The idea of the lesser of two evils is thrown around a lot. I have a strong disagreement with this idea — it is both pessimistic and dangerous.
This idea leads voters to believe that no matter who we elect we are still electing “an evil.” In light of this philosophy, it is easy to see why people, can become disenfranchised with voting. After all, why should we even vote if regardless of who is elected they will still be an “evil?”
This feeling is precisely how the people who use this rhetoric want us to feel. They want us to feel as if our vote doesn’t matter, they want us to feel as if our government doesn’t advocate for us, and, at the end of the day, they don’t want us to vote. This rhetoric enables fringe candidates to easily take office and enact agendas that don’t represent the interests of the people which deepens the disconnect between our government and the people.
For proof of the power of this rhetoric, we can simply look to the 2000 election between Al Gore and George W. Bush. After eight years with President Clinton, the United States’ GDP was growing steadily, there was a budget surplus and the country had minimal involvement in armed conflicts around the world. And yet, Vice President Gore was viewed as the lesser of two evils by many progressives. Now, I will admit that Gore did not run a fantastic campaign, but he still remained a much better choice for progress than his opponent.
Ralph Nader, the Green Party nominee, used the lesser of two evils rhetoric to draw support from Gore. As a result, Gore lost Florida and the election. Under President Bush’s administration, two wars were started, an unconstitutional civilian surveillance program was implemented, the economy tanked, unemployment skyrocketed and the domestic auto industry almost collapsed. The progress made under Clinton’s administration was largely rolled back, and any new progress stopped in its tracks.
Today, the conditions are quite similar to those in 2000. Despite great improvements under a popular president, the use of the lesser of two evils argument is in full swing, but this sort of talk couldn’t be more inaccurate. The difference between the two nominees is so stark that the only way one could buy into this rhetoric is through an almost militant ignorance.
Hillary Clinton is quite possibly the most experienced and prepared candidate in decades. She has spent her life fighting for the people of this country, from her start in Alabama, investigating unlawful segregation in elementary schools, to her time as the first female partner at the largest law firm in Arkansas. Her efforts furthering healthcare as First Lady of the United States were unprecedented, and her groundbreaking address on women’s rights in Beijing: unforgettable. She was the first woman senator for New York; she served as the secretary of State; she advocated for LGBTQ rights at home and abroad. I couldn’t hope to fit in this Viewpoint the policy and change she’s advocated for throughout her career. This level of commitment to her values can be seen in the ways she’s run her campaign and through the more than 40 policy proposals on her website covering everything from addiction to voting rights.
In the face of the demagoguery of Donald Trump and the unpreparedness of the third party options, Hillary Clinton is not the lesser evil but the greatest good in a sea of bad. For progress the choice is clear: Hillary Rodham Clinton for President.
Jordan Griffith, Chief Copy Editor for the Voice, can be reached for comment at JGriffith17@wooster.edu