I have heard the argument made many times that to vote for the lesser of two evils is to vote for an evil and is morally wrong, or at a minimum, non-ideal. I have to agree with this concept in principle.
However, I cannot separate a vote from its direct and indirect results.
For instance, Bill Clinton was elected because Ross Perot was able to draw away a healthy percentage of Republican votes. While George Bush was not an ideal candidate, voting against him had the direct effect of electing a morally bankrupt president who made decisions that were bad for America. The indirect effect is that it let Republicans know they needed to stay on message and appeals to their conservative constituents. (Something they did in the midterm elections and consequently won a strong majority in both houses.)
However, if we accept the fact that voting for a lesser of two evils is always wrong because of its direct effects (alllowing a less ideal candidate to win, allowing the involved party to continue undisciplined), how can we isolate ourselves from the responsiblity of the latter decision?
My argument is not for against either position. Both have their meritts. Both have their temporary and long term goals and both have advantages and disadvantages.
I find it difficult to draw a moral line in the sand.
Recent Comments