The problem with choosing between two dishonest candidates

Tim Carney:
You don't have to choose the lesser of two evils

Which untrustworthy cronyist liberal New York millionaire do you prefer?

The imminent nominations of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have hung this unpleasant question before many voters who normally vote Republican. For some, it's an unpleasant but not difficult question of choosing "the lesser of two evils." But it's not obvious to many other conservatives which evil is lesser. Also, it's not obvious that anyone is required to choose between two evils at all.
As a conservative, I weigh the candidates against each other by considering the worst-case scenarios. On that score, there's an irony: Hillary's time as secretary of state — especially her disastrous and illegal war in Libya — doesn't suggest supreme competence; Trump's rhetoric, meanwhile makes many people think of fascism. But the "fascism" threat (an overblown word, of course) is probably greater with Hillary, and the incompetence threat is far greater with Trump.
Unless you happen to live in a swing state, whether you vote at all is unlikely to make much difference.  I tend to think that a low turnout sends a message to both parties that they have picked bad candidates and there are consequences for that.  It also makes the case for denying them a mandate.


Popular posts from this blog

Democrats worried about 2018 elections

Obama's hidden corruption that enriched his friends

Illinois in worst financial shape, Texas in best shape