Many who oppose voting for a third party candidate do so because, as they argue, voting for a major candidate who is woefully wrong on some issues but who has a realistic chance of winning is preferable to voting for a candidate whose positions are in agreement with one's own but who is has no realistic chance of winning. To them, selecting from the lesser of two evils represented by the two mainstream candidates is preferable to voting third party. In defense of this position they often point out the inherent imperfection of every human being, thus every political candidate. According to this argument every vote ever cast is for the lesser of two evils, since no human is perfect.
While at first glance this argument may appear sound, in reality it ignores a single salient point about the nature of the situation, specifically, that not all imperfection is equal. Certainly every candidate will fall short of perfection, if not in planning then in execution, but there is a difference between differences of opinion on matters such as the precise rate and nature of taxation, particular measures to provide an environment conducive to economic growth, or the best course of action to preserve national security and a plan of action that can be truly described as evil. The members of the first group all seek to achieve the same end--economic growth, security, etc., as the case may be--and are areas in which no eternal, self-evident principle can be applied and reach the same unequivocal result in every case by every individual (which is not to say that there is not a right and wrong course of action in these cases--there certainly is--just that the right course of action is not always plain). The second group, however, is something entirely different. It encompasses actions which violate self-evident principles laid down not only in the tenets of religious faith but also in the foundations of free and just society everywhere.
It is not that some candidates are perfect and others are not--nothing could be farther from the truth--it is that some degrees of imperfection in a civic situation are acceptable and others are not. For example, if one were assigning grades to candidates one might give one a 95, another a 45, and another a 35. Not one of those scores is perfect, but any student could tell you that one of them is very, very different from the other two. One is acceptable; the others are not. Similarly, while all candidates are imperfect, one may be acceptable while others are not. The debate is not about whether a particular candidate is perfect, it is about whether that candidate's inevitable imperfection falls within the bounds of acceptable imperfection.
With this established, one must inevitably question the point at which imperfection in a candidate becomes unacceptable. Simply and uncontroversially put, imperfection is unacceptable when it violates principles which ought to be evident and binding to any sane, moral person. There is room for debate and discussion on precisely where the line ought to be drawn, but certain general themes are clear. One is that life, unless forfeited through violation of a duly passed and duly enforced law, ought always to be sacred. This principle can be found not only in Christianity--thou shalt not murder--but also in almost every other major religion and in the US Declaration of Independence, where the right to life is found among the principle self-evident truths, and in the US Constitution. It can be reasonably assumed, then, that when a candidate's imperfection falls in the area of disregarding the sanctity and value of life that imperfection has entered the realm of absolutely unacceptable forms of imperfection. Therefore, when a candidate, particularly one who claims to believe that life begins at conception, ignores the compelling argument for fetal life and advocates terminating that nascent life, that candidate has violated the sanctity of life. That imperfection is therefore not an acceptable imperfection.
It is assumed that no thinking person would choose, given that a candidate is unacceptable, to support that candidate with donations of time, money, or electoral support (i.e. a vote), however if that is not immediately clear, while a more in depth argument can be made, one need simply apply a crude approximation of the scientific method to the "lesser of two evils" philosophy to test it. By changing the specific conditions in place when applying the philosophy and applying the principle that supporting an unacceptable candidate can be acceptable if the alternative is worse, one can reach all manner of conclusions which are absurd by any reckoning. That principle could be used to justify, among other things, marching alongside Horst Wessel in support of one of the world's worst mass murderers, and, in fact, supporting any form of evil, as long as the alternative was worse (and indeed, one could make a broader argument and claim that it justifies committing any evil oneself). The final line which can be drawn between two imperfect candidates, however detestable and evil one may be and however competent and reassuring the other may appear, is the line of acceptability. Once that line has been crossed there is no longer a logical barrier against supporting any form of evil.
It is not simply imperfection which voters must shun, it is the violation of certain fundamental principles which must be utterly rejected. No candidate is perfect, but some are acceptable while others are not. Given the terrifying implications of a belief to the contrary, voters must seek out and utterly reject a candidate whose positions pass beyond mere imperfection into unacceptability. Doing otherwise betrays those principles which we hold to be self-evident and essential and opens a logical door for even the most decent and upright person to support, quite literally, anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment