What If 'Lesser of Two Evils' Voting Is Just a Sign Politics Itself Is Evil?
And what if supporting politicians and new legislation really aren't the best way to change the world?
Dear Alec,
I found your post yesterday very intriguing and thought it might be worthwhile for us and others to dialogue on it from our shared Biblical-faith-centered perspective:
Before we begin, I think it’s worth briefly restating where I stand on the issue of abortion. I regard myself as essentially a moderate on the issue today, while remaining open to being persuaded to other positions. I consider myself both pro-life and pro-choice, finding both sides’ arguments compelling in different ways. On the pro-life side, having edited pro-lifers for so many years I do find their arguments that abortion amounts to killing a human life legitimate and thus in almost all cases apart from the rare ones in which the mother’s life is literally in danger then abortion is an immoral act. It is much better for a woman to be persuaded not to abort and then, if she simply cannot bring herself to raise the child, to allow a couple who cannot have children to adopt the baby.
However, on the pro-choice side, I do see attempts to ban abortion as largely futile, with the exception of late-term abortions, which seem to generally have enough popular opposition to them. Even if abortion could be banned at the federal level in all 50 states - not at all something practical which enough people support - then the reality would simply be trips to Canada, Mexico or other countries for middle class and wealthy women, while those poorer would resort to “back alley clinics” or questionable drugs for more dangerous procedures. As a child raised in the 1990s by liberal parents of the Bill and Hillary Clinton ideological school, the mantra of “safe, legal, and rare” still resonates with me as the ideal, though I’m cognizant that in the real world that hardly amounts to abortion in practice.
And likewise abortion bans at the state level strike me as similarly futile as long as abortion remains legal in other states. While I do agree with the pro-life legal critique of Roe v. Wade as illogical and indefensible from a legal perspective - and further a bad way of making abortion legal, provoking all sorts of political and cultural consequences - I’ve never seen its repeal as the most important method of reducing abortions. All it means is that it sends the issue back to the states and then those which have a large enough political majority to implement a ban will lack the power to prevent those seeking abortions from merely getting on a bus - perhaps at the expense of some liberal feminist group - to get their abortion in a liberal state.
In my view the only practical ways to reduce abortion long-term and effectively are:
Further promoting a culture based in biblical and Judeo-Christian moral values.
Continuing to make the arguments for abortion as an amoral act in a secular context to those who cannot yet bring themselves to recognize the truth that the God of Israel does in fact exist.
Offering significant, broad community support to single women without the resources to properly care for a baby who are considering abortion.
Further technological advances in contraception - including for men! - to simply prevent unplanned pregnancies in the first place. (I understand that you as a Catholic cannot support such an option, but certainly many other pro-lifers can, even if at a moral level they certainly object to pre-marital sex.)
I continue to return to the cultural principle which Andrew Breitbart popularized and which has inspired my own career and activism ever since:
Politics is downstream from culture.
For political change to be effective and long-lasting it needs broad cultural support, including in both the GOP and the Democratic party, as well as for both the mainstreams of the Left and the Right. Hence why just as I regard myself as both pro-choice and pro-life, at this point I see myself and my efforts in both a post-partisan and post-ideological way. When there’s an activist cause that I hope to see addressed in a meaningful way at the national political level, in my view I have to be able to appeal broadly across parties and ideologies. Just focusing on gaining the loyalty of one ideological tribe and one party does not ensure enough support to maintain a law even if there is an initial policy victory. A law passed one year can be repealed in another when the political winds and partisan fortunes shift.
Anyway, that bit of ideological throat-clearing complete, let’s now consider some of the thoughtful points you raise in your last post.
I appreciate how you grappled with the challenge of voting for politicians who share some of your moral values and faith-based convictions but not all. That you do not insist a politician agrees with you on contraception for them to earn your vote is admirable and sensible.
However, this point you made really jumped out at me, given that as you know, I’ve been in the midst of a political transition the last year and a half away from Left-Right warmongering, partisan politics, and even the importance of always voting:
At the same time, we live in a compromised world, where sometimes we must choose the lesser of two evils. If I’m faced with voting for a pro-life candidate who allows for exceptions to abortion and the opposition is rabidly pro-choice up until birth—I must support the former candidate. But some on our side don’t see it that way.
In Kentucky, we have had that problem in the pro-life movement for many years. Like today’s so-called "principled conservatives," these pro-lifers will not support anyone who does not match all of their specific criteria for being pro-life, one of which, for example, was being against the contraceptive pill. This steadfast holding to principles made it possible for the defeat of otherwise good pro-life politicians.
I saw this as more virtue-signaling than successful politics. I have yet to vote for an absolutely pure and perfect candidate for office. I don’t think one exists.
You further cite Jesus to back up your political approach:
So, what’s the answer? We must follow Christ’s admonition to his disciples when he sent them out on their own for the first time to preach the Gospel:
“Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves.” Mt 10:16.
We need to be prayerful about how we address each political situation. In the pro-life political realm, we must look at the reality of our situation and be “shrewd” when it appears we will save more lives by compromising. Yet, we must also remain “simple” by not compromising our belief in the truth that abortion is murder. The compromise must not be with the truth, but how we target our efforts.
But here’s the thing: I don’t think Jesus was talking about modern politics at all in that verse. Let’s take a look at the whole chapter to get the broader context of his message:
Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a] drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.
So the context of this instruction is Jesus sending out His 12 disciples to perform miracles and exorcisms as He did. And further to focus entirely on persuading their fellow Jews to embrace Him and His message.
9 “Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts— 10 no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep. 11 Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. 12 As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you.
Then further note here what Jesus instructs his followers to do regarding those who reject this message:
14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
Jesus literally says to move on and give up when it is not possible to persuade a town to embrace His teachings.
16 “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17 Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
So this injunction to be “shrewd as snakes” is primarily offered in the context of what Jesus knows the punishment will be to the disciples for preaching his message.
Jesus knows that His disciples will all face the penalty of arrest and eventually death as we know that each of the disciples did in fact experience to conclude their lives.
21 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Again, Jesus says to abandon the places where people threaten the lives of the disciples. This reflects my own recent view that by and large we need to flee places like most cities as well as states with bad cultural values — such as the place of my birth, adolescence, college years, and initial professional time, Indiana — instead of trying to implement broad cultural changes upon those who simply refuse it. Our powers of persuasion are deeply limited.
Also worth noting is that Jesus says clearly here that He will return soon, within the lifetimes of his disciples. This was the general view of the early Christians. They were “apocalypticists” certain that the end of the world was coming soon. Why? Because that’s what Jesus said. When that didn’t happen then Christians had to evolve to a different belief. Does that mean the Bible is invalid because this didn’t happen? As a mystic, I think it only refutes a literalist translation, and certainly can be viewed symbolically.
24 “The student is not above the teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household!
26 “So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29
This is something which you and I have discussed, which I do regard in a more literal fashion and sympathize with your church’s approach regarding. I do think that demonic forces walk the earth and their temptations are the primary source of evil among men, one important side effect of which is that they prevent a level of tyranny akin to before the flood when the children of the fallen angels oppressed both man and animal to a shocking degree. (And for the record I also regard demonic forces as the cause of diseases and natural disasters. These too are intended to tempt humans to fall away from God, as the Book of Job demonstrates.) So I do have some sympathy toward the idea that exorcisms of demons can in fact work.
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care.[b] 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]
This point is one I’ve come to know too well. I’m the black sheep in my family, the only one believing in the Bible seriously, its transcendent moral values, and Jesus’ call to love in totality.
And it’s deeply discouraged me about world-changing. If I can’t even persuade my own family who is supposed to love and respect me, then do I really have much chance of persuading most strangers?
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.
These two verses emboldened here were my mantra during my teen Evangelical years. I regarded suffering deeply for my faith as simply an aspect of imitating Jesus, which we are clearly called to do as much as possible. And it bothered me so much as I watched around the Christian world for years and saw few Christians actually embracing it and living it.
Instead I saw wealthy Christians living comfortably, going to their church service each week and scarfing down coffee and donuts afterward. How were they taking up their own cross? How were they losing their life for Christ? Few did. These experiences as a teenager and continuing to watch the organized, church-based Christian world now as an outsider, echo what I’ve learned about my own family. If even our fellow Christians cannot be persuaded to abandon comfort and tranquility to take a moral stand for Christ then can we really persuade strangers who do not embrace our God and our holy text?
In studying the Old Testament prophets as I have been doing in my mysticism podcasts the last few months it seems a regular warning from God is that most people will simply not listen to a prophet’s call. And this is something to simply be accepted.
40 “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me.41 Whoever welcomes a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever welcomes a righteous person as a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. 42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.”
So, all this Biblical exposition to say: I don’t really believe at this point that public policy advocacy, voting and campaigning, and cozying up to politicians to implement any particular agenda is really what Christ calls on us to do. Jesus was not a political figure at all - he sought a spiritual revolution and a cultural revolution would follow after that.
So especially given that the primary goal of the pro-life movement has now been accomplished - the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court - the time has come for a reevaluating of pro-life priorities regarding where it chooses to spend its time, money, and manpower. I think working at the local level and the cultural level to provide those considering abortion with better options is the way forward. Working on individuals, not changing laws, is the most important thing to do.
Finally, to consider these principles beyond just the issues of abortion, I’ll further make clear: I am indeed one of those "principled conservatives” and have grown tired of every year just following the common injunction that “we must choose the lesser of two evils.” I don’t demand a perfect candidate who I agree with on every policy - I demand one which has a moral minimum. And when I can’t find that, I simply won’t vote for either.
I think we need to look at the broader implications of this “lesser of two evils” understanding of American politics. If just about every election is a choice between two evils then what does that say about our political system? And what does it further say about the American public at large?
I’ll tell you: it affirms the profound truth of what George Carlin said in my favorite of his stand-up routines, one that has given me so much comfort in explaining the reaction so many people had to the violence which caused my PTSD, that “the public sucks.” And I take this a step further - it’s not just the American public that “sucks,” it’s humanity at large. I regularly say it: most people are terrible, selfish, ignorant, [insert whatever negative descriptor you want here.]
This has been my Twitter background for a year and a half and I’ve felt no need to change it:
America today is what Jesus warned his disciples to avoid: places in which his message is unwanted and nobody wants to hear about a value system based on love because the culture is too deeply poisoned.
Now I do not take an absolutist position against voting; I have not abandoned politics entirely. But particularly at the national and state levels I have. Local politics seems to me a different beast, and if one has committed oneself to living in a specific place (which I have not yet) then it can be easier and more practical to organize enough people to nudge the town or county’s policies in a more productive direction.
However, when it comes to the House, Senate, and presidency? They are too reflective of America’s terrible, amoral cultures at large to really accomplish meaningful change in most circumstances.
The particular exception I make is in the foreign policy realm. That too is a different beast. Though in most cases and times this too is not as important as we’d like to make it out to be. Both Democrats and Republicans will often do largely the same things at the international level to simply protect our nation and attempt to maintain global stability. Really, in my view, the primary purpose of the federal government is simply to prevent other countries and terrorist groups from making war against us. And just about any politician who will rise to the level of Senator or president is going to support that. So even there, taking a partisan stance between Republican and Democrat to justify a “lesser of two evils” vote is unnecessary. It’s also worth remembering: in most states of the country they are so firmly red or blue that at the presidential level voting is largely meaningless. We already know beforehand which direction the state will go.
So all this to say: we need to take the implications of Clausewitz’s insight that war is politics by other means and vice versa seriously. And war in general is an outright evil endeavor. Few wars that men engage in today and throughout history present a side which clearly has the moral high ground.
And even in cases in which one side does then it’s very likely that a significant amount of the conduct engaged in by both the generals and the soldiers of that side will precipitate immoral acts, inflicting more cruelty and brutality than is necessary to accomplish their goal. While I still have much respect and appreciation for our military at large and the work they do, it’s necessary to recognize that a lot of the men drawn to the potential of being able to kill another without legal consequences are evil bastards. The terrible culture of America is also reflected in the cultures of our military.
The same principle applies to American politics. A massive number of politicians - I’d say the majority at this point - do not seek elective office to “make the country better,” they seek it to gain power, prestige, and wealth.
Thus, those of us with biblical values need to be deeply skeptical of investing too much of our time and emotional energy in participating. We should vote less, spend less time immersing ourselves in political media, and instead focus on more meaningful pursuits like spirituality, culture, and showing love to the flesh-and-blood people we interact with daily.
How does that sound?
Best wishes and much appreciation for the moral clarity you contribute to this publishing company,
David