While I’ve long been an advocate of a conservative/libertarian political alliance, electing someone like Barack Obama was not exactly what I had in mind:
The only thing Senator McCain and his consultants can say to conservatives and libertarians is
* The Democrat boogieman is going to get you if you don’t vote Republican
or
* I’m the lesser of two evils
or
* I may not be what you want, but the other fellow is worseFear of the other guy is not a governing philosophy, Senator McCain.
The lesser of two evils…. is evil, Senator McCain.
Naturally, the author (Richard Viguerie) believes that electing McCain is somehow worse than electing Barack Obama. So do a lot of conservatives (and I’m sure, a growing number of libertarians).
Which leads me to a nagging question I’ve had lately. There’s been a lot of talk on the right about how Hillary Clinton (long a favorite demon among conservatives) would be a much better president than Barack Obama. I agree. However, I still think that McCain has a better chance of beating Obama, for the very reason that conservatives favor Hillary — not only because Obama is simply less experienced and less qualified than Hillary, but because Hillary is better on foreign policy issues.
None of this ought to erase any of Hillary’s well-known baggage, though. And the mere fact Obama is worse than Hillary does not transform Hillary into a good, much less wonderful candidate. She is only “good” in contrast to Obama. It is not logical to say that because Obama is bad (or Hillary is better), Hillary is therefore good. While few conservatives who favor Hillary argue that she has actually become good, they tend not to talk much about her negatives.
John McCain also has known negatives, and I have discussed them repeatedly. There is no question that conservatives and libertarians can find much to dislike about McCain.
But right now I want to stick to logic to the extent I can. From a conservative standpoint, let’s assume that Hillary Clinton, because she is more experienced, and her positions are more to the liking of conservatives, is better than Obama.
Doesn’t it necessarily follow (in logic, at least) that McCain is better than both Hillary and Obama, because he is more conservative than either? And if McCain is more experienced and more conservative than Hillary, then logic dictates that he is far more experienced and far more conservative than Obama.
So my question is a simple one:
How is it that anyone who thinks Hillary would be better than Obama can maintain that Obama would be better than McCain?
Try as I might, I cannot make sense of this.
Since so many conservatives and a growing number of libertarians clearly want the Democrats elected, I’m thinking the only way for McCain to get their support would be to switch parties and just declare himself a Democrat.
Then maybe Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could become Republicans, to make sure they lose the loyal conservative vote.
Comments
10 responses to “Why the lesser of two evils is more evil than the greater”
From what I gather, they think that IN THE LONG TERM Obama would be better for the U.S. than McCain because Obama would be such a disaster that everyone would suddenly “wake up” and realize that Big Government, Nanny State Politicians suck and everyone would vote for small government, non-POS politicians.
I personally think it wouldn’t work. Or at least if it does work it will wind up being such a long, drawn out, expensive proposition that it’s not worth the cost.
Right now I’ll take even minor improvements over “burn it down and start all over again” projects.
I don’t know how many of the evil-weighers are being rational about it, but for those who are, the idea would be more like this:
With any of these three as President, the government becomes more unlike the thing we want it to be; with McCain, it becomes so, though perhaps marginally less so, with less opposition, or with the wrong opposition, leading to a long-term decline in the possibility of the right opposition – or, perhaps, any opposition – having any effect on how the government evolves.
Likely so. I’m not sure anyone involved actually thinks it, though.
I do, but I also don’t care.
I will only support a candidate who is within some distance of my views, but I try to keep that distance large enough that I don’t succumb to the perfect/good trap. Unfortunately, this year this means I cannot support the Democrat, the Republican, or even the Libertarian. Barr did way too much harm as a Congressman for me to support him now, even with his public change of some of his views. I have seen what he does with power.
I think I’d rather vote for anyone awful as long as I continue to have a right to speak out against them. McCain has been pivotal in already curbing that right with the McCain-Feingold bill. That Obama might do the same thing doesn’t discount that McCain actually DID it.
Viguerie et al. (the guy spams my mailbox): be careful what you wish for. A snObama presidency might make you wax nostalgic about BJ Clinton for Heaven’s sake.
You’re never going to agree 100% with any given candidate. I, for one, don’t like the fact that McCain buys into AGW alarmism, or his softness (ahem) on immigration.
I think other people here have basically got it right. McCain will not rehabilitate the Republican “brand,” and if he does, it won’t be in a way that conservatives and libertarians like. Look for four years of slow-motion surrender to the Democrats. McCain won’t change direction; he’ll just pull back on the throttle a bit. Furthermore, President McCain means Democrat gains in 2010 and almost certainly a Democrat president in 2012, possibly Hillary Clinton.
Negative votes are entirely respectable, Mr. Viguerie to the contrary. They may, in fact, account for a lot of the stability of the American system.
Others prefer to project fantasies of what future elections will be like if we do A or B. Not only do we not know this with certainty, we don’t have any ability to predict further on. It’s just a story that some might find plausible.
Lastly, there is always the high probability of any number of crises over the four years.
I have to agree with you. That is why I rank them Hillary > McCain > Obama.
Well, you may be running into the Voting Paradox. It’s perfectly possible for a group to have circular preferences even if no individual within that group does.
I am going to say that your comments is thought provoking. Politicans will always play the mind game to get the voters. In my opinion, McCain is too old to be a president. He might end up with Alzahimers right after his put in office. As for as Hilary and Obama, I could careless what they are who they are as long as they stand behind their words and help every hard working Americans not bull*hit about stuff they can’t handle.