The Lesser of Two Evils is Evil

The recent capitulation of major democrats to Mr Bush and his idiot war is being touted as “good politics.” Because the war is such a total failure, its continuation will doom all war-supporting repubs in future elections. So, the thinking goes, dems were smart to approve new war funding, simultaneously tieing the war around the necks of the republicans while avoiding being labelled as “soft on terrorism.”

Only two problems with the strategy. First, it is immoral to lend approval to an ongoing carnage for individual political gains. The only way to halt the cycle of violence is to STOP.

But even worse (for the dems), they will surely lose votes for such blatant political posturing:

Voters don’t like pollster-driven politics or politicians, and with good reason: They want to know what their leaders’ values are, because if they know their values, they know how they’re likely to represent them — not just on today’s issues, but on tomorrow’s, about which we may have no inkling today.

Political scientists have found that people prefer to vote for candidates who share their values, but they prefer a candidate who is strong in his or her convictions — even if they don’t share those convictions — to one whose convictions are hidden in the fine print. Being strong and principled isn’t about being left, center, or right. The fact that voters associate values with the right reflects the fact that conservatives wear their values proudly on their sleeves, and they display their principles in their voting records.

Conservatives don’t vote for bills they don’t believe in. If the public associates principles and values with the GOP, it’s time Democrats start showing voters that there’s another set of principles and values out there: theirs.

Principle number one: no more money for immoral wars.

Principle number two: all wars are immoral.

Michael Sky

4 thoughts on “The Lesser of Two Evils is Evil”

  1. I feel there is a bit of contradiction throughout this piece but the one I would like to address is the statement “no more money for immoral wars”. I was wondering first if there was such a thing as a moral war? Peace, in my definition, does not mean what happens between moral wars but what happens all of the time and since this was written on a blog called “thinking peace” I feel I can safely assume that your intention is to “think peacefully”. A definition for a moral war might be justified if you are considering what morality means or what we as ordinary people chose to define morality as. Such a context can be found when Glaucon defines aspects of morality in the Republic as, “They all [ordinary people and poets] unanimously go on and on about how self-discipline and morality may be commendable, but are also difficult and troublesome, whereas self indulgence and immorality are enjoyable and easily gained, and it’s only in people’s minds and in convention that they are contemptible”. Morality would never claim justification for a war under its guise because war inherently is immoral.

  2. You’re right, more than a bit of contradiction. I was doing the very political thinking I just condemned. In my case, it’s anxiety over the WWII/Hitler issue. I’ve always assumed it a justified and therefore relatively moral war, and thought that you had to at least *say that* to be credible. But war is inherently immoral, even if sometimes justifiable (to oneself).

    Noticed you have a wordpress blog also. One of the nice things about writing online is you can always correct mistakes……….

  3. I would agree in once sense about WWII and Hitler and that is I too have some anxiety over the issue of whether or not we made the right decision invading Europe and ousting Hitler. However, being a person dedicated to creating and teaching peace I would feel a bit hypocritical if I suggested that there is such a thing as moral war and that includes Hitler and WWII. I have yet to completely resolve the idea, as many non-violence advocates have (including Gandhi and Colman McCarthy), that nothing should have been done in that situation. Some feel that the Dutch did the correct thing in staying out of the war as much as possible and by remaining out of the war (at least actively) they were able to survive the war with very little damages. There are also many stories out there of towns and people who non-violently resisted the Nazi regime and survived because of it. My point being that the only way we (humans) have handled situations such as this is through violence and it has not made the world more peaceful.

    You are correct I do have a wordpress blog and I am constantly making mistakes and when I look back at past posts I do see a progression in thinking. I do enjoy your blog so thank you.

  4. When I said in the previous comment that Gandhi and Colman McCarthy would have done nothing in the WWII situation I was wrong. They both would have suggested some method of resistance but it would not have included violence.

Comments are closed.