The ‘Lesser Of Two Evils’ Con-Game

The moral relativism of the “lesser of two evils” philosophy has been draining the heart and soul of America for decades. Many of us in the Liberty Movement understand that it is nothing new, and have come to expect the abusive and emaciated logic it entails from time to time. However, over the course of the past year it has become apparent to me that the talking points and propaganda that drive the hypocritical worldview are being utilized on an even grander scale than ever before. This fact struck me quite sharply while attending a local GOP Lincoln/Reagan dinner event while I was attempting to gauge the overall danger our country would be facing from potential RINO (Republican In Name Only) sellouts as well as what our hopes were for a possible political solution at the local and state level. The “conservative” rally was, to say the least, disappointing.

One thing that stood out plainly at this event, though, was that there was an overall template; an action plan, a message that had been pre-engineered. Someone had sent out a memo, or an email, or a guide, or perhaps beamed talking points directly into the cyborg brains of these political hacks. Their rhetoric was repetitive and uniform and dry like elbow skin. The demand was clearly stated; regardless of who won the Republican Primaries, no matter how unprincipled, how unconstitutional, how despicable, it was our “duty” as conservatives to back them through the national elections. Obama and the Democrats had to be defeated at all costs…

Now, one of the first tenets or rules that a person learns when delving into the Liberty Movement is that there is no such thing as political parties in America today. There are no conflicting interests in Washington D.C. There is no “grand battle” between left and right for the minds of the masses. It is a sham. A con. A fantasy. A false paradigm.

In reality, the leaderships of both fraudulent parties support essentially the same methodology, and that methodology could be summarized thus: Centralize everything, globalize everything, control everything, grow government power, reduce the effectiveness of the citizenry, turn the public against each other, rob them while they’re distracted. If an American does not understand this dynamic and how it is used to dominate the ebb and flow of our culture, then that American knows nothing. He is lost…

Sadly, even those of us who should very well know better than to fall into the false left/right paradigm trap do so on occasion, as has been made painfully obvious by the foolhardy actions of Rand Paul and his blank check endorsement of Mitt Romney. Certainly, this epic blunder, which seems to me to be a blind stab at political maneuvering on the part of Ron Paul’s son, has set off an angry firestorm amongst true Constitutionalists who know every lie Mitt Romney has ever told. People are using words like “betrayal”, and “traitor”, and with good reason, but let’s look at this calamity from the other side of things for a moment…

There are others out there who would applaud Rand Paul’s decision. While many of them will openly admit that they do not feel very secure in the shadow of a Romney presidency, they still rationalize their position by making the “lesser of two evils” argument. “America may be going off the edge of a cliff”, they say, “but at least Romney won’t press the gas peddle as hard as Obama”. Here are just a few of the many reasons why this way of thinking will lead to the end of our society as we know it…

First of all, asserting that there is such a thing as a “lesser of two evils” is an act of naivety. It relies on a very dangerous assumption; that one can somehow quantify which candidate is going to hurt the country less. I’ve even read essays by people who pretend they can mathematically delineate the “more evil” of the evils! Not surprisingly, their “logic” invariably leads them to proclaim the lesser evil to be the candidate of the party they happen to belong to. Ignorant Republicans always see the Democrat as the greater evil, while ignorant Democrats always see the Republican as the ultimate monster.

Here’s some math for you: there are two candidates for President of the United States, one is a cannibalistic serial killer who plans to murder 20 more people with his own hands while in office. The other is a cannibalistic serial killer who only plans to kill 19 innocents personally. Which candidate do you support?

Unless you are a fan of murder, there is no inherent difference between these two demonic bureaucrats. They both stand in opposition to the guiding principles of inborn conscience, as well as the protections provided by the laws of free people. The fact that one man will do slightly less damage during his reign is irrelevant. Is a choice between Stalin and Hitler, for instance, really a choice at all? Which one is the "lesser evil" in this equation?

