LESSER OF TWO EVILS

I would like to tackle the "lesser of two evils" criticism of electoral politics. It is a complaint that has some merit, but leads too many sanctimonious voters to an unfortunate and counterproductive conclusion.

THE MERITS OF THE CRITICISM

First, it is instructive to point out the ways in which the "lesser of two evils" complaint is valid. Politics is a messy business. Candidates are put under a microscope, and every slight transgression of the past is turned into a news headline. There are still some pious snobs who will judge people based on the worst thing they've ever done, though I'm sure none of those moral busybodies read this blog. My readers are all wonderful and highly intelligent. Focusing on the issues does not help. Candidate spend as much time distorting their opponent's positions as they do defining their own. Even if you happen to be as sinless as the lamb of God, you still face an uphill battle to prevent your opponent from twisting your message.

The result of the mudfest is that the most qualified people do not run for office. Why would they? Imagine the best political science or economy proffessor you've ever known. He or she would make a great president, don't you think? But within five minutes of announcing a candidacy, dirty laundry from his divorce thirty years ago will be on television, or photos of her sorority initiation in college will be on the internet. Why would they put themselves through that?

I stipulate that the candidates we get are not likely to be the most qualified of all possible candidates. Point one for the "lesser of two evils" column.

The messages we get from politicians are also terribly muddled. Policy proposals are vague. Stump speeches are just strings of soundbites, slogans, and catch phrases. You may think the inability to talk straight and give thoughtful, detailed answers says something about the candidate, but I think the opposite is true. I think this phenomenon does not come from the candidate, and actually prevents us from knowing more about them. Candidates have no choice in how they speak. We have a soundbite-driven news media. A long, esoteric discussion of foreign policy will likely get ignored, or cut down to the point of being unrecognizable from the original text. Some minimal information can come from stump speeches. The candidate slogans and soundbites are likely to be somewhere in the ballpark of what the candidate actually thinks. A candidate is not likely to say he is pro-choice if he thinks abortion doctors should be executed. But between the politican' brain and his lips, a consultant is suggesting a dozen different ways to say it. The problem here is the quality of the news reporting and conditions that modern journalism imposes on candidates, not the quality of the candidate.

The "two evils" complainer can go deeper into cynical territory. It is presumed that all politicians are liars, so candidates are not merely ineffectual in speaking their minds, but are actively trying to decieve. Do they not promise the world during a campaign, but fail to deliver when they are in office? I do not deny the observation. There is disconnect between the expectations and the results. The cynical hypothesis is one among many, and I think evidence points elsewhere, but that is beyond the scope of today's discussion.

I hope I have described the strengths of the "two evils" complaint. Those who dismiss the complaint out of hand are either too idealist to objectively examine it or too inexperienced to understand the reality of politics. Nonetheless, I object to the complaint, and the grounds for my objection follow.

IGNORANCE AND CYNICISM

There is more than one kind of complainer. I do not wish to dismiss the argument based on who is making the argument, but in order to get to the real argument some impostors must be dispatched. Many "two evils" complainers simply do not understand politics, and sneer at subjects they are uneducated about. It is assumed that all politics are liars, and it is assumed politicians don't deliver on their promises, but the complainer hasn't examined many politicians, and couldn't name a single campaign promise. This sort of complainer simply wants to appear "above" the discussion. It amounts to making fun of the unknown. Comedians enable this attitude. It is uninteresting to me.

Another set of cynics comes from adherents of fringe ideologies who feel that they can't make any headway in American politics. I do not dismiss this group as completely as I do the group described in the previous paragraph. Their objection amounts to sour grapes, but they are educated and they do have legitimate political opinions that deserve consideration. Even so, they still come off as smug and arrogant to those of us who think the process is important and serious.

THE ROOT OF EVIL

My first objection to the complaint is with the word "evil". Has our definition of evil slid so far into triviality? I am pro-choice, but does that make pro-life "evil"? I believe that a progressive tax structure, but does that make the flat tax "evil"? There is real evil in this world. There are people who inflict pain and suffering without the slightest empathy with their victims. To call anything in American electoral politics "evil" is an obscene overstatement. That does not mean that there is no difference between the candidates, or that the decisions they make are not important. But to call contrary opinions "evil" prejudices the debate. You may compromise with someone you merely disagree with, but who would compromise with "evil"?

The resistence to compromise is the greatest danger in the "evil" label. All democratic politics require compromise. They only political structure that does not require compromise is dictatorship. If we consider freedom good, then we must not take so cynical a view over the components of freedom. Compromise is a small price to pay to preserve civility and the legitimacy of the laws.

Compromise in politics takes place at all levels, including electoral politics. If we ignore the "evil" label, we can allow ourselves to reasonably compromise. The differences between the politician's views and your own views are less of a problem. The only way to vote for a politician who completely agrees with you on all points is to run for office yourself. That's not a bad idea, by the way. Simply choosing the candidate with which you disagree the least, though, does not really solve the problem. It only restates it. I seek a positive reason for voting for a particular candidate.

KNOWING THE MIND OF THE CANDIDATE

Once again we run across the problem of knowing what the candidate actually proposes and what they believe. The stump speeches are nearly useless, but not completely worthless. Within the speeches you can find a dim, abbreviated version of actual opinions, laced with a lot of clutter and misdirections. I have found it useful to look at the candidate's true views and proposals as missing persons, and I must follow the clues to find them. On the big topics, the answers will be reasonably clear. If a candidate says he is pro-choice, he is probably pro-choice. The fine details of his views on abortion may be important, but it would be difficult for him to actually be anti-choice without being easily exposed. The real meat is in the policy proposals. What does the candidate plan to do about taxes? What do they plan to do about Iraq? How will they deal with Iran? The answers to these questions are far less precise than to questions about abortion.

Typically the candidates provide a little help with this. Barack Obama came out with a tax proposal, and Hilary Clinton announced her health care plan. They will have two descriptions of the plan: the detailed version, which can usually be found on their web sites; and the short version, suitably framed ala Lakoff, that they repeat ad noseum in stum speeches and on TV shows. Of course, my brilliantly educated reader, will prefer the detailed version. Even the detailed version will be a lot more nebulous than an actual bill, but it can give us an idea of what the candidate wants to do. We can also get an idea of the candidate's general political philosophy, which can sometimes be even more useful than the proposals themselves. A good knowledge of political philosophy is helpful.

DIGESTING THE PROPOSALS

We have only reached the starting point. We must run the candidate's proposals through a few calculations. We must consider the political environment in which the candidate will work if elected. Suppose the cadidate wants to solve gobal warming by shutting down all car factories. Regardless of how much the candidate believes in this proposal, the political environment will not alow it. So what if the candidate gets elected? I would have to translate the proposal into what would be realistically accomplished in the real world. This is one of the reasons why I will not vote for Kucinich.

After digesting the proposals, we are left with a list of our realistic choices, all of which will be compromises, and none of which are "evil". The options are limited by what the candidates believe the people will realistically vote for. Unless you are of such a fringe persuasion that only unrealistic ideas are acceptable to you, you should find at least one, and probably several proposals that you would consider "good". If you believe in universal health care, there will be universal health care options. Maybe Clinton's plan doesn't suit you, but perhaps a compromised version would come closer to your ideal. In the end, if some version of the proposal is passed, you would consider it "good".

You are then faced with the fact that, whether you choose or not, a choice will be made. If you believe a proposal to be good, and you permit it to fail, you are harming yourself. You are forcing yourself to live without the good proposal. Not only are you short-changing yourself, you are also short-changing your fellow citizens who would benefit from the good proposal.

I could interject a note about the imporance of voting against proposals that you would consider harmful, but I am looking for positive reasons for voting, not negative.

VOTING

Voting is still the currency of politics. Yes, special interest groups have money, but that's not all they have. Politicians look at how many votes they can command in their districts. The votes, even more than the money, holds sway. Much deserved criticism has been leveled at American politics because of the money involved. Politicians do pander to rich donors, but they want the money to get the votes. Utlimately, it still comes down to votes. This is a democracy, and that is as it should be.

Your vote is one among millions. So what does it really matter? It holds has so little impact in the outcome. This is true, but it is not the whole story. To use a football analogy, a single block on a single play by a single player does not decide the outcome of a game. But ALL of the blocks and ALL of the runs and throws and catches by ALL of the players is needed to determine the winner and loser. Failing to vote leaves it to others to contribute to victory or failure. If your good proposal fails, you are culpable in that failure; if it wins you gain the benefit of the proposal without putting in any effort, which is a form of theft. Failure to vote means that you are not included in the calculus by which politicians make their decisions.

Failure to win an election does not diminish the value of the vote. It is as important to be counted as with a minority as it does to support the majority. The majority may carry the day, but a significant minority cannot be easily ignored. A close contest can signal parties to allocate more resources for the next election. It also lets the majority know that their victory is not *carte blanche*.

BEYOND VOTING

Voting is the minimum civic duty. If you have decided upon a "good" proposal, you also have a duty to attempt to persuade others to your point of view. Political speech is not merely a freedom, but a responsibility. Each time you fail to say what you believe, you deprive your fellow citizens of your opinion. You may turn out to be right, and the miltitude wrong.

Democracy works best when there is broad participation. That includes voting and speaking, but the contest does not end at the election. If your candidate wins, they don't become rulers. You must not let them become too comfortable in their office. They need to hear from you in some way or other throughout their term. Since you have made a compromise to vote for the candidate, you need to continually voice your opinion in the areas with which you disagree. They need to know that if they fail, they are in danger of losing your vote, and you may take other voters with you. Don't complain about politicians caving into pressure. Be the pressure.

CHALLENGE

I issue a challenge, and this is especially directed at the cynics. The more cynical you are, the more urgently I press the challenge. For each presidential candidate, there will be a local campaign effort. For some of them, they may be tied to local candidates. They take volunteers. Locate their offices and spend an evening working for them. You may do no more than assemble yard signs. Maybe you'll cold call prospective donors (I did that. Good times). Maybe you'll just man a phone. When you're there, talk to the people involved. They'll be happy to talk about politics-- that's why they're there. Volunteer for more than one. Work, talk, participate. See if you're still as cynical after getting a closer look at the process. At the very least, if you are still cynical you will not also be ignorant.

© 2008 Bryan Lower

Feedback: