The Liberty Hawk

Shall we discuss the lesser of two evils principle yet again? Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more!

This article is from The Editor’s Corner, with insights, short-posts, links, and general ramblings from Editor/Owner Justin Stapley.

Here in 2020, as it did in 2016, many political conversations hover around the idea of choosing the lesser of two evils. Often, when it boils down to the presidential general election, the assertion is that if you don’t make your peace with one or the other party’s candidate, you’re just throwing your vote away. 

I’ve often written about my opposition to the lesser of two evils approach, as have others here at The Liberty Hawk. Many of us instead support the principle “Of two evils, choose neither.” 

Now, just like any debate, there’s always a hang-up when it comes to definitions. (This problem is even more compounded by just how empty some words and ideas have become, like say liberal or conservative). Often, others dismiss my rejection of the lesser-of-two-evils principle by asserting that one or the other option isn’t really evil. But are we actually talking about whether or not something, or someone, is evil in a real sense? Is the lesser of two evils principle really about choosing between two legitimately evil choices?

As far as I’ve always understood it, the phrase “the lesser of two evils” has always been just a figure of speech for a difficult decision between two imperfect options. And, its only real purpose is for those decisions where there really are no other options. 

There are most definitely situations in life where the lesser of two evils principle must be applied. My training in the military often involved learning how to make such decisions quickly and decisively. But I cannot see very many circumstances where we should apply the principle to politics, especially when it comes to voting.  

To put it bluntly, if a political moment boils down to choosing between two imperfect options, and there really is nothing else we can do, then a lot of things have gone wrong to get us to that point. And, the path out of that position isn’t to comply and punctuate continued dysfunction but to deduce the needed corrective action to fix what has gone terribly wrong. 

So, to say “Of two evils, choose neither” isn’t necessarily a condemnation of the two choices as actually evil, but instead a rejection of the premise that there are no other options. It’s to say that embracing a reality where we are robbed of the choice to support things we actually support and must choose between throwing our support behind one of two paths that do not jive with our principles isn’t embracing pragmatism and prudence; it’s an embrace of fatalism and pessimism. 

Barring a truly life or death decision, the choices set before us only devolve into a choice between the lesser of two evils when we take pains to justify away other options. 

(But even in life or death, I tend to take the approach that Captain Kirk took towards the Kobayashi Maru. Often the answer to the no-win scenario, or the lesser-of-two-evils scenario, is simply to redefine the problem or change the parameters of the situation)

Do you have a response to this article? Would you like to offer your own take on this topic? Feel free to submit your own article or offer a comment.

• About
• Latest Posts

Justin Stapley

Justin Stapley is the owner and editor of The Liberty Hawk and the voice of the Self-Evident Podcast. His principles and beliefs are grounded in the idea of ordered liberty as expressed in the traditions of classical liberalism, federalism, and modern conservatism.

Latest posts by Justin Stapley (see all)

• The Liberty Hawk is Now on Medium - December 9, 2020
• Betraying Allies Is Not the Way to Avoid Being the World’s Police - August 14, 2020
• The Last Full Measure of Devotion - August 13, 2020