Some may argue that this comparison is a bit over the top. I beg to differ. Presidents have the power not only to maim and kill en mass, but they also have the power to dismantle the laws which protect our civil liberties. To drive the point home as far as Romney and Obama are concerned, let’s watch the following video, which removes the blinders and exposes these two charlatans for what they really are; two peas in a pod:

A refusal to vote, or a vote for a third party, is not a vote for Obama, or a vote for Romney, but a vote against the charade.

There is no such thing as a “lesser evil”. Either a candidate follows the path of truth and honor, or he does not. If he does, he deserves our support. If he does not, or if both candidates are criminals, then they both must be tossed to the wayside. Just because the system has deliberately limited our choices does not mean we are required to participate in the flim-flam.

I have also heard the argument that by refusing to participate within the system, and by refusing to choose a specimen from the carnival of horrors we are presented every election cycle, we are doing more harm to America than good. This is the most prevalent falsehood of our era.

The bottom line is, Americans have been dancing in the lesser of two evils pageantry for generations and our Constitutional shield has only been further degraded and destroyed in that time. I defy anyone to show how choosing Obama over McCain, or Bush over Gore, or Clinton over Bush Sr. has helped this country or its people. Where are these illusory advantages and benefits of participation? Where has our country gone while the public fettered away years trying to decide which ghoul to hand over the scepter of empire to? Or, the ultimate question; what specifically have they achieved? Have they gained anything? Has any minutia of our lives been made better by following the “lesser of two evils theory”? Only a fool would claim yes…

One might argue that a non-vote is the same as putting all bad candidates on the same footing, and that this would be “wrong”. I disagree. In an election in which all candidates share the same disparaging policies, they are ALREADY on the same footing. We simply refuse to give the farce legitimacy by casting our vote for any one of them.

In the game of chess, the primary goal is to diminish your opponent’s options. To force him into a corner where, no matter which choice he makes, he loses. Chess, however, is not life. In life, intelligent and creative individuals have the ability to walk away from the board completely and implement their own solutions. The more we continue to participate in the rigged game, and the more we continue to view the future as a series of self contained boundaries administered by the establishment instead of a wide open frontier in which all is possible, the more we will lose, until there is nothing left.

Good does not compromise with evil. As stated above, there is nothing to be gained by it. I find that the people most prone to suggesting or demanding compromise with oligarchs and tyrants are usually cowards who have never faced down any legitimate struggle in their lives with any passion. But, how do they sell this stunted philosophy to others? The illusion here is one of “reason” or “objectivity”.

Fearful men often use the guise of objectivity (even if they are not) to avoid confrontation, especially confrontation with a supposed authority figure or government. Strangely, their powers of reason and deduction invariably seem to lead them to subservience to the establishment structure. Compromise, for them, is a way to protect their flailing egos by playing the role of the “even handed citizen” while at the same time crawling towards servitude.

The argument to this position would, of course, be that many in the Liberty Movement compromise with evil everyday. That we follow laws we disagree with and that we find reprehensible, and that this makes us somehow “hypocritical”. I would say that this is a very narrow and disingenuous view.

Free minded people do not “follow” reprehensible laws so much as tolerate them while working to dismantle them (“following” infers acceptance). Being honorable and generally of good will, we look for peaceful avenues of redress and change. But, if those avenues are closed to us, and if the injustices expand, the free minded become freedom fighters. Dissent and even revolution are inevitable in the face of tyranny. It is an undeniable feature of human nature.

What I find most interesting though is the conundrum that this conflict of interest creates for the skeptical establishment slave. If the Liberty Movement tolerates bad law while searching for a peaceful path towards change, they call us hypocritical. If the Liberty Movement abandons tolerance and brings force to bear against tyranny and its abuse of the law, they call us “fringe extremists”. Apparently, the only way we can be correct in the eyes of self proclaimed objectivists is if we bow to the constraints of the system, sit back, keep our mouths shut, and enjoy the bread and circuses.

Collectivist governments seek to encourage extreme moral flexibility. Totalitarian regimes cannot survive otherwise. The lesser of two evils sales pitch is, in the end, an extension of the methodology of moral relativism. It trains us to embrace the status quo, whether we like it or not, and to continuously rationalize our adherence to the sham just to get through the day. The mental gymnastics we are required to perform become more complex and unstable. Eventually, in order to ease our consciences which are screaming in agony at the pit of our chests, we have to stop caring about anything, and just go through the motions of participation.

There are other ways to secure liberty beyond elections, but for these strategies to be effective, we have to stop asking for permission from the establishment before we take action. Perhaps you seek to step outside the box and away from the controlled paradigm. Perhaps you seek to confront the system head on, either exposing its duplicity and evil, or erasing it as an obstacle completely. The system, its laws, and its political theater are of no consequence, especially when it has been so corrupted.

Moral relativists, though keen on the idea of mutable law, enjoy the trappings of the law as long as it is to their benefit. The law, as I have pointed out in the past, is arbitrary, and always has been. The only true law is the law of inherent and universal conscience. My conscience, as with most other people, tells me that choosing the “lesser of two evils” (an illogical abstraction) sends a message to the elitists that manipulate our culture that I am willing to help them perpetuate their fiction. I become an accomplice in the crime. I commit self mutilation. I give power to the lie.

Such institutionalized misery can only be undone by uncompromising men and women who put principles and conscience before comfort, or even before their own lives. All throughout history, this is how wrong is undone. No society ever changed for the better by casting aside their beliefs and their individualism. No society ever changed for the better by choosing the lesser of two evils. No society ever changed for the better by holding out the hand of friendship to despots, maniacs, and con-men in the hopes that they would be spared just a little less tragedy before their time on this Earth is over…

The moral relativism of the “lesser of two evils” philosophy has been draining the heart and soul of America for decades.

So begins an intellectually vacuous screed with a simple misstatement of fact. "Lesser of two evils" is not and has never been an example of moral relativism. You may as well say that any mention of "the greater good" is also moral relativism. That would be an equivalently whacked-out judgement. An example of moral relativism is this: The Muslims don't eat pork, this other group doesn't eat human flesh. Each system has its own proscriptions that are valid within their systems but have no reference to any overarching moral order because there is none. One may or may not eat pork or long pork as one wishes. Its degree of evil is relative only to the system in which it is found. Do your own thing, baby.

1. Blah blah blah

2.If you don't vote for Romney/Ryan, you're not a "Conservative", you're a traitor who supports four more years of the Marxist nightmare.

3. Don't ever get on your high horse and start calling people cowards: where were you during the last several wars?

4. See your doctor and get your meds changed before you burst something.

“A refusal to vote, or a vote for a third party, is not a vote for Obama, or a vote for Romney, but a vote against the charade.”

Yes, ideally, it is a vote against the charade. But the charade will continue on as we split the vote.

And you think Jesus is going to say, "Well done, good and faithful servant for refusing to take back the existing opposition party and, instead, throwing your vote to something that couldn't possibly defeat a known enemy because you thought being considered a more nearly "true" conservative party than any other was more important than actually conserving and preserving the Republic against an ongoing enemy onslaught"?

Good point. Jesus rolled up his sleeves, waded right into the opposing factions, and by His example and teachings, won many of them over.

One could easily equate today's leftist Republicans with the tax collectors, prostitutes, Roman occupiers, and Pharisees He lived among and preached to. Following His example of teaching and persuading will always bear far more fruit than refusing to engage the opposition.

In the long run, figuratively kicking the Republican party to the curb and supporting other, weaker alternative parties only advances the greater evil, which is the Democrat Party, the party led by the man who holds our Constitution and Rule of Law in absolute contempt and brazenly tramples both at every opportunity.

The Democrat party (a.k.a. Evil, Inc.) proudly institutionalizes and advances morally depraved behavior. The Democrat party and what it represents is the Greater of Two Evils.

I am convinced that 4 more years of Obama will push this country past the point if no return ... irreparable damage. But I think we’ve seen enough backlash and call for real change over the past 2 years to believe that we are heading a better direction thanks to true conservatives and groups like the tea party affecting the votes.

With that in mind, I believe that with a Republican in the white house and control of at least the house and bench (and hopefully Senate) we can get the country back on track.

