The Lesser of Two Evils

[prisonchaplain]

In past presidential elections ideologically-driven party members found themselves frustrated.  Do I vote for the moderate, compromising candidate who is likely to win, or do I side with the person who will fight the good fight, tooth and nail?  Recently, this struggle faced Republicans, more than Democrats. Both McCain (2008) and Romney (2012) presented as conservatively as they could, but those on the right saw them as weak “go along to get along” politicians. Democrats had the presidency, and while a few liberal activists wished Obama would do even more, very few would accuse him centrism.  Conservatives were asked to hold their noses and for “the lesser of two evils.”

This year is a different scenario, but with the same dilemma—on both sides of the aisle.  Democrats face a choice between Hillary Clinton, perceived as a centrist, with experience, and potential legal problems, on the one hand, and a socialist, promising big government programs, and to "soak the rich," on the other.  Republicans appear ready to nominate a populist, who takes “extreme” positions that are left, right and centrist. His fiery, confrontational style has thrown the moderates in his party into a huge struggle.

The mantra from both parties’ leadership is the same:  vote for the lesser of two evils.  If you cannot vote FOR our candidate, then vote AGAINST the opponent.

What is different this year is that some Sanders supporters may vote for Donald Trump, if Clinton is nominated.  They are not party loyalists, and prefer Trump’s confrontation of the establishment to Clinton’s defense of status quo.  Likewise, some Republicans will abstain from voting for President.  A few may vote for a third party candidate.  Some will even vote for Mrs. Clinton.

As a Christian, a minister, and a chaplain, I struggle with this dilemma. Do I vote for the lesser of two evils?  Do I abstain because I find all choices morally objectionable?  Do I pick a third party candidate, or write in one of the losing candidates, just to make a statement?

Thomas Trask, former General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God, recently declared that every Christian should vote.  If we do not know who to vote for, he insisted we get on our knees in prayer, and seek God’s wisdom.  This is wise counsel.

Personally, I’ve determined that I will vote, and I will choose one of the two major party nominees.  America’s two-party system works.  It generally leaves us with a president who has won a majority support and relatively broad approval.  Which one will do the least to undermine society’s virtue?  Which one will, at least indirectly, protect religious liberty and public morality?  Both candidates have leadership skills, and can garner wise counsel, to rule competently.  So, my choice will be based mainly on social issues, and on the candidates’ fidelity to the Constitution—especially the underlying understanding that our rights and freedoms are God-given, and that our laws merely protect what the Almighty has already provided.

[Sunday21]

But are you going to pray about your decision? Ask for guidance?

[LeSellers]

8 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Do I vote for the lesser of two evils?  Do I abstain because I find all choices morally objectionable?

Never abstain. No one wants to "support" the lesser of two evils, but not voting is the equivalent of voting for the greater of two evils. That's worse.

8 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Do I pick a third party candidate, or write in one of the losing candidates, just to make a statement?

I vote third party almost always. Not just to make a statement, but to support the values I cherish. I more people did, the Libertarian and Constitution parties could change the country. It's more important in local and legislative races, but if all of us who are dissatisfied just stopped giving our consent to the illegitimacy going on in Washington and Denver, Littleton, and San Pete, and voted for people who would honor their oaths of office, it could end up with a real hope and a change we could believe in.

8 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

So, my choice will be based mainly on social issues, and on the candidates’ fidelity to the Constitution—especially the underlying understanding that our rights and freedoms are God-given, and that our laws merely protect what the Almighty has already provided.

I don't care about "social issues" in politics as long as the laws (and the endless regulations) respect life, liberty, and property. As it is, our laws destroy all three. Otherwise, whether two women want to call each other "wife" or a man down the street sits in his bedroom all weekend and gets stoned out of his mind, it's simply none of my business. When those women demand that someone else bake them a cake or face loss of life, liberty, or property, or when that man gets into his car, it becomes my business, and the law should protect those not a party to their actions.

