Do we vote for the lesser of two evils?

[St_Francis]

In the US and probably in every democracy, all votes have been and always will be about voting for the lesser of two evils. The natural balance of the parties is ALWAYS such that the moral good is more or less split evenly between them. It is a basic mathematics and natural selection.

In every society there are moral goods that everyone accepts, that no one accepts, and that some fraction near 50/50 accepts. Disregarding the first two categories since they are politically uninteresting (all sides agree), that still leaves scores of issues that vary dramatically in importance with most near the middle.

Now let us assume for a minute that the morally correct decision is the most popular on average (if it is not then democracy is bound to fail). If that was the case then how would the people vote if one party was morally correct on all or most of the issues? Would they not vote overwhelmingly for the morally correct one and therefore effectively eliminate one of the parties?

Now this is when it gets interesting, for the morally inferior party will then for the sake of survival change sides on enough issues to bleed enough support to reach parity or better with the morally superior one. This will then cause the morally correct party to adapt some of the more popular of the morally incorrect issues to capture enough votes to survive. The end result is that what started off as morally unambiguous quickly ‘devolves’ to become morally ambiguous.

(If you skipped the previous 2 paragraphs for being too wordy please start again here, I will keep it simple from here on ) .

The end result, which I believe is confirmed by history, is that we end up with a party system where moral issues are continually changing between the parties and that generally favors both parties being roughly equally morally correct.

All of us are wrong about some fraction of the moral issues. It is to be hoped, though, that the vast majority of the people are significantly better than the roughly 50/50 split that the reality of politics forces upon the parties. This is why there has never been an easy choice in politics and why we will always have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

A multiple party situation can mitigate the problem some what. In a three party system each party will roughly have 2/3 of the morally ‘correct’ answers. (Where correct is in all cases above means what the majority feels is correct.) But even in multiple party systems they still need to form a majority to govern, which essentially leads to the same problem.

Not so. Sometimes all parties concerned can agree on the morals, but disagree on the prudential action to be taken. And sometimes one party of two parties will be 90% moral while the other only 10% (in the areas in which they disagree).

 

[eightandsand]

This isn’t a lesser of two evils choice. It’s Obama who has declared war on the Catholic Church vs Romney who isn’t perfect but then we are never going to have a perfect candidate.

Based on their records, they BOTH have a history of declaring war not only on the Catholic Church but also on the Constitution. In Romney’s case he actually forced Catholic hospitals in Massachussetts to violate their consciences and forefeit their Constitutionally-guaranteed religious liberty.

While we should not take our duty to vote for granted, neither should we allow those in authority to take our intelligence for granted nor the honor of those who have given their lives in defense of the Constitution for granted.

The political process does have its limitations.

Had the revolutionaries of 1776 been content with the “lesser of two evils” logic, there never would have been a Revolution.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There are no absolutes in an election, just as there lacks an absolute must vote for candidate according to the Church. What you suggest is tantamount to the Church instructing us to vote for a certain candidate.

If we cannot, in good conscience, vote for one of the two, we are at liberty to vote according to our faith formed consciences for the candidate of our choice.

Abortion has been ‘at stake’ for many years now. Republicans have placed more of the serving justices on the supreme court than the democrats. Nothing changed; however, we continue hearing ‘this president will seat more justices, you must vote for this candidate.’

To spin Church teachings into ‘one has to vote for a specific candidate’ is wrong. If it were correct to say that, one could easily produce the Church documents that says it specifically that way. That would be the Church endorsing a specific candidate, and that doesn’t happen. If it were that easy, I’m sure the Church would plainly say it so the simplest of us could understand it.

To suggest so is political attempts to sway people into voting a specific way.

The two party system has ruined us. Each side blames the other, and nothing gets done.

First of all, I don’t think anyone on here has established that the Repub party will promote some evil or other. We know full well the Dem party does. All one has to do is read their platform in which the party pledges itself to the causes of abortion on demand and homosexual “marriage”.

And you know, of course, that one more prolife justice would have tipped the scale. Instead, by voting for Obama, many Catholics ensured the appointment of two pro-abortion justices.

Does election of a Repub president guarantee court overturning of Roe and its progeny? No, of course not. But the election of a Dem president guarantees that it will not be overturned. All of this equating of the parties on the issue of abortion is simply a counsel to despair and we should not encourage despair in those who might, by opposing evil, end or minimize it.

