The Lesser of Two Evils: Casting a Moral Vote

I've been thinking lately about something I've said in the past and have heard others say about voting for the candidates, "I'm voting for (fill in the name), because really, he/she is the lesser of two evils. I mean, I don't really like either candidate, but this one I think is the one who is the less awful."

I want to challenge this directly. This is irrelevant to conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat. For full disclosure purposes, I will state that I am a conservative. I become more and more conservative, and probably lean almost to the Libertarian Party in most of my ideas, but have significant differences even with them in certain areas. What I'm writing about has been said by me and others who fall all over the political map. They are voting for one candidate over another because the candidate for whom they are voting is the lesser of two evils.

I want to look at this from a moral perspective. 

Let's get some definitions: I define evil by the traditional, Augustinian definition as the absence of good. A thing cannot be evil in and of itself, of its own power. Something is evil only in so far as it lacks goodness. When you hear me discuss something as "evil," that is how that word should be interpreted. In what I am writing here, something that is evil means that there is some goodness lacking in it. It may not be completely devoid of goodness, but there is goodness lacking in it somehow. Secondly, morality means in the context of this essay a deliberate act of the will. In other words, to be moral is to make a choice. In order for something to have a moral quality, it must involve a deliberate choice that a person makes. A person must set his or her will in a certain direction in order for the person to be held responsible for the choice on a moral level.

With these two definitions in mind, morally, we are not to do evil by an act of the will. To will to do evil is to sin, which separates us from God, one another, and creation. Even those who do not believe in God, but believe that there are things that are good and evil based on their own philosophical construct, would agree with the basic, generic moral edict, "A person should not will to do evil."

So here's the first part of the statement: "I’m voting for…because this person is really the lesser of two evils." See where I'm going here? To vote for someone because that person is the lesser of two evils is to will evil. It's like saying, "Well, I could have shot the person in the gut and let him slowly bleed to death, but I chose to shoot the person in the head so it would be over more quickly. It was the lesser of two evils." Either way, you've still killed another person.

If you have two choices in front of you, and both are evil, then to choose either one is to choose evil, and thus you have done something immoral. If in the election, you see that all candidates are evil, and you choose one of them, then you are choosing an evil. You have set your will to choose what you perceive to be an evil for our country. That is an immoral act. It would be better for you not to vote in that circumstance, than to do an evil act by voting for someone that you see as evil.

Now I know that people are going to say, "Well, what I actually mean by that is that I don't see either candidate as ideal." Ok. That's a very different thing than saying you see them as evil, and you're voting for the lesser of two evils. Why is this important? 

Our political discourse, especially this election season, has degraded to the point where we are more interested in discussing what is wrong with the candidates we don't like, than by talking about why our particular candidate is better. This was gently pointed out to me after a recent facebook rant I posted about Obama. It is no secret that I don't like Obama. I think he has spent American taxpayer money foolishly. I think that he has interfered with the recovery that the American economy could have experienced had he not put his policies in place. I think that he has weakened America through his foreign policy approach. I think that he is a fool in the biblical sense and a narcissist in the psychological sense. Frankly, he scares me.

To vote for Mitt Romney, however, because he is not President Obama, is just as foolish. I want to make sure that what I said is understood. For me to vote for Mitt Romney simply because he is not Obama is just as foolish. In the same sense, for someone to vote for Obama because he is not Mitt Romney is just as foolish. It's not voting for the person that is foolish, but voting for a person because that person is not another person that is foolish. I'm not making a positive moral choice with my vote in that case. I'm simply voting for someone that I think is less of screw up than Obama would be. To vote for someone because you think he is less of a screw up than the other is to still vote for someone that you think is a screw up. You're not really doing anything good for your country. It's like hiring someone for a job because you think that person will screw up your company less than everybody else. Why would you hire that person at all?

There is a solution to this.

First, we have to get away from the idea that there are only two political parties. The reason there are two dominant political parties is because the American voters allow there to be two dominant political parties. If the American voters were serious about making real change in the government, then the American voters probably need to start looking at Third Party candidates and voting for them. There is the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, the Socialist Party, and others out there. So the first premise of the idea that we have to choose the lesser of two evils is wrong. There are more than 2 choices. Until the American voters decide to do the work of looking beyond what is propagandized in the media, then we will continue to suffer under a two (dominant) party system. 

Secondly, we have to get away from the idea that voting Third Party is a waste of a vote. We need to ask ourselves seriously about why we vote. I want my candidate to win. No doubt. To say, however, that voting for a Third Party candidate is a waste of my vote because the Third Party candidate will lose is to say that everyone who votes for the candidates who lose has wasted his or her vote. I want my candidate to win, but I don't vote so my candidate will win. 

Thirdly, we have to get away from the idea that not voting is a bad thing. I will repeat what I said earlier: if in your conscience you feel that to vote for either candidate is to vote for "the lesser of two evils," it is better for you not to vote at all. We must begin to look at our vote as a moral choice that we are making. If we are Christian, we must believe that we will be held culpable for our decision about whom we elect to represent us. What we are saying with our vote is, "I support this candidate and what this candidate says he or she is going to do regarding life issues, financial issues, foreign policy issues, and the other areas over which the person will have influence in government." With your vote for a candidate, you are saying you support that candidate's positions. If you can't support any candidate's positions, don't vote, or write in your own name.

