The Lesser of Two Evils

One of my heroes is the sadly underappreciated Old Right essayist, Frank Chodorov. He wrote a particularly comforting essay entitled, "On Underwriting an Evil." In it he explains why he has refused to vote for the previous 50 years (mind you, it was published in 1962) and it illustrates many of the very reasons why I believe most candidates are unworthy of the title of President. I want to begin by stating that all candidates are admittedly flawed which is even conceded by their staunchest supporters. Still, many people simply vote for the candidate that represents the "lesser of two evils". However, by voting this way, one is merely underwriting an evil, or supporting one evil instead of another, or supporting one candidate's lesser collective evil instead of his opponent's greater collective evil. To me and the late Mr. Chodorov, this denotes a profound lack of moral fortitude in the voter. Frank said it best when he wrote, "If I were to vote for the "lesser of two evils" I would in fact be subscribing to whatever that "evil" does in office. He could claim a mandate for his official acts, a sort of blank check, with my signature, into which he could enter his performances. My vote is indeed a moral sanction, upon which the official depends for support of his acts, and without which he would feel rather naked." I'm repeatedly at a loss as to why people vote for someone who is at least partly evil. Though we may be imperfect, maybe we could collectively become better people ourselves if we demand that only the finest representatives of humanity hold public office. Libertines of the likes of John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Lyndon Johnson simply wouldn't have a chance to lord over us. What readily alarms me is the belief held by the "big party" acolytes that they employed steady reason to arrive at their voting decision. I now want to put such silliness to the test by scrutinizing some of the more contentious elements in Bush's presidency and see how they have fared under Obama's rule.

Let's start big. How about America's war efforts. Bush began the War on Terror by confronting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq back in 2001. However, Obama is still perpetuating the war effort and is looking to raze Iran and Pakistan as well. To be more accurate, Obama has already permitted the strategic bombing of Pakistan(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/24/pakistan-barack-obama-air-strike). Yet, Cindy Sheehan is now having an extraordinarily tough time finding people on the Left to protest the same wars that left them rabid during the Bush years (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/What-happened-to-the-antiwar-movement--Cindy-Sheehan-responds-53628177.html). And what about Bush's dismantling of habeas corpus? Well, Obama is now fighting to preserve that unconstitutional precedent set by his predecessor (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram/). I could delve much deeper into the similarity of the rhetoric but that seems superfluous for even a lofty blog entry such as this. The important fact is that Obama is just as adamant about war as his predecessor and as loony as Sheehan can seem, I admire her for going it alone these days.

Another tremendous flaw that the Left rightfully found in the Bush administration was his support of illegal wiretappings and his concomitant telecom immunity rulings. Yet, we are hard pressed to find much difference in Obama's position. In fact, let's look at the words of the respective presidents. In defense of his decision, Bush commented, "This vital intelligence bill will allow our national security professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists outside the United States, while respecting the liberties of the American people." With eerie similarity, Obama made these remarks, "Given the grave threats our national security agencies must have the capability to gather and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people." Again, this was a nettle in the hearts of liberals when Bush was in command, but this continued offense on civil liberties has been viewed in far softer light with Obama now in office.

The Patriot Act. It once gave shivers to all on the Left. Now, Bush's much derided and soon-to-be expired Patriot Act has just been extended by Obama. Without a doubt, some of the most bellicose rants from the Left targeted the unconstitutionality of the Patriot Act. Yet, the Democrats have scarcely made a whimper about it. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090915/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_patriot_act

Another obvious similarity is their mutual support of bailing out businesses "too big to fail". It shouldn't then surprise anyone that Obama voted for 19 of Bush's lavish spending bills. Both undeniably love big government in all of its forms. In addendum, I think it's worth noting that on Obama's website, he juxtaposes his vision of economic reform against McCain's vision by saying that McCain's plan would tack on an additional $3.4 trillion to the national debt. What's funny is that Obama's reforms have been tabulated by the CBO to likely add $9.1 trillion to our deficit within the next 10 years. Ironically, he states on his website, "John McCain's plan of giving tax cuts to the wealthy and to Big Business will add $3.4 trillion to the national debt, bankrupting America." If McCain's $3.4 trillion will definitively bankrupt America, what will $9.1 trillion do within the next 10 years? http://www.barackobama.com/issues/index_campaign.php

And what about trade policy? In this realm, Bush will largely be remembered by his protectionist blunders. In 2002, he enacted a 30% tariff on imported steel as well as a farm bill robust with all sorts of market-distorting subsidies. Fast forward to the present and we now have another protectionist president in Barack Obama. His recent 35% tariff on Chinese tires is certainly not the way into the heart of America's largest debt holder. In fact, China responded by imposing their own tariffs on American cars and chickens. Tariffs always feel like a slap to the face and we're picking a fight with the wrong people. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/business/global/14trade.html

How about their respective positions on Big Pharma? In an article by Robert Reich on Salon.com, Reich seems to see a frustrating lack of difference between Bush and Obama concerning the power of Big Pharma, "Last week, after being reported in the Los Angeles Times, the White House confirmed it has promised Big Pharma that any healthcare legislation will bar the government from using its huge purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. That's basically the same deal George W. Bush struck in getting the Medicare drug benefit, and it's proven a bonanza for the drug industry...Let me remind you: Any bonanza for the drug industry means higher healthcare costs for the rest of us, which is one reason why critics of the emerging healthcare plans, including the Congressional Budget Office, are so worried about their failure to adequately stem future healthcare costs." So, change comes in the form of more back room dealings with the Big Pharma leviathan. More price distortions and less medication for those who need it. That's not change. That's more of the same.

Capital punishment will always be a political lightning rod. Interestingly enough, Bush's support of capital punishment was castigated by the Left at the time, namely for the fact that he hailed from the capital punishment Mecca. But, Obama is a proponent of capital punishment too. In his memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama ruminates about which crimes deserve death, he concludes that they must be "so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

Although this entry may come across as a pedantic exercise, I feel that one must be pretty damn thorough to convince anyone of anything. Although I'm only looking at the current political hypocrisies, I feel as though I may be looking at any sequence of presidencies that denote political change. People become so emotionally invested in the process thinking that though "their" man may not be perfect, he is still a hell of a lot better than the OTHER guy. But I'm curious to hear how these similarities will be explained away. Bush had his irrational hawkish cheerleaders that were deservedly mocked by the leftist intelligentsia. However, the tide has changed, though not really. These folks on the Left are currently playing from the same, tired playbook. Regretfully, they fawn over their dreamboat candidate, naive to his horrid faults or purposefully plugging their ears. I don't know which they are doing, maybe a mixture of both, but don't tell me that because I don't vote that I'm the pusillanimous one, because it's not a sign that I'm a part of the perfunctoriness of my apathetic generation, but a sign that I refuse to vote for any demonstrable evil whatsoever.