Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: marron
As always, this depends on the specifics. If the lesser of evil is essentially a decent man, then you have a responsibility to support him against the greater evil. <./i>

An 'essentially decent man' would inherently be a man of conscience and have his feet upon principle things. Good men can disagree, but that would be more a matter of degree rather than opposition. The principles necessarily remain. Ergo, the 'lesser good'. Evil is always evil.

573 posted on 11/02/2014 12:32:17 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies ]


To: roamer_1; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; xzins
An 'essentially decent man' would inherently be a man of conscience and have his feet upon principle things.

This is true. There are no perfect people, and for sure no perfect people in politics. Even good ones have blind spots, and find themselves squeezed by political considerations into taking positions that annoy us.

Thats normal, and par for the course. You can't escape that.

But the current GOP establishment is a different story. They want to abandon moral issues, and they want to seize control of the immigration issue, they think to their advantage, by amnesty of illegals while leaving the border open.

When you say the "lesser of evil is evil", that depends. We make "lesser of evil" calculations all day long. If the lesser-evil is essentially a good man, then support him against the greater evil. The problem comes when it isn't just the decent man with whom we agree 80%, its the guy who is going to implement the Left's agenda albeit at a discount.

There are a few basic issues I at least consider non-negotiables. Those are:

1. Sanctity of marriage
2. Sanctity of Life
3. Border security and protecting US citizenship
4. Repeal of Obamacare
5. Israel

For me these are bedrock issues. I don't know how to compromise on those issues. So, while I believe in "lesser of evil" calculations where the lesser evil is essentially decent, and in essential agreement on the big things, I am going to have a problem when they trot out an open-borders guy who is weak on the other moral issues.

I understand the need to unseat the Democrats and I understand that there are no perfect candidates and never will be this side of heaven. I understand the need to unite behind someone who will not trash the constitution. But the guy who won't secure the border already doesn't have much respect for the constitution. So if it seems I speak out of two sides of my mouth on these issues, its for a reason. I want to get the Dems out. I don't demand perfection from our side.

I will probably back whatever guy our side puts up, because our guy almost by definition has to be better than the awful guy their side puts up. But if GOP runs a guy who is weak or wrong on the bedrock issues, which it seems they are determined to do, or if they do to Ted Cruz what they usually do to conservative candidates, knifing them from behind, then this party will break whatever I decide to do.

580 posted on 11/02/2014 1:15:11 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson