Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Claiming to be voting for "the lesser of two evils" is a false perspective, since Kamala Harris is not evil and Trump is [View all]
https://signalpress.blogspot.com/2024/09/discerning-lesser-of-two-evils-requires.html"I'm voting for the lesser of two evils."
O.K., so tell me, exactly what does that mean?
My personal interpretation of the use of this statement by a voter is that it is an expression of ignorance. They are patriotic enough to realize voting is a citizen's obligation, something that is a privilege and a right that shouldn't be wasted, but they're too lazy and uninformed to really know much about the candidates so they are depending on bits and pieces of news media sound bytes, probably a lot of podcasts and private sources, not a lot of reliable journalistic sources, and they know the talking points.
Having been raised in a conservative, Evangelical church and denomination, I was taught that everything, by default, is evil. Yes, that does seem to be a very pessimistic, negative way of looking at the world, I agree. It explains the cultural and social restrictions that constitute what they believe is genuine Christian practice, based on a literal reading of a text more than 2,000 years old, without applying much in the way of historical, cultural and language contexts to the interpretation.
But "evil" is a simplistic way to reject political candidates, particularly on a partisan basis, without having to put much effort into finding out where they stand on the issues or whether or not they are qualified to do the job. It's a dismissive way of deciding for whom one will vote. It's an argument that doesn't leave room for reasoning, since it's personal and subjective. In this way of looking at things, what makes a candidate "evil," by definition, is that they do not see the world, resolve problems or think the same way that the voter does. It has nothing to do with what is truly evil, as opposed to what is truly good.
O.K., so tell me, exactly what does that mean?
My personal interpretation of the use of this statement by a voter is that it is an expression of ignorance. They are patriotic enough to realize voting is a citizen's obligation, something that is a privilege and a right that shouldn't be wasted, but they're too lazy and uninformed to really know much about the candidates so they are depending on bits and pieces of news media sound bytes, probably a lot of podcasts and private sources, not a lot of reliable journalistic sources, and they know the talking points.
Having been raised in a conservative, Evangelical church and denomination, I was taught that everything, by default, is evil. Yes, that does seem to be a very pessimistic, negative way of looking at the world, I agree. It explains the cultural and social restrictions that constitute what they believe is genuine Christian practice, based on a literal reading of a text more than 2,000 years old, without applying much in the way of historical, cultural and language contexts to the interpretation.
But "evil" is a simplistic way to reject political candidates, particularly on a partisan basis, without having to put much effort into finding out where they stand on the issues or whether or not they are qualified to do the job. It's a dismissive way of deciding for whom one will vote. It's an argument that doesn't leave room for reasoning, since it's personal and subjective. In this way of looking at things, what makes a candidate "evil," by definition, is that they do not see the world, resolve problems or think the same way that the voter does. It has nothing to do with what is truly evil, as opposed to what is truly good.
Trump is clearly the most evil candidate. So those who are supporting him cannot be using the argument that they are voting for the lesser of two evils. There's something else behind their vote, and their position tells me that evil isn't a consideration for them, one way or another, nor is it a real concern.
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read