Presidential race and "the lesser of two evils" argument.
posted 1st Nov
I'm posting this from my phone so I apologize if the format looks strange. I received this today in an email from someone I used to work with and wanted to hear some opinions on it.
Here's the link: http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/beware-the-lesser-of-two-evils-trap/
ELECTION 2012
BEWARE THE 'LESSER-OF-TWO-EVILS' TRAP
Exclusive: David Kupelian on how Founding Fathers would vote Nov. 6
Published: 12 hours ago
by DAVID KUPELIANE
Wow. It’s one week before Election Day, the re-election of Obama is unthinkable, and the election is extremely close – every vote counts.
Against this backdrop, I am still seeing lots of articles and blog postings from self-described conservatives, Christians, constitutionalists, independents and patriots fervently proclaiming they will not vote for either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, because they refuse to choose “the lesser of two evils.”
“The lesser of two evils is still evil,” they intone, as though those magical words encapsulate some transcendent logic.
Ironically, most of these people revere America’s Founding Fathers, quote them and refer to them often – indeed they see themselves as following in the founders’ footsteps, or at least adhering to their principles.
But in this they are profoundly deluded. For in reality, the Founding Fathers, by drafting, ratifying and implementing the Constitution of the United States, engaged in the most monumental example in American history of deliberately choosing the lesser of two evils.
By 1787, under the flawed Articles of Confederation, the recently liberated union was already unraveling. States were growing increasingly hostile toward one another, engaging in tariff wars that paralyzed interstate commerce. The national government was too weak to have a usable currency or to raise a decent army or navy, leaving the nation vulnerable – in fact, the British were occupying forts in parts of the U.S.! In short, escalating national and international problems threatened to destroy everything for which so many patriots had sacrificed their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.
So, what did our nation’s founders – from James Madison (“Father of the Constitution”) to George Washington (“Father of our Country”) – do in Philadelphia 225 years ago?
These courageous and devout Christian statesmen consciously, deliberately, purposefully chose to accommodate slavery – in fact, to constitutionally protect it for the next two decades – in the newly independent United States of America.
Slavery is evil. Yet, to obtain the needed state ratifications, our nation’s founders chose to allow and preserve this evil (temporarily) in the Constitution, which provided for the continued “importation” of slaves until 1808 and prohibited citizens from helping escaped slaves, requiring they be returned to their owners.
The founders didn’t have to do this. They could have proclaimed with righteous indignation, “Slavery is evil, and we refuse to enshrine it in our new Constitution. It doesn’t matter if the republic dissolves, God will not hold us blameless if we elect to support slavery.” That, of course, would have been the end of the convention as the Southern states would have bolted immediately, and the young nation’s slide into chaos would have continued unabated.
The founders chose the lesser of two evils – because it led to the greater good. For them, the greater evil, worse than allowing slavery – which they realized would come to an end before too many decades – would have been to allow the disintegration of the United States of America to continue, to permit history’s greatest birth of liberty to be smothered in the cradle.
Therefore, to all those who today proclaim so high-mindedly that they cannot dishonor God by choosing “the lesser of two evils,” I would say this:
Our wise forefathers, seeing our nation disintegrate before their eyes, did what they did in Philadelphia because it was the only way forward – otherwise they would lose their country. Today, our nation is likewise disintegrating. Whether you like Mitt Romney or not is irrelevant, just as the founders’ attitude toward slavery didn’t deter them from doing what they had to do to save the nation. Electing Romney is simply the only possible way to stop Obama from continuing on as president. Everything else is folly.
So if, rather than casting your ballot for Romney/Ryan, you vote for a third-party presidential candidate like the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson or the Constitution Party’s Virgil Goode, or write in some name like “Jesus” or “God” or “Ron Paul” (I cite these examples since some people are claiming this is how they will cast their vote for president), or if you refuse to vote, you are knowingly contributing to the continued reign of Barack Obama, the most catastrophic president in history, whose actions of late have bordered on treason and who has almost destroyed America in four years and will complete the job in four more.
As I said at the outset, this is a very close election. Every vote counts. Your vote counts. A few ballots in a few key states next week may well determine the destiny of America for all time.
God forbid that good people, believing they are honoring God, upholding higher principle and refraining from supporting evil, would be deceived through their own anger and pride into doing the opposite and betraying all that they love.
quoteposted 2nd Nov
I both agree and disagree...if that is even possible.
I am voting for Mitt Romney. Anyone is better than O.
After saying that, I think that this country is in a state of decline, unlike any in history. Our government has been too big and too powerful for far too long. Mitt Romney isn't a small government guy. He may say so, but his track record says differently. I still think he's a better leader. He's at least proven that.
My "problem" with third party voting, at this particular time in history, is that while the third parties have better ideas and plans, people have jumped on the bandwagon far too late. Where was this movement 30 years ago?
While I like the idea of Libertarians getting their voices heard and ideas implemented, I don't think you can jump from someone like O to someone like Gary Johnson. That's hardcore change. It's too much for most people. It's seen as "radical"...and it is.
The idea that I have is to get O out of office ASAP and then immediately look forward to the 2016 elections and start campaigning for third party. Problem is, I just don't see enough unity in the third party voters. We need to see the rise of third party voters, united for the SAME candidate. We aren't there, yet.
I understand and respect voting your conscience. I really do. Frankly, in this day and age, it takes guts to be in that minority. But I also see politics as a chess game that must be played strategically. Splitting the vote (because that is what voting third party is, at this point) would be a win for O.
We can't do another 4 years of this lunatic.
quote
2059 posts
8101 posts
20235 posts
4471 posts
19922 posts