The Church itself never tells us which specific candidate to vote for. You know that. Nevertheless, the Pope and many bishops, including my own, have taught that we must, by our political action, oppose the intrinsic evil of abortion. “Sitting it out” by voting by some candidate that has no chance at all of actually winning is an exercise in pride, if motivated by an insistence that we are right in every way and therefore deserve a candidate we deem “pristine”. Sitting it out because we won’t look at the obvious differences is acedia or despair.

Personally, I’m going to vote against the abortion and homosexual “marriage”-promoting and Church persecuting Obama if I have to drag myself out of a sick bed to do it. I probably do have some advantage in motivation in that my grandchildren know what abortion is and would be appalled if I did not oppose it. Well, and they read our bishop’s letter on the HHS mandate too. They would be ashamed of me if I did not vote against Obama, and they would be right in so being.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I think I understand… that is why I said I would pray for you, please keep me in your prayers too.

You’re in my prayers.

Thanks
Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The title of this thread does NOT apply to current situation. There is only one evil, not two.

It does apply to the current situation for we don’t know what might come out during the campaign that could change how we view the candidates.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Both sides pander to ‘blocs’ of voters; making it very difficult to know what’s real and what they might feel is beneficial to their political aspirations.

That’s right, and we’ll see a drastic change in campaign rhetoric after the conventions, once both sides secure their base.

They will then go after the independent voters with fanaticism. It’s why I believe Obama will provide Cardinal Dolan the exemptions he’s looking for in the Health Care bill.

He needs the Catholic vote, many who are independent voters.

Jim

 

[exnihilo]

First of all, I don’t think anyone on here has established that the Repub party will promote some evil or other. We know full well the Dem party does. All one has to do is read their platform in which the party pledges itself to the causes of abortion on demand and homosexual “marriage”.

The Republican Party promotes sanctions and war. The party promotes denying resources that we consider essentials through sanctions. It promotes killing by always having some enemy they plan to attack, not defend against. I consider that evil. Of course the Democrat party has not shown itself to be any better. The wars started by Republicans were and are still being conducted under Democrats. But I consider warmongering to be very evil and makes me question the party’s true motivation when it claims to be pro life.

And you know, of course, that one more prolife justice would have tipped the scale. Instead, by voting for Obama, many Catholics ensured the appointment of two pro-abortion justices.

Does election of a Repub president guarantee court overturning of Roe and its progeny? No, of course not. But the election of a Dem president guarantees that it will not be overturned. All of this equating of the parties on the issue of abortion is simply a counsel to despair and we should not encourage despair in those who might, by opposing evil, end or minimize it.

Your assumption regarding justices is unwarranted. First off we know that electing Republican presidents in no way guarantees a pro life justice. Secondly there is a good chance that any truly pro life justice will decide to not overturn the law based on the principle of stare decisis which is exerted these days only to restrict our rights, including the rights of the unborn. Finally we know for a fact that seven of nine Supreme Court justices were Republican appointees and given the opportunity to end abortion they did not. Why should we value rhetoric over actual opportunities? If someone tells me something and then fails to deliver I stop believing that person. I apply the same principle to groups. Why should I not apply that principle to the Republican Party? It seems to me pro life Republican voters are like abused spouses who keep taking the abuser back because they promise it will be different this time.

Republican Ron Paul advocated passing a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. He also introduced bills to define life as beginning at conception. Why didn’t the Republican party pass such laws when it controlled all branches of government? Or why doesn’t it try to pass a constitutional amendment? There are many other strategies to stop abortion than electing Republican presidents which has been done and proven unsuccessful.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Based on their records, they BOTH have a history of declaring war not only on the Catholic Church but also on the Constitution. In Romney’s case he actually forced Catholic hospitals in Massachussetts to violate their consciences and forefeit their Constitutionally-guaranteed religious liberty.

No he didn’t. He initially opposed that portion and vetoed it, but it was passed over his veto. When asked if it applied to Catholic institutions, he responded that it did.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Based on their records, they BOTH have a history of declaring war not only on the Catholic Church but also on the Constitution. In Romney’s case he actually forced Catholic hospitals in Massachussetts to violate their consciences and forefeit their Constitutionally-guaranteed religious liberty.

.

I live in Massachusetts and this is not true.

