Lesser Evils

Say you are able to vote in a primary for both parties. You have your party, which gives you the choice between some really decent candidates, and the opposing party, which has some really evil people. The winners will face off in the general election. Will you also vote in the primary that is not your party? My hunch is yes, you will, and you will choose the opponent which is easiest to defeat, to better increase the chances of victory, or, in another light, to reduce the chances of you losing. No matter who your guy is, it seems to make sense that you want the easiest opponent. 

Now, take a similar scenario except that you can no longer vote within your own party. Would you still vote for the person is who most likely to be an easier opponent? It seems so. If not, what is the difference? There are those who will say that "Voting for the lesser of evils is still voting for evil." This is to refuse to understand strategy. This idiotic slogan claims that the reason you for one thing in the first part is the same as voting for evil per se. That's like saying, "Voting for the weaker of opponents is still voting for your opponent." Obviously, in that way, it sounds ridiculous, since we are not voting for them in the same way we are voting for someone we support. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Milo

Image
So I decided to go see Milo Yiannopoulos at UCSB yesterday. I was really hesitant to do so, and decided not to go, but a few of my friends wanted to go, and they're all losers who don't drive, so, I had to take everyone. I didn't know much about Milo, and I still don't, but I did learn some things. In some of the more, ahem, colorfully conservative pages of facebook that I follow, Milo has been something of an iconoclast, destroying the feminist narratives left and right. But I also know that he is an active homosexual and he is a rabid Trump supporter (even calling him "Daddy"). So, for those reasons, I was never interested in what he had to say. He was, to take a phrase from Lenin, a useful idiot. That was my impression. But I was wrong. A few days before the event, I had read somewhere on these pages I follow but wont name, that Milo believed himself to be a Christian, and a Catholic at that. I dismissed this immediately, and my opinion of him stoppe
Read more

What Does The Bible Say About Birth Control?

From the early church up to 1930, virtually every church believed contraception was a sin. That fact alone should have us induce that contraception is in fact a sin. Yet, there are many Christians today, even in my own congregation, that will never entertain the possibility of contraception being a sin.
Read more

Is Canon 28 Binding?

In my previous post , I discussed Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (you'll find the full text of the canon there). But I should have put an asterisk on the conversation because Canon 28 isn't properly part of the council. You'll remember from an earlier post , that what makes a council ecumenical is ratification from the Roman Pontiff. Canons are part of councils. And naturally, canons also have to be ratified. However, Canon 28 was not ratified by Pope Leo (Roman Pontiff at the time). So Canon 28 isn't part of the council and thus isn't binding.  If you are Orthodox, this may sound too convenient. I've already suggested why Roman Ratification is the correct theory in the previous link. However, I want to add two things. First, even Saints in the East agree with the Roman position, and second, a case can be made for Canon 28 not being problematic for Catholicism.  First, there are the sayings of Pope St. Gelasius (about 490 AD), and Pope St. Gelasius is
Read more