By Dennis Lange
PERHAPS THE MOST COMMON rallying cry of conservative third parties like the Libertarians is, “Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.” An article by Christian Libertarians stated,
” Search the Scriptures front and back, and you will find no reference to or justification for engaging in one evil in order to prevent another.”
Obviously, one must then vote for Libertarians or someone else, or not even vote at all instead of voting for one of the two “evils”!
In 2016, Donald Trump‘s past was being paraded across liberal media and the Clinton campaign paid for the invented Russian Dossier to smear Trump, a dirty trick that far outdid anything Tricky Dick Nixon ever did. At the same time, the public’s opinion of Hillary Clinton wasn’t much better. In a poll that asked what word first came to mind about her, the number one response was “liar”. The “lesser of two evils” argument was rolled out.
“Given the saturation coverage of Trump and Clinton, one could be forgiven for thinking there is no other choice. But there is a third, refreshingly good and fiercely independent choice [Libertarian Gary Johnson – DL] that will appear on the ballot in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia.”
The problem with the moral emphasis on the lesser of two “evils” is that all candidates have personal flaws. All have their own “sins”. Some are simply obvious while others may be hidden. No one bothers to investigate and shed light on a third party candidate’s “evil” because he doesn’t have a chance in the first place. In fact, voting for the candidate instead of voting for the issues is rather shallow.
A problem exists when one doesn’t want to vote for the lesser of two evils in policy, too. Some conservatives will look at Donald Trump and conclude he isn’t conservative enough. Therefore, they won’t vote for him in 2020 as the lesser of two evils over the very liberal ticket of Biden/Harris. Instead, they’ll vote for someone like Jo Jorgensen (the Libertarian candidate) or not vote at all.
Not voting for the lesser of two evils is, in reality, voting for the greater of two evils.
A look at some of the election results in the 2016 election shows why. New Hampshire was won by Hillary Clinton by 2,736 votes (348,526 to Trump’s 345,790). But Libertarian Gary Johnson garnered 30,777 conservative votes and those votes for a candidate with no hope of winning gave Clinton the win in New Hampshire. Clinton won Minnesota by 44,765 votes with 112,972 conservative votes going to the third party. She won Colorado by 136,386 votes with 144,121 going to Johnson.5
While conservative third parties will deny it, it’s obvious that throwing one’s vote away on a third party candidate without any hope of winning is actually a vote for the greater of two evils – the Democratic Party which is nowhere close to the conservative values of those voters.
When the moral “evil” is considered, voting for that third party instead of “voting for the lesser of two evils” is still voting for the greater of two evils. In 2016, a far greater evil than “liar” Hillary and “immoral” Trump existed. The same far greater evil exists as corrupt Biden faces off with “immoral” Trump. That greater moral evil is 800,000 abortion murders per year in the United States. The Democratic Party is the Abortion Party. Its platform supports abortion completely and it now wants taxpayers to pay for abortions with federal money, calling for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment.
Suppose Joe Biden was carrying a vial of poison that would be used to kill all the citizens of San Francisco (population 805,235 in 2010) and “immoral” Trump had plans to do all he could to stop that horrendous act.
Would it make sense to vote for Joe Biden and the poison just because one didn’t like Donald Trump’s character? Certainly, anyone whose moral compass still works would know that 800,000 abortion murders are far more evil than one person’s sins. But one votes for the greater of the two evils by voting for Biden and his poison directly, or by conservative votes for a third party.
Refusing to vote for the lesser of two “evils” by casting one’s vote to the winds sounds noble and even “righteous”. Such a conservative voter (or non-voter) might be proud of not surrendering one bit of his ideals and morals. Sadly, instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, he has voted for the greater of two “evils”, that which is further by far from his ideals, and that which is truly evil even by Hitlerian standards.
Dennis Lange is a guest writer at National Candle. He is a retired teacher with a degree in Education and Mathematics from Texas Tech University.