) are lower now than they were under Reagan; and that Reagan raised taxes as much or more than he lowered them.

They also forget that he gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

And created the biggest deficits in history at the time.

It's easy for them to forget all those things, because he made people feel good; because he could take on a couple potential Commies in Grenada and wave the flag over a pretty sunset.

Reagan was a GREAT PR man (and I mean that sincerely), but he's left us with a legacy of saying we're all right, when we're really pretty much in the sh!tter.

The Tea Partiers worship him blinding without realizing that he honestly went against a lot of their so-called principles.

 

[Goshin]

Actually, the Dept. of Defense is one of the most inefficient departments we have; with billions going down to waste and graft.

Medicare IS killing us; but that's because it's out of whack. In general, though, it's much more efficient at collection and distribution than most private insurance companies AND the Dept. of Defense.

The Tea Partiers are anything new at all. They're just Reagan worshippers who fail to recognize that tax levels for most Americans (even under Clinton and Obama) are lower now than they were under Reagan; and that Reagan raised taxes as much or more than he lowered them.

They also forget that he gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

And created the biggest deficits in history at the time.

It's easy for them to forget all those things, because he made people feel good; because he could take on a couple potential Commies in Grenada and wave the flag over a pretty sunset.

Reagan was a GREAT PR man (and I mean that sincerely), but he's left us with a legacy of saying we're all right, when we're really pretty much in the sh!tter.

The Tea Partiers worship him blinding without realizing that he honestly went against a lot of their so-called principles.

There's so much wrong with this one post I hardly know where to begin.

Medicare efficient? Talk to a few doctors and hospital administrators. The ones I know do not find dealing with medicare at all pleasant. The medicare fixed-prices system causes the rest of us to have to pay higher medical costs.

As for Reagan... he was not perfect but he wasn't guilty of all that you're painting him. He DID cut taxes enormously, and those were real cuts. The economy came back with a roar and real-dollar revenues went up; Congress spent like a drunken sailor and that's where a lot of the deficits came from. Granted he should have reigned them in, but for the most part it was a Dem congress btw.

Reagan's actions had a lot to do with the collapse of the USSR. So did Chernobyl and some other things, but Reagan forced them to the brink and their own failings finished them off.

If you went thru the Carter years and then the Reagan presidency, the difference was dramatic and clear. The man gave hope to a nation that had almost given up, and to me will always be one of the greatest presidents of my life for that reason. Not perfect, but better than anything we've had since JFK.

Your characterization of TEA party supporters as blindly worshipping Reagan is merely cheap partisan hackery. There are many different reasons people are in T.E.A. and more than a few of them were little kids when Reagan was Prez.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

Okay. First: Reagan cut taxes in with ERTA in 1981.

Then, in 1982, he then raised taxes when he signed [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Equity_and_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act_of_1982"]TERFA[/ame].

In 1983, Reagan signed the Social Security Reform Act, which increased Payroll Taxes - a regressive tax, since those who make under $100,000 pay a higher percentage of their income than those who make over $100,000.

He then raised taxes again in 1984 with the DRA.

Indeed, according to CBO estimates, middle income families in 1980 had an average income tax burden of 8.2% + 9.5% in payroll taxes. Thus an overall tax burden of 17.7%. By 1988, the income tax burden had declined to 6.6%, while the payroll tax burden rose to 11.8% - OR an overall tax burden of 18.4%.

That means that middle income families were paying 4% more in taxes.

Now, the economy did improve for a lot of people, however the number of people in poverty rose nearly 10%.

Yes, the Democratic Congress bears responsibility for the deficit expansion under Reagan; but Reagan had to sign those budgets - therefore he bears some responsibility as well.

What I'm saying about those who worship him blindly is that they worship him for things that actually never happened. He DID cut taxes; he also raised taxes. His policies helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union earlier than it may have otherwise; and that's great. But without Gorbachev on the other side, it's unlikely that it would've happened the way it did (with relative little violence). So, he must share credit for it with a Gorbachev. One of the side effects of that was his massive increases in military spending, which is part of what cause the rapid increases in the deficits and national debt.

Like all presidents, there was good and bad. Too many people worship the good and completely ignore the bad. I'm pretty net neutral on Reagan to be honest. I just find the worship to be unwarranted, especially from those who conveniently ignore the parts of his record that they may disagree with.

And I didn't even go into the amnesty thing.

 

[American]

Actually, the Dept. of Defense is one of the most inefficient departments we have; with billions going down to waste and graft.

Medicare IS killing us; but that's because it's out of whack. In general, though, it's much more efficient at collection and distribution than most private insurance companies AND the Dept. of Defense.

The Tea Partiers are anything new at all. They're just Reagan worshippers who fail to recognize that tax levels for most Americans (even under Clinton and Obama) are lower now than they were under Reagan; and that Reagan raised taxes as much or more than he lowered them.

They also forget that he gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

And created the biggest deficits in history at the time.

It's easy for them to forget all those things, because he made people feel good; because he could take on a couple potential Commies in Grenada and wave the flag over a pretty sunset.

Reagan was a GREAT PR man (and I mean that sincerely), but he's left us with a legacy of saying we're all right, when we're really pretty much in the sh!tter.

The Tea Partiers worship him blinding without realizing that he honestly went against a lot of their so-called principles.

Talk about stumbling all over the issues map, it would be nice if you stayed on course regarding your first sentence.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

Talk about stumbling all over the issues map, it would be nice if you stayed on course regarding your first sentence.

I did ramble everywhere on that original post, didn't I?

We can't all be perfect all the time.

I beg forgiveness for my lack of focus and promise to do better.