Lehi

[prisonchaplain]

While gay marriage was a hot social issue, it's hard to imagine reigning that genie back inside the bottle. I agree that religious liberty is the next front.  However, for many of my generation, the primary social issue has been abortion. 

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

While gay marriage was a hot social issue, it's hard to imagine reigning that genie back inside the bottle. I agree that religious liberty is the next front.  However, for many of my generation, the primary social issue has been abortion. 

Same-sex "marriage" is an issue only because of government. The bennies granted by the state to married couples (and they are largely illusory, not real) entice people into the marriage trap set by the state. One wonders just how anxious those husband-husband ans wife-wife pairs will be when they have to pay the big bucks to dissolve their unions.

Abortion does not respect life, so it is immoral and illegal on its face.

Lehi

[Guest]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

Same-sex "marriage" is an issue only because of government. The bennies granted by the state to married couples (and they are largely illusory, not real) entice people into the marriage trap set by the state. One wonders just how anxious those husband-husband ans wife-wife pairs will be when they have to pay the big bucks to dissolve their unions.

Abortion does not respect life, so it is immoral and illegal on its face.

Lehi

The Texas Libertarian Party had a convention where it was clear that the room was divided 50/50 into those who leaned right/left.  We had two Gubernatorial Candidates in our primary.  They each "labeled" the other a false libertarian but actually a Democrat/Republican in disguise.  The election was a draw.  After three re-votes, someone relented.  The Republican won by one vote.

But the primary issue that divided us was gay marriage.  I finally caused a big pause in the debate when I said,"I don't want the government involved in my heterosexual marriage.  Why would I want to inflict that on a gay couple?"

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

\But the primary issue that divided us was gay marriage.  I finally caused a big pause in the debate when I said,"I don't want the government involved in my heterosexual marriage.  Why would I want to inflict that on a gay couple?"

Absolutely true. Like it or not, gay marriage is the law of the land. It's not changing-and it pulls people into a culture war they can't win either. 

Most libertarians I know lean right socially but there is a large amount of leftist libertarians who are only there for the pot.  

I'd be a third party voter but I find most (key word, most. Not all) incredibly self-righteous to those of us who dirty our hands voting for the big parties. The best thing for libertarians (and I'm one of them philosophically) is to work for reform within the GOP. Voting for the Pauls, etc. 

Edited May 21, 2016 by MormonGator

[prisonchaplain]

20 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Same-sex "marriage" is an issue only because of government. The bennies granted by the state to married couples (and they are largely illusory, not real) entice people into the marriage trap set by the state. One wonders just how anxious those husband-husband ans wife-wife pairs will be when they have to pay the big bucks to dissolve their unions.

Abortion does not respect life, so it is immoral and illegal on its face.

Lehi

Lehi, are you among those who argue that government should get out of the marriage business altogether--perhaps offering contractual unions, in their place?

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

Lehi, are you among those who argue that government should get out of the marriage business altogether--perhaps offering contractual unions, in their place?

Only for the past 25 years. Before that, I didn't care too much, but, on general principles, government should be involved in almost nothing.

It just screws up anything it touches (witness marriage).

Lehi

[NightSG]

On 5/21/2016 at 2:54 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Lehi, are you among those who argue that government should get out of the marriage business altogether--perhaps offering contractual unions, in their place?

One relatively simple contract that would handle all the current legal benefits of marriage; survivorship and inheritance, automatic co-ownership of various things, visitation rights, (treated as family in hospitals and such) and power of attorney in certain situations would cover all the aspects the government has any business being involved in.

[prisonchaplain]

At this point the idea of government getting out of the marriage business has passed. It would now be perceived as a vindictive "blow everything up!" cutting-off-of-the-nose-to-spite-the-face kind of reaction. In other words, what may have been a good compromise two years ago, would now be perceived as hateful bigotry, on our part. 

[LeSellers]

7 hours ago, NightSG said:

One relatively simple contract that would handle all the current legal benefits of marriage; survivorship and inheritance, automatic co-ownership of various things, visitation rights, (treated as family in hospitals and such) and power of attorney in certain situations would cover all the aspects the government has any business being involved in.

I've advocated this exact procedure for twenty or more years. I even advocate it for anyone contemplating marriage, which I advise against, given the situation of antiFamily "Law". The only ones I do not suggest avoid marriage are Latter-day Saints. We have a different reason to get married, rather than have a private contractual relationship. I'd prefer we didn't, but we do.

Lehi

 

Edited May 24, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

5 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

At this point the idea of government getting out of the marriage business has passed. It would now be perceived as a vindictive "blow everything up!" cutting-off-of-the-nose-to-spite-the-face kind of reaction. In other words, what may have been a good compromise two years ago, would now be perceived as hateful bigotry, on our part. 

It doesn't matter what we do, we are already seen as haters. And, frankly, I don't give the first flyin' flip.

Lehi

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not calling for a great deal of sensitivity towards "the culture" or "society"--just expressing the unlikelihood that certain tactics or approaches are going to gain traction.

[LeSellers]

2 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I'm not calling for a great deal of sensitivity towards "the culture" or "society"--just expressing the unlikelihood that certain tactics or approaches are going to gain traction.

In the current era of throw-the-bums out, and the-establishment-is-the-enemy, we might just win this one: people really do not like the system. It's rigged against us in ways that few have suspected (or felt strongly about) until the very recent past.

With all the hoopla on this matter, coupled with the voyeur-in-the-restroom crisis, I (at least) hope that we can recapture some of our freedoms. The decades-old silent majority may just rise up and do something intelligent, like observe the Constitution.

Lehi

[prisonchaplain]

Lehi, my heart is with you!

[unixknight]

To choose one of the main two options, even if you dislike both, just lets them off the hook. 

"Hey <insert your party name here> don't worry about giving me a candidate I can trust and believe in.  I'll just settle for whomever you dredge up and parade across the stage at convention time."  Apply that lesson to both of the big parties collectively and it's the same logic.  You aren't holding them to any standard at all.  How in the world can you expect better candidates than this when you're not willing to hold out for better? 

It's like all that absolute brand loyalty for companies like Chevrolet and Ford.  Know why most American cars were so awful in the '80s?  It's because car manufacturers counted on people being loyal to their brand no matter how much of a rattletrap they rolled off the assembly line.  "I'd rather push my Ford than drive a rice-burner" is a phrase I heard a lot.  So let me get this straight; you'd prefer a 3,000 lb. paperweight to a functional car that can get you to work just because of the brand name on the emblem?  What right do you have to expect them to build great cars when you'll buy anything with their logo on it?  Presumably at one time they did build really good cars and earned that loyalty, but what good is it if they can't maintain it?  They don't care whether you drive that car or push it around as long as you keep coming back to their dealerships they have no real reason to change.  American cars are way better now because suddenly they started losing massive sales to better quality companies so they had to get their act together.

So it's the same now.  "Well I guess I gotta vote for either Trump or Clinton... both are awful."  Well then DON'T vote for either.  What do you think's gonna happen in 4 years?  Better candidates?  Based on what?  You picked one of the candidates they presented last time so what reason do they have to change?  They don't care whether you liked the candidate or not.  You voted for him/her.  Want the Republicans and Democrats to pick better candidates for you?  Refuse to accept the trash.

[Guest MormonGator]

21 hours ago, unixknight said:

To choose one of the main two options, even if you dislike both, just lets them off the hook. 

"Hey <insert your party name here> don't worry about giving me a candidate I can trust and believe in.  I'll just settle for whomever you dredge up and parade across the stage at convention time."  Apply that lesson to both of the big parties collectively and it's the same logic.  You aren't holding them to any standard at all.  How in the world can you expect better candidates than this when you're not willing to hold out for better? 

