Is It Wrong to Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?

[John81]

As many are quick to point out, there are not perfect candidates. What strikes me as ironic is that of all the candidates, Ron Paul is the only one who truly respects the Constitution, would take his oath to the same seriously, and has a plan to work within the bounds of the Constitution and to begin restoring the government and country to following the Constitution. Ron Pauls positions with regards to the federal government are far closer to those of the Founders than any other candidate.

Yet, the vast majority of those who claim to want to abide by the Constitution, who claim they want the government and country to obey the Constitution, who say they want a return to the principles of the Founding Fathers, won't support Ron Paul and even denounce is constittutional positions and his positions in keeping with the Founders.

It's not just Ron Paul who receives such treatment. Patrick J. Buchanan received similar when he ran for president. Candidates for other offices have enountered like treatment.

What seems to actually be the case is that most so-called conservatives, constitutionalists, traditionalists and those of similar mind, either have a false or deluded view of what that means, or they are simply clinging to a lable while not understanding it's actual meaning. At the same time, they don't actually want what they claim to stand for. They don't want the federal government limited down to it's constitutional place, they don't want to give up all their pet unconstittutional programs, agencies and benefits, they don't want to see America follow the ideals set forth by the Founders and followed for over a hundred years successfully.

What most voters want is a politician that will tell them what they want to hear. So long as their ears are tickled, they are happy and enthusiastic. If they have money in their pockets and entertainment, they willingly turn a blind eye to the rest.

This is why we see one president after another, along with one congress after another, that continues to defy the Constitution, grow and expand unconstitutionalism, and run America faster in the wrong direction. It's what most of the people want whether they even see it or not.

[Annie]

If what you say about Ron Paul is true, then why don't Republicans like him? Could it be that his quirks and his inability to lead outweigh any value his policies may have? Having the right ideas is no good if you can't implement them, or if you can't communicate them effectively enough to get people on board with you. In this way, my dad would make just as great of a President as Ron Paul. He's a man of principle, a Consitutionalist, etc., but would have no clue how to work with people in Washington, or how to command respect as an effective leader of a nation.

IMO, Paul comes across as a whiner, a complainer...as almost angry, even. He can talk a lot about what's wrong with this country (can't we all!) but doesn't offer solutions that appear realistic or workable.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Annie

[John81]

If what you say about Ron Paul is true, then why don't Republicans like him? Could it be that his quirks and his inability to lead outweigh any value his policies may have? Having the right ideas is no good if you can't implement them, or if you can't communicate them effectively enough to get people on board with you. In this way, my dad would make just as great of a President as Ron Paul. He's a man of principle, a Consitutionalist, etc., but would have no clue how to work with people in Washington, or how to command respect as an effective leader of a nation.

IMO, Paul comes across as a whiner, a complainer...as almost angry, even. He can talk a lot about what's wrong with this country (can't we all!) but doesn't offer solutions that appear realistic or workable.

The problem is most who call themselves constitutionalists don't really know what that actually means or implies. The same with most conservatives who claim to want the government to abide by the Constitution.

Ron Paul has put forth workable plans that would restore the economy, the federal government and country back into the bounds of the Constitution.

One reason many don't understand Paul's message is because his message isn't a sound bite designed to tickle ears. Like statesmen of old, Paul actually addresses the issues rather than coining catchy sound bites that are virtually meaningless. Look at how debates were once held in this country. Men running for office would stand up and debate, actually debate, their positions for hours. No "one minute response" or "30 second rebuttals". They would lay forth their views in detail and then, in detail, each side would debate the issues.

Another reason some don't understand the message is because they are ignorant of their own history and of the Constitution.

Several past presidents, by todays standards, would have been considered poor communicators, coming off in some negative way, but much of that is due to television and time constraints.

If one were to read just a couple of Patrick J. Buchanan's books they would know more than the average college graduate with regards to American history and the Constitution.