Governor Romney was very much pro-life and supported the rights of the Catholic Church very strongly.

As governor, he was good.

Unfortunately, he chose Paul Ryan, which was political suicide.

Jim

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Republican Party promotes sanctions and war. The party promotes denying resources that we consider essentials through sanctions. It promotes killing by always having some enemy they plan to attack, not defend against. I consider that evil. Of course the Democrat party has not shown itself to be any better. The wars started by Republicans were and are still being conducted under Democrats. But I consider warmongering to be very evil and makes me question the party’s true motivation when it claims to be pro life.

Your assumption regarding justices is unwarranted. First off we know that electing Republican presidents in no way guarantees a pro life justice. Secondly there is a good chance that any truly pro life justice will decide to not overturn the law based on the principle of stare decisis which is exerted these days only to restrict our rights, including the rights of the unborn. Finally we know for a fact that seven of nine Supreme Court justices were Republican appointees and given the opportunity to end abortion they did not. Why should we value rhetoric over actual opportunities? If someone tells me something and then fails to deliver I stop believing that person. I apply the same principle to groups. Why should I not apply that principle to the Republican Party? It seems to me pro life Republican voters are like abused spouses who keep taking the abuser back because they promise it will be different this time.

Republican Ron Paul advocated passing a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. He also introduced bills to define life as beginning at conception. Why didn’t the Republican party pass such laws when it controlled all branches of government? Or why doesn’t it try to pass a constitutional amendment? There are many other strategies to stop abortion than electing Republican presidents which has been done and proven unsuccessful.

Whether or not a particular war is a just war is a matter of prudential judgment, upon which Catholics may disagree. Abortion is not a matter of prudential judgment.

There were a great number of curbs placed on abortion by Repubs, including the Hyde Amendment, which was bypassed by Obamacare. With Repubs there is at least a chance of prolife measures. With the Dems, there is none at all.

If Ron Paul succeeded in removing abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supremes, it would lock Roe in forever. Possibly he has not considered that.

The Repub party has not “controlled” all branches of government since time immemorial. Even during the early Bush years, there were not enough Repubs in the Senate to defeat a filibuster.

I think most everyone considers Roberts and Alito prolife. It could rightly be said that Santorum gave up his office to get that done. Had Bush been able to appoint one more justice, even considering the possibility that he might have misjudged an appointee, there would have been a chance to overturn Roe.

Now there’s none, thanks to those who voted for Obama. But if obama is defeated, there is again a chance. It might be noted that the only real curb on abortion, upholding the banning of partial birth abortions, was due to the votes of Repub justices. Every Dem justice voted against the ban.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Unfortunately, he chose Paul Ryan, which was political suicide.

Jim

Maybe. I’m guessing that if Ryan gets a good audience, he will be an asset, not a liability. The man is a monster if one just listens to the liberal media and operatives. If one actually hears him talk, he makes perfect sense.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The man is a monster if one just listens to the liberal media and operatives. If one actually hears him talk, he makes perfect sense.

What’s more likely? That voters go to meet Ryan and listen to him in person, or that they hear about him from newspapers and TV?

 

[Ridgerunner]

What’s more likely? That voters go to meet Ryan and listen to him in person, or that they hear about him from newspapers and TV?

I’m not certain the average voter listens very attentively to any of the above. But the media seems the more likely source as between the two. But that would be true no matter who the Repub VP candidate is. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Ryan will break out of the liberal circle of silence and slander, but it would take a lot to do it.

We’ll just have to see, I guess.

 

[exnihilo]

Whether or not a particular war is a just war is a matter of prudential judgment, upon which Catholics may disagree. Abortion is not a matter of prudential judgment.

Yes but if we follow the Just War theory it is hard to justify US military actions. Attempts to justify them make me question the judgement of those who do so. If someone is ‘pro life’ but a strong advocate for attacking foreigners then I’m doubtful they are principled and thus doubt their commitment to opposing abortion.

There were a great number of curbs placed on abortion by Repubs, including the Hyde Amendment, which was bypassed by Obamacare. With Repubs there is at least a chance of prolife measures. With the Dems, there is none at all.

They might vote for the Hyde Amendment but have never defunded Planned Parenthood. The Republicans do have some extremely minor accomplishments to point to that demonstrate opposing abortion. But the fact is their efforts have not stopped the million of abortions that occur annually. Anyway Republicans should oppose any such funding based on the principle that this is not the job of the federal government.

