Why must we always be choosing the lesser of two evils?

Four days ago someone posted an image on Facebook where a presidential poll shows the leading candidates in North Carolina as follows:

Hillary Clinton (D) 38%
Donald Trump (R) 40%
Deez Nuts (I) 9%

The joke is supposed to be “Deez Nuts”, the 3rd-place candidate with 9% who turns out to be a 15-year-old from Iowa. It isn’t his real name and he doesn’t have the prerequisites to run for president, so he isn’t a serious candidate. Presumably, the other two are serious candidates, but I don’t think they have the prerequisites either. The first thing that came to mind was a TV game show from decades ago called The Joker’s Wild. I imagined and image something like this:


On further reflection I thought three jokers wasn’t quite accurate. There is another character in the game show, and this image would reflect my feelings better:


In past presidential races I have heard people speak often of choosing “the lesser of two evils”. They don’t actually want the candidate their party endorses, but they see the opposition candidate as worse. Rather than vote for their preferred independent candidate, who “can’t win” They feel they must choose the lesser of two evils. From the Republican point of view, it would look something like this:


But, the lesser of two evils is still evil. Why isn’t it ever a question of the better of two goods? I think the “lesser of two evils” isn’t accidental; it’s by design. The “favored to win” candidates are usually handed down to us, with their stamp of approval coming from the top. Anyone coming up from the bottom is seen as a lost cause that can’t win, regardless of what good things they might be saying. Everyone knows that splitting the vote is the worst thing you could ever do, so they choose Evil Lite to avoid EVIL Inc.

Trump is a little different. He doesn’t have the stamp of approval from above, but he isn’t coming from the bottom either. He has name recognition, and he has money. He isn’t politically correct and he makes no apologies for it. The poll numbers show that Republicans appreciate that about him. But, would he make a good president? Does he care about the values Republicans claim to hold dear? Does he care about the Constitution? Once he is in the driver’s seat, will he look out for the interests of the citizens of the United States? He is a certainly a man of business and he is used to positions of leadership. But, this country has had plenty of trouble from businesses favored by government. Is he a patriot? Does he care about U.S. sovereignty? Does he care about protecting the liberty of the citizens? Would he send us to war on a whim? How does he feel about the union of big business and big government? I think Republicans are willing to accept almost anyone after two terms of Obama, but they need to be more careful. They need to look at the whole package. I hope he keeps talking because it will give voters a better idea of what he is about. I just wish we could more clearly hear the voices of some of those “can’t win” people who would make better leaders.

Leave a Reply