The Lesser Of Two Evils

Well, the political season is starting again. No, that's not really the case. It's been going on for a long time already. Years. And people are positioning themselves for 2020 right now. Or even beyond. Someone running for local school board this year will some day be a candidate for President. And chances are that he or she will be a crook, or at least someone who has, by that time, bent the rules or favored a campaign contributor.ⁱ Even if that's not the case and he's completely honest, his opponent will advertise his many crimes and tell us why we should not vote for him.

More likely, though, the accusations will be true. But they'll be just as true of the individual opposing him – the one proclaiming his faults. That's the nature of political ads. They tell us why we shouldn't vote for someone else, rather than why we should vote for the advertiser. The answer, however, is clear. There is no good reason to vote for him. Or for any of the others, if there are more than two in the race. So why bother?

That's a pretty cynical assessment from someone who votes in almost every election – even for school board. Believing what I believe about elections, participation doesn't seem to make much sense. The results will be bad no matter who wins. No one believes in the “Greater Good.”ⁱⁱ

But someone will win. So though I might wish to vote for the candidate most likely to do good for my community, I have to try to decide who will do us the least harm. And, consequently, my criteria for choice have to change. Decisions regarding right and wrong are irrelevant. Integrity is no longer an issue. We're left with reality. And the reality is that, for the candidates, election is the first priority, and reelection the second.

What are we voting for? Nominally it is someone who will support our positions and help to enact policies that correspond to our wishes. We are a democracy and our will is considered to be the basis for our society.ⁱⁱⁱ That's often not the case though. Our “representatives” tell us that while they have our interests at heart they are duty bound to vote their own consciences. And with Representatives whose constituencies may comprise hundreds of thousands of views – millions if they're Senators – it's unrealistic for any voter to actually believe that his perspective will always be followed.

Makes sense. But too often the argument only provides protective cover. Because an incumbent's primary interest is in reelection, his main concern is the view of what he perceives to be the majority of voters^iv – whether or not that is the majority of constituents. And party loyalty is an important interest. What may result is the trading of votes by Representatives or Senators – votes by each participant for the project of the other. Whether voters would approve of either “representative” is irrelevant as long as it is perceived as a vote-getter by the one proposing it. So if he can't convince his voters that it's in their interests, or if it isn't, he'll be sure to let them know that it it is good for America.^v Perhaps he told his district that he had their backs, but they're ignorant and trusting voters. The message to other politicians is “you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.”

The primary goal of the insurgent is to be elected for the first time. His best weapon is often a smear of the incumbent since he usually has no record of his own to trumpet. His justification of this tactic, apart from the claim that he is telling the truth and the other candidate has demonstrated why he is unfit for the position, is that he cannot improve the lot of the voters unless he is elected, and if this is what it takes, so be it. And that is his message to voters – and the rationalization that he uses for himself. No matter. We don't really expect anything else. We don't expect honesty of politicians.

So in the end it's our fault. We don't make more demands of our candidates, if we vote at all,^vi and voting is becoming less and less prevalent. And we don't vote out of office incumbents who aren't really doing their jobs. We compartmentalize integrity and reality. But we don't really understand either. Voters tend to pick apart Congress in general but favor their own representatives. Others don't compromise – and they should. Ours doesn't give in to pressure^vii – and they shouldn't. After all, we're (more or less) honest and so should they be.

In the end, we get what we deserve – a Congress which is not trusted by the public, and which doesn't accomplish anything anyway. We may not make demands of them, but they make demands of each other. They want their way. And roadblock is their tool. It's “my way or the highway.” Unfortunately the highway usually wins. “Compromise” is not in their lexicon. From their perspective they are right and those who disagree with them^viii are wrong. With that knowledge they can never reach any agreement with them. A compromise between right and wrong is wrong.

And the lesser of two evils is evil. But you can't beat City Hall. So why do I vote?

My approach to life has always been that I play the hand I'm dealt – whatever the game. And it's the only game in town.

Next episode: “The Constitution And The Second Law” – A reevaluation of a previous view.

 

 

 

I        For the moment, though – when running for school board – he's probably reasonably honest. The more he participates in the political process, however, the more he will accommodate to it and to its methods.

ii       Or, as Jeremy Bentham put it, "The greatest good for the greatest number."

iii      There are some limits on the expression of our will as the sole criterion for the determination of our nation's course. Protection, at least to some degree, against the “tyranny of the majority,” is built into the system, and there are other governing factors which I shall discuss either later in this essay or in a subsequent post. I haven't decided yet.

iv       Determined by poll or panel.

v        As Samuel Johnson said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

vi       Though we're happy to accept any time off for voting or for Election Day.

vii      At least that's what we want to believe.

viii    “Those who disagree” are those who answer to a different lobbyist or are members of a different party. Or those who threaten their reelection.