It's like all that absolute brand loyalty for companies like Chevrolet and Ford.  Know why most American cars were so awful in the '80s?  It's because car manufacturers counted on people being loyal to their brand no matter how much of a rattletrap they rolled off the assembly line.  "I'd rather push my Ford than drive a rice-burner" is a phrase I heard a lot.  So let me get this straight; you'd prefer a 3,000 lb. paperweight to a functional car that can get you to work just because of the brand name on the emblem?  What right do you have to expect them to build great cars when you'll buy anything with their logo on it?  Presumably at one time they did build really good cars and earned that loyalty, but what good is it if they can't maintain it?  They don't care whether you drive that car or push it around as long as you keep coming back to their dealerships they have no real reason to change.  American cars are way better now because suddenly they started losing massive sales to better quality companies so they had to get their act together.

So it's the same now.  "Well I guess I gotta vote for either Trump or Clinton... both are awful."  Well then DON'T vote for either.  What do you think's gonna happen in 4 years?  Better candidates?  Based on what?  You picked one of the candidates they presented last time so what reason do they have to change?  They don't care whether you liked the candidate or not.  You voted for him/her.  Want the Republicans and Democrats to pick better candidates for you?  Refuse to accept the trash.

I go from voting for Johnson because of what you just said or giving up on third parties and voting for the least worst choice. 

Edited June 1, 2016 by MormonGator

[unixknight]

17 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I got from voting for Johnson because of what you just said and giving up. 

What do you mean?  I don't understand. 

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

What do you mean?  I don't understand. 

Sorry about that, I wasn't clear at all. 

Sometimes I think I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson for the great reasons you mentioned, but sometimes I think I'm just going to give up and vote for the nominee who has the best chance of beating Hillary

Edited June 1, 2016 by MormonGator

[unixknight]

@MormonGator  I can see where it's a much harder call in a state that could go either way.  I live in Maryland, which hasn't gone Republican in a Presidential campaign since 1988.  So it makes little difference how I vote.

[Guest MormonGator]

14 minutes ago, unixknight said:

@MormonGator  I can see where it's a much harder call in a state that could go either way.  I live in Maryland, which hasn't gone Republican in a Presidential campaign since 1988.  So it makes little difference how I vote.

Exactly. Goodness knows I do not want to be associated with the Trumpers, that's for sure.  

[Traveler]

There is a lot of talk about who should be president.  There does not seem to be much to choose from considering the individual candidates.  Perhaps one of the biggest problems is that candidates seldom run on issues that they actually intend to bring about – in reality politicians are more likely to carefully study poles and claim to stand for whatever will get them elected.   Many voter have learned to ignore whatever is being said and just vote for what they think a particular political party stands for. 

This vote for party and not for an individual had resulted in political corruption in both parties – along with a population that overlooks whatever their party candidate does and condemning even the smallest miscues of the opposing party candidates.  And to the rest of the country that tries to avoid party ties there is nothing other than frustration and disappointment left in trying to select how to vote.

I want to make clear I personally do not like Trump.  I believe big business and the money involved is more likely to be associated with secret combinations than big government by itself – but this is not the topics I wish to highlight. 

I believe the entire world is at a political crossroads – not just the USA.  Donald represents and symbolizes the ousting of professional politicians and the citizens of the world are fed up with professional politicians.  Trump is a threat worldwide to the consummate politician.  They all fear and hate him – not just the USA ones.  I believe it is important for Trump to win this current election and then get thrown out the next election by the real power of citizens.  It is the one chance democracy, freedom and liberty has – but I am not holding my breath.  I am thinking more and more that freedom is very skillfully and artfully be lost and taken away and this current election – if not the point of no return that it is darn close.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

Ever since an entomologist acquaintance loaned me (for a modest fee) a pair of beetles that fed on cotton buds, I have known him to be the lessor of two weevils.

[Sunday21]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Ever since an entomologist acquaintance loaned me (for a modest fee) a pair of beetles that fed on cotton buds, I have known him to be the lessor of two weevils.

Love it. Literally LOL.