Most Republicans, while they claim to want limited government, would raise as much a cry as would most Democrats if a plan was implemented to restore the federal government to its constitutional limits. This is why folks like Patrick J. Buchanan and Ron Paul could only get limited support when they ran for president. Any time prior to FDR either of these men would have stood a good chance at being elected president. With Americans today being so used to unconstitutional government and so much in love with much of it, only those who will perpetuate the ruination of the constitution and country can get elected.

[swathdiver]

Exodus 18:21 was one verse our Founders used to form the basis of our American government.

"Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:"

Men who fear God is the first prerequisite. None of the current top tier candidates fear God. What does God say about the heathen; men and women who do not fear Him? He refers to them as Proud, Know-nothing and Fools. I highly doubt that God would have us vote for any of these proud, knowing nothing fools to lead our nation. As New Testament Christians, me included, we have failed to cultivate candidates who love and fear the Lord. Ron Paul is the only one running who might be saved according to the Scriptures. Biblically, that's our only choice.

Edited February 6, 2012 by swathdiver

[Annie]

The problem is most who call themselves constitutionalists don't really know what that actually means or implies. The same with most conservatives who claim to want the government to abide by the Constitution.

It's not as cut and dried as you indicate here, John. The Constitution is like the Bible (or any document, really, which lays out principles): people disagree on interpretation at times, and even have different approaches to intepretation. There's a spectrum here, not a strict division between "constitutionalists" and "nonconstitutionalists." Ron Paul appears to be on one extreme end of the spectrum.

Ron Paul has put forth workable plans that would restore the economy, the federal government and country back into the bounds of the Constitution.

That might well be, but he has been unable to convince people that these plans will work (or even that his way of looking at the Constitution is valid). I'm one of those people. As I said, a guy might have some great ideas, but if he's not an effective leader (can't work with people, can't negotiate and compromise, can't get people on board with him, can't inspire people to follow him, can't convince people that his ideas have merit, etc.), then he'd make a poor President, because none of his ideas would ever be implemented.

One reason many don't understand Paul's message is because his message isn't a sound bite designed to tickle ears. Like statesmen of old, Paul actually addresses the issues rather than coining catchy sound bites that are virtually meaningless. Look at how debates were once held in this country. Men running for office would stand up and debate, actually debate, their positions for hours. No "one minute response" or "30 second rebuttals". They would lay forth their views in detail and then, in detail, each side would debate the issues.

Again, this could be true, but the debates aren't the only chance the candidates have to interact with people. There are town hall meetings, loooong speeches, Q & A sessions, press conferences, etc., etc., etc. And Ron Paul has (if I'm not mistaken) been at this a whole lot longer than any of the other Repub candidates (except maybe Newt...I haven't really researched it). His political career began in 1976, and he ran for President back in the '80s. He has had plenty of time to get his ideas out there. Yet he has been unable to garner a large following even in his own party.

Several past presidents, by todays standards, would have been considered poor communicators, coming off in some negative way, but much of that is due to television and time constraints.

Yep. The times, they are a-changin'. To be elected President today, a man must be able to state his principles clearly and concisely. If he is able to connect with people effectively, they will want to hear more (and then he can go into more detail). Ron Paul has apparently been unable to do this.

Most Republicans, while they claim to want limited government, would raise as much a cry as would most Democrats if a plan was implemented to restore the federal government to its constitutional limits. This is why folks like Patrick J. Buchanan and Ron Paul could only get limited support when they ran for president. Any time prior to FDR either of these men would have stood a good chance at being elected president. With Americans today being so used to unconstitutional government and so much in love with much of it, only those who will perpetuate the ruination of the constitution and country can get elected.

Right...Ron Paul is unelectable. (I don't agree necessarily with your reasoning here, but I do agree that Paul is unelectable, and I don't know why anyone would vote for him in the primary.) Edited February 6, 2012 by Annie

[Brother Rick]

It's one thing if the Republicans had some really likeable and flamboyant candidate to go to, but to put your vote on Newt or Mitt based on "electability" is just plain silly. Newt is a charmless arrogant blowhard that women despise because he has the morals of an alley cat, and Mitt is a corny, plastic, un-relatable, big-government, big business suit. If I'm supposed to ditch Ron Paul for someone that is "electable," then by golly show me someone that is electable. What a joke.

[Annie]

We're all frustrated, Rick. I know I am...I'm not completely happy with any of the Republican candidates. They all have major baggage. But (going back to where we agree) it's my duty to vote for the lesser of two evils...and since ANY of the Republican candidates would be better than Obama, I'm voting for the one I think is most likely to beat him (who also happens to be the one I agree with most policy-wise). Nominating a guy who has no chance of beating Obama is casting a vote for the greater evil.

No one is asking you to "ditch Ron Paul." You've got to vote how you think is best. I am just trying to point out what I see as inconsistencies in your thinking (which you have not addressed yet). Like, why not write in someone or vote none of the above if you're really voting only on principle and are not taking electability into account at all? Surely you know someone who agrees with you more completely at all levels of policy than Ron Paul does.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Annie

[Brother Rick]

I don't see write-ins as legitimate candidates, so I don't vote for them. To try and draw equivalence between a write-in and Ron Paul is crazy.

Ronald Regan said the following about Paul, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

Also, as far as current electability, the men who fight, bleed, and die for our country overwhelming support Ron Paul. I'm guessing they are more concerned about the substance of a man instead of whims of the fickle masses. He gets more military support than our current commander-in-chief does, and he get more support than all other Republican candidates combines. That is not someone who is unelectable, and it certainly isn't the same as a write in.


Watch this video: http://vimeo.com/36084205

[Annie]

I don't see write-ins as legitimate candidates, so I don't vote for them. To try and draw equivalence between a write-in and Ron Paul is crazy.

So, my question is this: why don't you see write-ins as legitimate candidates? You've used the word "available"..Well, write-in candidates are just as "available" as any other to vote for. And, I'm not at all drawing equivalence between a write-in and Ron Paul. I am saying that Ron Paul is more electable than a write-in candidate...and that's the reason why you vote for Ron Paul over a write-in. You cannot tell me that you are voting completely on principle, not taking electability into account, when you vote for Ron Paul over a write-in candidate. Your position is inconsistent (unless you really support the legalization of prostitution, heroin, and cocaine).

Ronald Regan said the following about Paul, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

Also, as far as current electability, the men who fight, bleed, and die for our country overwhelming support Ron Paul. I'm guessing they are more concerned about the substance of a man instead of whims of the fickle masses. He gets more military support than our current commander-in-chief does, and he get more support than all other Republican candidates combines. That is not someone who is unelectable, and it certainly isn't the same as a write in.

So, now you are saying Ron Paul is electable? And you say at the same time that you don't take electability into consideration? I'm confused about what you really think. Edited February 6, 2012 by Annie

[Brother Rick]

I've explained myself very clearly several times here. If you want to strain at gnats to find inconsistencies in what I'm saying than have at it.

[1Timothy115]

Exodus 18:21 was one verse our Founders used to form the basis of our American government.

"Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:"

Men who fear God is the first prerequisite. None of the current top tier candidates fear God. What does God say about the heathen; men and women who do not fear Him? He refers to them as Proud, Know-nothing and Fools. I highly doubt that God would have us vote for any of these proud, knowing nothing fools to lead our nation. As New Testament Christians, me included, we have failed to cultivate candidates who love and fear the Lord. Ron Paul is the only one running who might be saved according to the Scriptures. Biblically, that's our only choice.

I don't know if I could apply the above to our election. These men were chosen by Moses to apply the Law given of God to Moses. We're not allowed to apply a religious test under the laws of this nation. We have to vote to chose a man to a purely secular position, not to administer the Mosaic Law.