If Ron Paul succeeded in removing abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supremes, it would lock Roe in forever. Possibly he has not considered that.

Why do you think that?

The Repub party has not “controlled” all branches of government since time immemorial. Even during the early Bush years, there were not enough Repubs in the Senate to defeat a filibuster.

No but they controlled it during the Bush years and what they did accomplish was two wars, the largest increase in socialized medicine since Medicare and prior to Obamacare, the PATRIOT Act and many huge social changes but yet abortion is still legal. So simply electing Republicans is not an effective strategy for ending abortion and for many other reasons not good.

I think most everyone considers Roberts and Alito prolife. It could rightly be said that Santorum gave up his office to get that done. Had Bush been able to appoint one more justice, even considering the possibility that he might have misjudged an appointee, there would have been a chance to overturn Roe.

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. But it is a fact that the basic ruling making abortion a right was affirmed by a court that had seven of nine Republican appointees.

Now there’s none, thanks to those who voted for Obama. But if obama is defeated, there is again a chance. It might be noted that the only real curb on abortion, upholding the banning of partial birth abortions, was due to the votes of Repub justices. Every Dem justice voted against the ban.

Partial birth abortion is a pretty rare but particularly gruesome form of abortion. The American people were very much in agreement that it should be illegal, which is what I’d expect. The courts will side with the will of the people. If enough people are outraged abortion is legal it will become illegal. The courts are political just as much as the Congress.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Maybe. I’m guessing that if Ryan gets a good audience, he will be an asset, not a liability. The man is a monster if one just listens to the liberal media and operatives. If one actually hears him talk, he makes perfect sense.

Political campaigns are the process of projecting an image of the candidate.

Ryan has a long way to go to project and image that is acceptable to the independent voters.

As it is, Romney was down in Florida yesterday, distancing himself from Ryan’s budget proposal.

Jim

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes but if we follow the Just War theory it is hard to justify US military actions. Attempts to justify them make me question the judgement of those who do so. If someone is ‘pro life’ but a strong advocate for attacking foreigners then I’m doubtful they are principled and thus doubt their commitment to opposing abortion.
**In other words, if someone does not agree with your judgment of a particular war, you think they’re for abortion too. It would probably be a good idea if you re-read the Just War doctrine. It’s not at all difficult to justify the Iraq War as a just war, and I have seen it ably argued. **

They might vote for the Hyde Amendment but have never defunded Planned Parenthood. The Republicans do have some extremely minor accomplishments to point to that demonstrate opposing abortion. But the fact is their efforts have not stopped the million of abortions that occur annually. Anyway Republicans should oppose any such funding based on the principle that this is not the job of the federal government.
** They defunded a great deal of Planned Parenthood, but presidents don’t have line item vetos. But I agree Repubs should oppose all funding of Planned Parenthood.**

Why do you think that? Why do I think Ron Paul would lock in Roe and its progeny if he succeeded in removing abortion from the jurisdiction of federal courts? Because abortion on demand is the law as we speak. If the courts could not longer address the question, it remains barring a constitutional convention. A constitutional convention, one could argue, could bring about horrible results. Supposedly a majority now favors homosexual “marriage”, right? Want to see that made part of the constitution?

No but they controlled it during the Bush years and what they did accomplish was two wars, the largest increase in socialized medicine since Medicare and prior to Obamacare, the PATRIOT Act and many huge social changes but yet abortion is still legal. So simply electing Republicans is not an effective strategy for ending abortion and for many other reasons not good. Never did I say I agreed with Medicare Part B, and I always thought the Patriot Act would be dangerous if somebody like Obama got elected. But that tells us nothing about abortion funding.

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. But it is a fact that the basic ruling making abortion a right was affirmed by a court that had seven of nine Republican appointees. And nobody saw that coming either. Also, those Repub appointees were appointed back when “Rockefeller Repubs” were still a power in the party. They aren’t now.

Partial birth abortion is a pretty rare but particularly gruesome form of abortion. The American people were very much in agreement that it should be illegal, which is what I’d expect. The courts will side with the will of the people. If enough people are outraged abortion is legal it will become illegal. The courts are political just as much as the Congress.

