I usually am a spit shit talk trash kind of opinion writer.
I like spewing my thoughts and letting the reader determine if they care.
Then earlier this morning I tweeted or “Xed” a post about
the lesser of two evils. Since it was “X” there is limited space I use. I do
not feel the need to give any of my money to Musk. He doesn’t need it.
And then I got to thinking. I already knew there is
substantial literature about voting the lesser of two evils. So I researched it
a small amount this morning and it goes back further than I realized. To spare
you a dissertation I will ask that you do some research on your own.
I do want to mention though I will pitch my tent on the side
that you should still vote principles, not succumb to I don’t feel anything
will get done if I don’t fight what I can by compromising my principles to vote
for the lesser of two evils. In the long run, we don’t get better until we don’t
give up our principles.
One argument from some of what I read this morning is an
article from the publication Pysche by Robert Simpson an associate professor
written about the 2020 election. And his points are specific to that election,
yet you can apply them broadly or over all elections. He also references a philosopher
Bernard Williams. Honestly I didn’t go back and read all of Mr. Williams’s
books this morning so I may be going down a rabbit hole I don’t want to.
Yet,
Professor Simpson’s comments struck a chord with me. Here is
a paragraph that outlines the dilemma a bit:
“A more familiar context in
which this problem presents itself is at the ballot box. Suppose you believe
the state should look after the wellbeing of the poor and combat the structural
forces that enrich the wealthy. Suppose you’re in a two-party electoral system,
and that the party notionally aligned with your ideals made a Faustian pact
with business elites to shore up the policies that perpetuate poverty – low
minimum wages, tax incentives for rent-seekers, privatisation of public
services, etc. What kind of ballot should you cast? You can’t vote for the
party pushing things further to the Right. And if you don’t vote, or you vote
for someone who’s almost certain not to win, you’re helping that same
regressive party get elected. Yet lending your support to the ‘lesser of two
evils’ candidate, whose platform you don’t really support, feels like an
unacceptable compromise to your ideals.”
Here is some of the set up of the point I ask you to
consider. These are sections of early paragraphs in the argument:
“Bernard Williams argued that you should care about
maintaining integrity in your personal ideals – not necessarily at all costs,
but at least a bit. That’s because you have a special proprietary
responsibility for acts you perform. Those choices and acts are, in some
special sense, yours, distinct from outcomes that result from combining
your choices and acts with everyone else’s.”
“Don’t vote
for the front runner. You are responsible for the acts you do, not for
everything that they lead to. If you quit and those animals suffer more, you
aren’t responsible for this; your boss is. If a demagogic president remains in
power, that’s not your fault.”
“But perhaps
you find this way of thinking a bit spineless, or even a bit lawyerly. ‘The
outcome wasn’t fundamentally my fault’ seems like a feeble excuse for something
you could have helped to prevent, if you had just suspended your scruples for a
moment. It sounds like the special pleading of a moral narcissist – someone who
cares more about preserving an unblemished moral record than about making the
world a better place.”
“Williams
acknowledges this concern, and he agrees that integrity matters little when
you’re just trying to maintain the warm, fuzzy feeling of being a flawless
do-gooder.”
Now I am going to brag a bit, Yes I know as a Christian we
are to remain humble, but I am still closer to the sinner side of the saint to
sinner sliding scale anyway so here goes. Or at least I live out this idea of
being more than writing or maintaining a fuzzy feeling of being a flawless
do-gooder. I honestly feel not just in in mad ravings on this blog, but overall
I try to not compromise and do things just to make me feel better. I have
stated repeatedly I don’t vote for the duopoly. I don’t. Yet it did take years
to find a party that truly came close to my values. Luckily I found them and
vote for them wherever they are on a ballot. They are a small party so it is not
often, but I do. It is a small act, yet to me it is the my part in fighting the
good fight.
And here is the paragraph I want you to think about:
“Williams’s
ideas about integrity suggest that someone who’s reluctant to follow a
lesser-of-two-evils strategy needs to at least interrogate that instinct. If
you’re genuinely trying make the world a better place, Williams says, it isn’t
enough to simply promote the good within the limited range of choices you’re
being offered. You need to try to become someone who actively builds those
choices, shaping which outcomes result from which actions. And that means
taking on projects and principles that you mean to live by – even if this might
produce undesirable outcomes in the short term.”
Yes I know I cherry picked a couple of sentences from the
article to have you circle back to the above paragraph so go read the whole
article. There are more indepth examples of what leads to the points.
And again any simple search on the internet for the phrase
voting for the lesser of two evils is going to give you that inordinate amount
of literature to read. I quickly read through a few, hence how I learned this
argument goes back to the 16th century. Also there are interesting
takes on what Pope Francis meant when he said we should vote for the lesser of
two evils. One touches on the literal aspect of the verbiage and another
touches on you have to listen to his explanation that it is not the lesser of
two evils, but that finding the good is the lesser of two evils. Knowing a bit
of Pope Francis’s work I feel the latter better represents what he says.
And using one article to make a point is never enough, yet I hope you at least do some
self contemplate on on the sentence:
“Williams’s ideas about integrity suggest that someone
who’s reluctant to follow a lesser-of-two-evils strategy needs to at least
interrogate that instinct.”
What does that mean for you and how can you apply what I ask
you to do is give up on the duopoly and help us find more common pragmatic
solutions to the issues facing our country?
Cheers
No comments:
Post a Comment