Likewise, right wingers cannot suggest Obama will usher in an age of socialism, let the terrorists attack us, prevent America from addressing the energy crisis, or whatever else they claim might happen without supporting such thinking with evidence, which would be past conduct, that would lead one to believe Obama would continue to conduct himself in such a matter that would cause such events to happen while president.
Garrett reasonably describes how “lesser evil” does not mean Barack Obama is evil. He doesn’t suggest that “lesser evil” applies to John McCain too, but I will because both men, under Garrett’s construct, are capable of evil. If they are both capable of evil, couldn’t they both be capable of “lesser evil?”
Garrett continues and explains how Obama is not evil; he just is capable of taking political positions that are evil. He doesn’t apply this to John McCain, but let’s be fair---John McCain is not evil but capable of taking political positions that are evil.
Only one of two people will be elected this year, and only one is the lesser of two evils. If you throw your vote away on a third party candidate with no chance of winning, you will make absolutely no difference for whatever issues you care about. Your vote will not count for anything at all except helping to elect someone who is a thousand times less receptive and supportive of your ideas and the nation's needs than Obama.
Looks like it’s time to return to the history lesson because third party candidates can make a difference for whatever issues Americans care about and three third party candidates (Wallace, Anderson, Perot) did in fact make a difference on issues Americans cared about by challenging the two-party system during the 20th century.
Douglas Schoen, in a chapter titled, “The Historical Significance of Third-Party Candidates,” from his book Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System outlines how Wallace, Anderson, and Perot have all had a “distinct impact on the direction of the country.” From page 48 of Schoen’s book:
George Wallace was in large part responsible for whites moving away from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party and for the creation of the “silent majority” popularized by Nixon’s campaign, with its emphasis on law and order and traditional values.
John Anderson helped bring the environmental movement into the political mainstream and developed new ideas to address the energy crises that faced America; he also advocated fiscal discipline and fiscal prudence.
Ross Perot was perhaps the most influential political hopeful of the 1990s; he was largely responsible for the balanced budget, a newfound respect for fiscal discipline, and ultimately, budget surpluses.
Garrett proceeds to make the claim that “Obama is the lesser evil” under the construct that he has created because “his positions and past conduct are less evil than McCain's.
Such a claim that Obama is less evil than McCain is only as good as the case that is made under Mr. Garrett’s construct. What evidence does Garrett have to offer to prove that Obama is the “lesser evil”?
Garrett suggests that Obama was against the Iraq war because it was “an unprovoked war with a country that posed no threat to us” and so “he wants to end that war.” McCain, on the other hand, “cheerleads for another century of death and destruction, another 100 years of bullets and bombs and blood, another 10 decades of deficits and dollar devaluation.”
On the contrary, a recent Slate article has an equation that shows that Obama and McCain are not thinking much differently on Iraq anymore.
And isn’t Obama cheerleading for “another century of death and destruction, another 100 years of bullets and bombs and blood, another 10 decades of deficits and dollar devaluation” by wanting to end a war while tacitly supporting the expansion of two wars with Pakistan and Afghanistan?
Garrett describes Obama as being a “lesser evil” since he offers direct diplomacy in contrast to McCain’s policy of confrontation and isolation.
Obama is selling his solution to our nation’s foreign policy dilemmas as direct diplomacy, but is direct diplomacy what we can expect from an Obama administration?
Past conduct is difficult to use here since Obama lacks foreign policy experience unlike McCain. He has served on the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate since being elected in 2004. So, perhaps, it’s best that we use Obama’s foreign policy advisers when making predictions about what might happen?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
