"Lesser Evil" voting will kill us all
Nearly two decades of Lesser Evil voting has culminated in a candidate who supported fracking, border walls, genocide, and carried an endorsement from Dick Cheney
While running for president during the 2008 election, Barack Obama made a lot of promises. He vowed to curb government spying programs and increase government transparency, pledged to strengthen abortion access, said he would close Guantanamo Bay, spoke out against torture, assured voters he would look into potential human rights abuses committed under the George W. Bush administration, and he swore to end the US occupation of Iraq — a promise we could “take to the bank”.
Of course, there were warning signs Obama wasn’t going to usher in the level of change he was promising. For example, on the campaign trail, he called Iran a “great threat”, said he was open to sending US troops into Pakistan, promised $30 billion in assistance to Israel, and he even received more campaign cash from defense companies than John McCain. Still, he was nonetheless portrayed by Democrats as the clear Lesser Evil.
But after winning the 2008 election, that illusion quickly began to fade.
Throughout his first term, Obama “failed” to close Guantanamo, slammed Iran with crippling economic sanctions, gave Israel a blank check to commit atrocities in Gaza, vastly expanded drone strikes, backpedaled on prioritizing abortion access, withdrew some US troops from Iraq (but later sent them back), renewed the Patriot Act, signed off on indefinite detention of US citizens, targeted whistleblowers, authorized a coup in oil-rich Libya, and allowed his Justice Department to defend the overseers of Bush-era torture from prosecution.
And yet, by the time the 2012 election rolled around, all of these negatives about the Obama administration became secondary to Democrats. Obama might be bombing multiple countries, they argued, he might be keeping US troops in Iraq, he might be targeting whistleblowers, he might not be overly concerned with torture carried out under the Bush administration, and he might not have closed Guantanamo. He might not be perfect, they said, but we still have to vote for him because if we don’t, his opponent — Mitt Romney — will win.
The argument worked, and that November, Obama was re-elected.
Yet, throughout his second term, Obama continued to prove he was far from a Lesser Evil. Over the next four years, he expanded his war on whistleblowers, launched cyber attacks on Iran, doubled down on not holding anyone accountable for torture, oversaw the force-feeding of hunger striking inmates at Guantanamo and barred the transfer of cleared detainees from the facility, and he vastly expanded drone strikes.
In his last full year as president, Obama dropped at least 26,000 bombs — that’s 72 bombs a day, or 3 bombs every hour.
Perhaps Mitt Romney would have been worse. Maybe he would have doubled Obama’s death count. Maybe instead of dropping 26,000 bombs, Romney would have dropped 52,000. Both men might be warmongers, Democrats said, but hey, 26,000 bombs dropped is better than 52,000 bombs, right? We need to support the lesser warmonger, instead of — you know, not supporting warmongers, period.
Again in 2016, Democrats encouraged voters to come out and support Hillary Clinton for president, their next Lesser Evil candidate.
Sure, they said, she might be a career politician who gave paid speeches to banks, flip-flopped on supporting torture, joked about the brutal US-backed murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and stood behind every US war from Iraq to Syria. But if we don’t turn a blind eye to all of that, her opponent — Donald Trump — might win.
This time, the Lesser Evil argument didn’t work, and after Clinton lost, Democrats spent no time genuinely reflecting as to why. Instead, they went on to blame everything from Russia to Bernie Sanders. Everyone and everything was at fault for her defeat except for Hillary Clinton herself, and the party that decided she was the best person out of some 300 million Americans to beat Trump.
Fortunately for Democrats, it only took a few years for American voters to realize — at least in the short term — that Trump's campaign rhetoric didn’t line up with his actions as president. Trump bombed Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen, left US troops in Iraq, and he kept US troops in Syria “only” for the oil. He attempted a humiliating coup in Venezuela, assassinated an Iranian general, and sent missiles to Ukraine.
At home, his promised healthcare plan never happened. He “drained the swamp” by adding to his cabinet people Rex Tillerson, former Exxon CEO, and famed neocons like John Bolton. And it did Trump no favors that his response to an unprecedented global pandemic during the last year of his presidency sent destructive shockwaves through the economy which are still being felt to this day.
All of this made it easy to paint Trump as the Greater Evil. So easy, in fact, that Democrats even ran Joe Biden against him — a man as old as time itself who embodied every definition of an establishment politician.
Biden embraced his role as the chosen Lesser Evil. He promised to end the “forever wars” and swore “not another foot” of Trump’s border wall would be built. He spoke out against separating families crossing the border, pledged no more offshore drilling, said he’d up the minimum wage, install a public option, and even vowed to cure cancer.
As in past elections, any meaningful criticism of Biden was promptly ignored by Democrats. Sure, they argued, he might have supported all the post-9/11 wars and occupations. He might — like Trump — have numerous accusations of sexual misconduct. He might represent a decades-long record of giving Israel weapons to commit atrocities. He might have flip-flopped on gay marriage and abortion.
But, Democrats said, we have to turn a blind eye to all of that, or Trump might win.
Unsurprisingly, once elected, Biden quickly lived up to his establishment record. He waived federal laws and cleared land to continue building Trump’s wall, and he continued separating families at the border. His public option never materialized, and his minimum wage hike never happened. He kept troops in Iraq, in Syria, and sent more troops to Somalia. He left in place Trump’s scheduled withdrawal from Afghanistan, but then shifted the imperial focus to wage a costly proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, while also fully backing Israel’s genocidal rampage in Gaza.
By 2024, it was becoming increasingly apparent that Democrats needed a new Lesser Evil candidate to replace Biden, especially after his disastrously incoherent debate with Trump. Primaries be damned, Democrats quickly rushed in Biden's VP, Kamala Harris, to take his spot. And like clockwork, they encouraged voters to ignore her backing of the war in Ukraine and to disregard her support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza. They shrugged off her endorsement from Dick Cheney, along with more than 200 staffers who worked with Mitt Romney, John McCain, and George Bush. They dismissed her flip-flops on fracking and building a border wall. Democrats encouraged voters to put all of this aside, or else Trump might win.
Decades of Lesser Evil voting culminated in a Democratic candidate who supported fracking, border walls, genocide, and one who carried an endorsements from a monster like Dick Cheney.
Decades of voting against our better judgment in favor of the Lesser Evil, and at the end of it? Trump is president — again.
Downplaying the support of candidates for things like war, torture, and corporate pandering hasn’t resulted in the progress Democrats promised; instead, it has resulted in a slippery slope where voters increasingly sacrifice their values, vote for the perceived Lesser Evil, and get absolutely nothing in return for it.
Considering the ineffective history of Lesser Evil voting, maybe — just maybe — it’s finally time to stop putting millions of Americans into an unwinnable situation every four years where they’re encouraged to choose between two candidates who barely represent their interests and values.
Maybe it’s time to stop voting for the Lesser Evil.