The American people are also in agreement that abortion on demand should be limited. In that respect, the courts have not sided with the will of the people. But I will agree the courts are political, at least to an extent; more as to ideology than to mechanics.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

First of all, I don’t think anyone on here has established that the Repub party will promote some evil or other. We know full well the Dem party does. All one has to do is read their platform in which the party pledges itself to the causes of abortion on demand and homosexual “marriage”.

And you know, of course, that one more prolife justice would have tipped the scale. Instead, by voting for Obama, many Catholics ensured the appointment of two pro-abortion justices.

Does election of a Repub president guarantee court overturning of Roe and its progeny? No, of course not. But the election of a Dem president guarantees that it will not be overturned. All of this equating of the parties on the issue of abortion is simply a counsel to despair and we should not encourage despair in those who might, by opposing evil, end or minimize it.

The Church itself never tells us which specific candidate to vote for. You know that. Nevertheless, the Pope and many bishops, including my own, have taught that we must, by our political action, oppose the intrinsic evil of abortion. “Sitting it out” by voting by some candidate that has no chance at all of actually winning is an exercise in pride, if motivated by an insistence that we are right in every way and therefore deserve a candidate we deem “pristine”. Sitting it out because we won’t look at the obvious differences is acedia or despair.

Personally, I’m going to vote against the abortion and homosexual “marriage”-promoting and Church persecuting Obama if I have to drag myself out of a sick bed to do it. I probably do have some advantage in motivation in that my grandchildren know what abortion is and would be appalled if I did not oppose it. Well, and they read our bishop’s letter on the HHS mandate too. They would be ashamed of me if I did not vote against Obama, and they would be right in so being.

We’ve been hearing ‘one more justice’ for years now and the majority of justices were appointed by Republicans. There’s been opportunities, but no changes have been made. I really believe it’s because pro life people are being pandered to for their votes.

There are no specific instructions, from the Church, that excludes a third party candidate as a vote against the candidate supporting an intrinsic evil. Whether a candidate actually has a chance of being elected, or not, is determined after an election and not before.

However you want to spin it, I do not see anyone here saying they don’t oppose abortion. There seems to be a spin on wording to insinuate that if you don’t vote for a specific candidate it’s to support the intrinsic evil. That simply is not true, as far as I can see. It’s only political speak to support other issues.

There was an opportunity to choose a candidate that would have united people more than Romney, but people began the ‘electability’ discussion right out of the shoot, disqualifying other candidates for appears to have been ‘other issues’. Now the push is on to get everyone to go against their consciences and pick the ‘lesser of two evils’.

 

[exnihilo]

In other words, if someone does not agree with your judgment of a particular war, you think they’re for abortion too. It would probably be a good idea if you re-read the Just War doctrine. It’s not at all difficult to justify the Iraq War as a just war, and I have seen it ably argued

No I don’t understand how they could be against abortion. If you can justify America’s wars you can easily justify abortion. A fetus in a woman’s womb is as much of a threat as a people a world away who are not attacking you. If you can make war on people, which includes the likely and frequent death of innocents, to prevent merely possible danger then you can abort a baby to prevent merely possible danger. The cavalier attitude towards foreigners makes me doubt the moral underpinnings of their anti-abortion claims.

 

[gnjsdad]

No I don’t understand how they could be against abortion. If you can justify America’s wars you can easily justify abortion. A fetus in a woman’s womb is as much of a threat as a people a world away who are not attacking you. If you can make war on people, which includes the likely and frequent death of innocents, to prevent merely possible danger then you can abort a baby to prevent merely possible danger. The cavalier attitude towards foreigners makes me doubt the moral underpinnings of their anti-abortion claims.

You make an excellent point!

The pro life movement is in the sorry shape that it’s in because it has allowed itself to be saddled with the rest of the morally problematic Republican agenda…hyper-aggressive foreign adventures and economic exploitaton.

 

[scipio337]

You make an excellent point!

The pro life movement is in the sorry shape that it’s in because it has allowed itself to be saddled with the rest of the morally problematic Republican agenda…hyper-aggressive foreign adventures and economic exploitaton.

Maybe because war (and the death penalty) are not intrisic evils, and I’ve seen no defininitive condemnation of any of the wars the Republicans are blamed for (with bipartisan approval in Congress), or the wars Obama is pushing for?



Let us know when the death toll in Iraq tops 50 million.