Having moved to a new place for the school year, I recently re-registered to vote for the upcoming election. Alongside my change of address, I also decided to change my party,
switching from Republican to Libertarian, thus concluding my indecisive wavering for the last two years over which one to choose. However, my fickle plight is by no means unique; in fact, the debate over which political party to choose (or whether to vote at all) is a hot topic in the libertarian world. Indeed, it seems now that whenever my “Big L” Libertarianism comes up in conversation, several of my friends seem to have the same punch line for me: “You shouldn’t have switched. Sure, Republicans are bad, but at least they’re lesser of the two evils, and they have an actual chance of winning!”
Ah, the lesser-of-two-evils argument– a sneaky little syllogism that seems to find itself in modern libertarian discourse, looking something like this:
- Republicans are bad.
- However, Democrats are worse.
- Therefore, libertarians should be Republican.
The primary problem with this argument is that it advocates associating with bad. After all, the “lesser of two evils” is still fundamentally evil. The Republican Party, with its advocacy of eternal war and moralism, is remains to be a major force of coercion in the world– coercion that I ethically oppose. So much for “limited government.” Furthermore, I’m progressively finding it harder to believe even the “lesser” part of the argument.
What, after all, is the difference between the two major parties nowadays? Perhaps I’m just blind, but I fail to distinguish any semblance of dissimilarity between Republicans and Democrats in modern politics. On the federal level, both parties have supported foreign interventionism in Iraq and Afghanistan, massive bailouts via the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), violations of our civil liberties via the PATRIOT Act, and secretive prisons overseas such as Guantanamo Bay. And, mind you, this is under both Bush and Obama. Similarly, on the state level, gubernatorial rivals Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman put forth remarkably similar platforms on California’s future while engaging in personal and partisan attacks to give an illusion of difference.
Thus, I’m beginning to view the supposed division between the two parties more of a myth than a reality, sustained more by the partisan establishment than by clear ideological differences. I often feel like I’m in a bizarro world when I see hyperpartisan students on Sproul Plaza telling me how they’re candidate is the future, and how the other side’s is idiotic and evil. Are they seeing some sort of distinction that I simply fail to perceive? Or have I achieved some sort of political enlightenment?
Indeed, I often feel like the freed prisoner from Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, who is blinded by the sun’s brightness when he emerges from the dark, and vice versa when descending back into the cavern. But, am I ascending “from greater ignorance into greater light” and am now seeing the true Form of Politics? Or am I descending “from a brighter life” into a dark pit of political pessimism? [1] Perhaps only time will tell.
[1] Plato, Republic VII, 518a
[...] fickle plight is by no means unique; in fact, the debate over which political party to choose (or whether to vote at all) is a hot topic in the libertarian world. Indeed, it seems now that whenever my “Big L” [...]
Welcome to political independence! The lesser of two evils argument is just the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to the weak and faulty arguments provided by partisans of the two-party state when they seek to persuade people to support the political status quo. A few days ago, I wrote up a handy list of some of the most frequent arguments put forward by the two-party statists. You might find it helpful in countering the talking points of the duopolist ideologues.