My vote is my expression of my opinion about what policies are best for the future of my nation. To vote is to make a moral choice for what I believe is the good of our country. What that means is that I then have to find out who the candidates are and for what they stand in order to make that moral decision. If neither of the two major party candidates reflect my vision, it is my responsibility to do the research to find the candidate who does.

Is any candidate going to be ideal? Of course not. I have to vote, though, for the candidate whom I think is best, not for the one I think is the least worst. I can honestly say that if I cannot find a candidate who I feel reflects what I think is the right direction for our country, then I will not vote. I would rather not vote, than to vote for someone that is the lesser of the two evils. I can only find the candidate who best reflects what I think is the best direction for our nation if I know their platforms.

This means I have to work hard. I have to be able to answer the questions: "What do I think is the right economic policy for the country?" "What is the situation of the world right now and how should we approach foreign nations?" "What are the great moral decisions we face today as a nation (i.e., abortion, gun control, care for the poor, the illicit substance epidemic, etc), where do I rate this on a list of priorities, and what do I think is the right approach to those moral questions we face as a people?" After I have researched and come up with what I think are the right answers to these questions, I have to research the candidates, and figure out which ones reflect most closely my own vision.

I've brought out this quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson before and I will probably bring it out again: "The worst threat to the republic is an uninformed electorate." We, the voting people of the United States, have to get beyond the spoon fed propaganda of all of the media, whether it's NBC and CNN who are biased toward liberal, or Fox News that is biased towards conservative. Even so called "non-partisan" or "non-biased" sites like FactCheck.org need to be fact checked. We have to do the research ourselves. We have to be informed. It's the only way the United States is going to work.

 

And it is the only way I can cast a moral vote.

Asking God For Stuff

There’s a great line in the movie, “Shadowlands,” which is about C.S. Lewis’s marriage and subsequent death of his wife. Anthony Hopkins, who plays C.S. Lewis, says at one point, “We do not pray to change God’s mind, but to change ours.”

As Christians, we believe that God’s will is supreme. When we pray, we follow the model of Jesus, “Thy will be done,” “Not my will, but yours be done.” Our only desire as Christians is to know, to want, and to do the will of God. We believe that God will accomplish his will in all things. We also believe that his will is for our benefit, our good. That being said, should we ask God for stuff in our prayer?

If God’s will is supreme in our lives, and we long only that his will be accomplished, and we know that what he wills for us is better than anything we could will for ourselves, then why should we pray for anything other than that his will is done? If I really want a new motorcycle, why should I pray for a new motorcycle? Shouldn’t I instead just pray that God’s will is done? I mean, if it’s not God’s will that I get a motorcycle, I won’t get one. If it is, then I will. What’s the point of praying for it?

My Papa died from cancer, so should I just have prayed that God’s will be done regarding my Papa’s health? If it were God’s will that my Papa would be miraculously cured, he would be alive today. Apparently, it was God’s will that my Papa die.

Should we pray for stuff?

To me, the answer is resoundingly, “Yes.”

I think about it like this. I know what is good for my children. I know that when it is 30 minutes before supper time, and my children start asking me for cookies, a bowl of cereal, or Phineas and Ferb Fruit Snacks, they’re not going to get them. I know that when it is time for Jacob to wear his eye patch, and he throws a fit because he doesn’t want to, the end result will be an unhappy child wearing an eye patch. I know that in my children’s lives, my will be done.

That doesn’t mean I don’t rejoice in their asking. I love when they ask for stuff. They can be so freaking sweet. It can be really hard to say no to them sometimes (I have to admit, especially Caitlin). I think God rejoices in our asking, too. He loves it when we come to him and acknowledge him as the provider of all things. He rejoices that we, his children, make requests that he intends to give anyway. 

For example, we have limited Jacob’s Wii playing to a few hours a couple of times a week. I love it when Jacob asks, “Is today a Wii day? Can I play Wii?” I love being able to say yes to him. I love giving to my children. I know that God loves giving to us. There is occasionally the time that Jacob forgets it is a Wii day, and gets busy playing imaginative play with his Legos. I love that just as much, and am content to let him do that. When my will is that he should play Wii, and his will is that he should play Wii, our wills are in concert with one another, and I love giving him what he asks for. When his will is that he wants to play Wii, and my will is that it is not a Wii day, he gets upset, but I can count on the inevitable question, “Why?”

At this point, it becomes a teaching moment if he is open to hearing the answer.

When we ask God for stuff, and it is his will that we get the stuff we ask for, I have no doubt that God rejoices in giving us what we want. When we ask God for stuff, and it is not his will that we should get it, then it is a teaching moment if we are open to the lesson that God has for us.

If it is God’s will that we should have something, and we don’t want it at the moment, God does not impose his will on us. We are free creatures, given that freedom by him. He is not going to rescind the gift of freedom that he has already given. He is content to watch us move along in our lives, “playing” with the other gifts he has given us, until such a time that we should ask.

When we ask God for stuff, God will respond. He is faithful to us. Sometimes, the answer will be yes and we will grow closer to him in the gift of his love. Sometimes, the answer will be no with an explanation that (if we are able to hear it) will help us grow closer to him in his love. Either way, the opportunity to ask God for stuff is a tool that God uses to help us grow closer to him in his love.

No Title, Just Thoughts

I posted on Facebook the other day that I’m leaving my position at Columbia Treatment Center, a Behavioral Health Group facility. I’ve spent the last 19 months as the program director of and counselor in the Medication Assisted Treatment program here. This place has changed me.

I know I’m not as nice as I used to be, but that needs to be qualified. Accountability has become an important word to me over the last year and (a little more than) a half. Taking responsibility is a large part of life. It’s the only way to really move from day to day. Accountability has come to mean to me taking responsibility for those things for which one is responsible. I have realized in my work with the patients here, and in some cases with the staff, that I tend to let things go, hoping for the best. I’ve always believed that it is better to inspire someone to do something than to require them to do it. I still believe that is true, but my window for providing inspiration is much shorter.

Conflict has always been difficult for me, and there was a time in my life when I would avoid it at all costs. I would be slow to bring up to people areas where I felt there was a deficiency in their performance, again both patients and staff. So, once again, things were allowed to progress beyond reason, and the problems would just get bigger. Now I realize there can only be conflict if 2 people are engaged in it. I’ve become someone who refuses to engage in conflict, but in a more healthy way. A key concept to understanding this is found in Patricia Evans’s book, The Verbally Abusive Relationship. Evans discusses the distinction between Personal Power and Power Over. There are those who want Power Over. These people tend to be abusive, manipulative, with aggressive behaviors. They see themselves as always the victim of injustice, and often blame their behaviors and deficiencies on others. They seek to control others. These people often find themselves in conflict, perceiving others as mistreating them, misjudging them, trying to control them. They see everything as a power struggle, “Either I am in control or they are in control.” They are in constant conflict with everyone who does not do what they want them to do or be the way they want them to be.

People with Personal Power, on the other hand, know that the only person that he or she truly has power over is himself or herself. They don’t seek to control others. Rather than telling others what they will or will not do, the person with Personal Power informs others only of what he or she will do or won’t do. There is no conflict there. The person who seeks Power Over says, “You will do this,” or “You will not do that.” The person with Personal Power says, “You are free to do whatever you want to do. If you make this choice, this will be my response. If you make that choice, that will be my response.” There is no conflict

I never wanted to have Power Over others. That was never my problem. Until working at Columbia Treatment Center, however, I was never comfortable with my personal power. I don’t know how to explain it, except that following through on responses that I knew were necessary was really hard for me.

People who seek Power Over see this as a word game. People with addiction have the illusion of Power Over their substance. A big part of addiction is seeking Power Over things over which a person is powerless. So some patients who are “Power Over people” would see it like this: “So you’re telling me that if I don’t pay my bill, you’re going to discharge me. Why won’t you work with me? Why won’t you give me a chance? Why do you want to control my life like this?” They forget that they’ve forfeited their 3^rd financial contract, that we have given them multiple chances to make it right, and they perceive my response to their choice of being non-compliant with treatment by discharging them as an attempt to control their behavior. The same is true of staff. I had to terminate the employment of a team member who was a Power Over person. The person chose not to meet the expectations of the job description. I responded by terminating the employment. This wasn’t an attempt to control this person, but simply me allowing this person to exercise the free choice to perform the job at the level this person wanted to perform it, and my exercise of free choice in saying that it did not fulfill the expectations of the job.

So when I say I’m not as nice as I used to be, what I mean is I am more assertive with my responses to people than I used to be. I like Johnny Cash’s version better than Tom Petty’s, but the words are the same, “Gonna stand my ground. Won’t get turned around. And I’ll keep this world from draggin’ me down. And I won’t back down.” “Well, I know what’s right. I got just one life. In a world that keeps on pushing me around, I’m gonna stand my ground. No, I won’t back down.”

The reason I’m leaving my employment is because of Nathaniel. I really wasn’t looking to go, although it is something that I’ve been thinking about for some time. The straw that finally broke the camel’s back was last Wednesday, when Lesley called me to say that he had fallen and hit his head pretty hard at daycare. I was still 45 minutes away from home, working in Columbia. In a situation where 10 minutes could make the difference between life and death for my little guy, I cannot be 45 minutes away from where he is going to daycare anymore. Maybe someday, as he gets older and begins to learn to infuse himself and will hold still, I will be able to do other things. Right now, life has lead me to this place, and I’m meeting life on life’s terms. Personal Power…it also means not trying to control life.

I think of the end of Forrest Gump, when he is standing over his wife's and his mother's graves. He reflects that he isn't sure if we are just feathers blowing in the wind or if we have control over our destinies. He then says, "But I think it's a little of both." I do, too. 

So, this has been kind of a “stream of consciousness” writing. Just some reflections on where I’m at, where I'm going, and and why I’m going there, wherever "there" may be.