That said ... Romney/Ryan get my vote this November, because if Obama wins, this country will not be recognizable by 2016.

"The lesser of two evils" is what illiterate people say when they are clueless as to the issues, the candidates bios, the candidates records and the ethereal pleasure of a dry martini. They don't really wish to discuss it.

With Obama we have a guy who despises and United States, the history of the United States and anything that points to the United States as that "shining city upon a hill." With Obama we have a guy who employs racists and is a virulent racist.

With Obama we have a President who thinks every pregnancy brought to term represents a failure.

With Obama we have a guy who is the greater of two evils in comparison to a composite of Julius Caesar, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan.

With Obama we have a guy for whom "the lesser of two evils" is meaningless.

I have no idea whether Ann Coulter is right about Mitt Romney. I like to think she is. Since we know the outcome of four more years of Obama, I'll be happy to take a chance on the alternative. That is, I'll contribute to Romney and campaign for him.

Excuse me, but I call BS!!!

Conservatives have nobody to blame but themselves.

We had decent conservative candidates running in the primary. Romney, the sole RINO, was not anyone’s first choice.

Conservatives did what they always do......fail to coalesce around a candidate.

To this day, if you ask who would be better than Romney, you would get an argument that Bachmann would be better or Gingrich would be better ,etc, etc, etc.

I am sick and tired of those who claim conspiracy theories or want to cry like liberals that they were cheated.

CONSERVATIVE CHEATED THEMSELVES!!!!!!

What would have been wrong with a Gingrich?

Now, 20 self-professed conservative arbiters will tell everyone why Gingrich was bad.

Now ask: Would Gingrich be better than Romney?

Those same 20 self-professed conservative arbiters will not be silent.

Comments please. This is a critical discussion we will all have with our loved ones, friends and coworkers ...

I keep it simple with loved ones and friends. My vote has value. I won't just give it to Republicans any more. I won't capitulate to a political party that up and left me. The "lesser of two evils" rationalization doesn't cut it me any more and it disgusts me.

Everything you said is wrong, and this is why evil continues to gain an even stroger foothold as time passes on.

No one person is going to offer you everything you want, or if he does there is a high probability he will miss some of the things I hold as important.

Just as those now controlling the Democratic Party took control, we conservatives must take control of the Republican Party, because a 3rd party has no chance.

Where is the evidence that Romney has recognized his errors and regrets them?

Exactly!

Where has Romney said the following:

I supported unrestricted abortion for decades and I WAS WRONG.

I created the template for Obamacare and I WAS WRONG.

I permitted same-sex "marriage" and I WAS WRONG.

Nominating Ryan is nothing more than a red herring to placate conservatives, it changes NOTHING about Romney or his positions.

"Where is the evidence that Romney has recognized his errors and regrets them?"- P-Marlowe

Story by Gary Bauer:

"Like Reagan, Romney is a contrite convert, referring to his past support for Roe as his life’s “defining mistake.”

When challenged about his previous support for abortion in a Republican debate in December, he said “I changed my mind…I’m firmly pro-life…sometimes I’m wrong.”

Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families, and served for 8 years in the administration of President Ronald Reagan, including a stint as Reagan’s domestic policy adviser.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/19/mitt-romney-and-abortion-why-are-pro-lifers-still-questioning-convert/#ixzz23MxlZi4k

Story by Gary Bauer:

“Like Reagan, Romney is a contrite convert, referring to his past support for Roe as his life’s “defining mistake.”

When challenged about his previous support for abortion in a Republican debate in December, he said “I changed my mind…I’m firmly pro-life…sometimes I’m wrong.”

Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families, and served for 8 years in the administration of President Ronald Reagan, including a stint as Reagan’s domestic policy adviser.

Mitt Romney Never Flip-Flopped on Marriage

By: Maggie Gallagher, She is the founder of the National Organization for Marriage

“Mitt Romney didn’t just oppose court-ordered same-sex marriage with words, he fought hard, including behind the scenes.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/02/mitt_romney_never_flip-flopped_on_marriage_112251.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.