It would be great if God would send Moses to chose leaders for our nation but I don't expect it. We who are Christians passing through this world have to do the best we can with what God has provided. Maybe we're fulfilling God's will to set in place the government which "as a nation" we deserve. This nation is out of God's will, and we were out of God's will when Obama was elected. Maybe the confusion over who should replace Obama is God's will for a nation which has refused to "humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways." Edited February 6, 2012 by 1Tim115

[JerryNumbers]

It's one thing if the Republicans had some really likeable and flamboyant candidate to go to, but to put your vote on Newt or Mitt based on "electability" is just plain silly. Newt is a charmless arrogant blowhard that women despise because he has the morals of an alley cat, and Mitt is a corny, plastic, un-relatable, big-government, big business suit. If I'm supposed to ditch Ron Paul for someone that is "electable," then by golly show me someone that is electable. What a joke.

Have you noticed, presidential elections seems to cause more divisions among Christians more than anything else.

Looks to me like Mr. Rommy will be able to write a book on how a rich man can buy the presidency of this United States of America, or at least the republican party nomination.

Either way the Mormon faith will gain more respectability in this nation than it has ever had, with many Christians thinking its just another Christian group.

[Annie]

I've explained myself very clearly several times here. If you want to strain at gnats to find inconsistencies in what I'm saying than have at it.

What you have said very clearly is that people who take electability into consideration are "unstable," "just plain silly," "sacrificing their values," and "leaning on their own understanding." (As far as I can recall, I don't think I've lobbed any such insults your way.) What you have not explained clearly is how you yourself are not taking electability into consideration when you would vote for a man who is in favor of legalizing prostitution and heroin and cocaine usage over a man whom you could write in who agrees with your principles. I like ya, Rick--I really, really do--and I don't mean to frustrate you. Could you explain how what you are doing by voting for RP is any different than what I'm doing (as far as considering electability goes--I'm not talking about comparing the qualities/policies of the two candidates)? How can you be "voting on principle" and not on "electability," since the only thing Ron Paul has on the write-in guy is that he has more people voting for him, and thus is more electable? Edited February 6, 2012 by Annie

[Annie]

Have you noticed, presidential elections seems to cause more divisions among Christians more than anything else.

If that is true, it's sad. My husband was "de-friended" on FB because he doesn't support Santorum. People take this WAY too seriously and personally. I love a good discussion; that's why I'm in here. I honestly don't care who my friends are voting for; it's between them and the Lord. But I like to make people think, and have my own thinking challenged as well. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone have a problem with taking "electability" into consideration when making a choice about a primary vote. I'm having a good time discussing it, and I assure you my feelings aren't getting hurt.

And, I don't "like" ANY of the Republican candidates; I can't get excited about any of them. But if one of them beats Obama, the nation will be better off for sure, if only a little. (I'm not holding my breath.) Edited February 6, 2012 by Annie

[Brother Rick]

What you have said very clearly is that people who take electability into consideration are "unstable," "just plain silly," "sacrificing their values," and "leaning on their own understanding." (As far as I can recall, I don't think I've lobbed any such insults your way.) What you have not explained clearly is how you yourself are not taking electability into consideration when you would vote for a man who is in favor of legalizing prostitution and heroin and cocaine usage over a man whom you could write in who agrees with your principles. I like ya, Rick--I really, really do--and I don't mean to frustrate you. Could you explain how what you are doing by voting for RP is any different than what I'm doing (as far as considering electability goes--I'm not talking about comparing the qualities/policies of the two candidates)? How can you be "voting on principle" and not on "electability," since the only thing Ron Paul has on the write-in guy is that he has more people voting for him, and thus is more electable?

In this country people have decided that the federal government is God. The “godverment” provides for all our needs and also tells us what is right and wrong. Most people believe that something is right or wrong based upon whether it is legal or not. Ron Paul is in favor of removing the power of God from the federal government and letting the states decide what they believe is right or wrong.

Ron Paul isn't in favor of legalizing those things. What he is in favor of is following the Constitution when it says things like that should be decided by individual states. If what Ron Paul supported on this issue actually went into effect Roe Vs Wade would dissolve and every state would decide on its own what to do about abortion, and most states would outlaw it.

You are straining at gnats about the electability thing. If you keep it up might get a headache.