The Lesser Evil

June 6, 2006
5:27 AM CST

Via Insty, I read this excellent roundup of the elections in Peru [where?], and I was struck by this comment:

In the first round, last April, Peru’s voters were divided roughly 33-33-33 between the three candidates. The voters from the losing third-place candidate, Lourdes Flores, (who would have made a very fine president of Peru, with truly wonderful free market ideas, and Hernando de Soto at her side), could have sat this election out in sour grapes rather than cast their ballots for anyone, because although voting is compulsory in Peru, voters can leave their ballots blank if they want. Surely Garcia must have repelled them! (Remember what a pain he was to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s? He was horrid!) Instead, these voters showed a great political maturity in casting their ballot for the least objectionable candidate, Alan Garcia, instead of just saying they hated both of them and walking away.

Although they had plenty of reason to loathe Alan Garcia, he really was the least-objectionable candidate. In fact, he was extremely anti-Hugo-Chavez (and real loud about it), distinguishing himself significantly from the pro-Hugo-Chavez candidate, Ollanta Humala. The Flores voters could plainly see from this that the contest was about democracy and anti-democracy, not about particulars of political programs.

Democracy. Or Tyranny. It was that stark. And they chose democracy.

At the risk of sounding a little (North-) Americocentric, there’s a lesson to be learned for conservatives.

We also have a choice of three candidates: Ronald Reagan (the ideal conservative candidate), the Stupid Party (moderate Lefties), and the Evil Party (Hillary Clinton/ Kos/ Kucinich).

Well, Reagan can’t run (for all sorts of good reasons), and there seems to be no decent Reagan surrogate on the horizon. So, like the Peruvian voters, we conservatives are likely to be faced with two choices: a distasteful candidate (whoever gets the Stupid nomination) and Evil Incarnate (the candidate as well as her party’s policies).

If we Reaganites stay home or vote for Mickey Mouse a libertarian a third party, we’re going to get the Evil Party back in power.

I have to tell you all: I don’t like this scenario, either, but there comes a time when you have to try at least to maintain the status quo, and work to effect conservative change in that milieu, because it would be impossible to do so, for example, where immigration policy comes not from James Sensenbrenner but from some MECHA-blessed Congressman.

And lest we may have forgotten what it was like before Bush 43, think: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (with at least two USSC judges facing retirement), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Appropriations Committee Chairman Teddy Kennedy, and weekly Oval Office meetings with Handgun Control Inc. the Brady Bunch.

In other words, if you think things are bad now, things can not only get worse, they can get a hell of a lot worse.

The Peruvian voters chose the more-palatable/least-objectionable candidate, and showed great maturity in so doing. I hope that if we’re faced with the same gloomy alternative, we can do the same.

If it’s McCain, though, all bets are off.

Comments

Bottom of Comments | Original Post

Good reasoning, until the end. You’d rather have Hillary than McCain? A far lefty instead of a centrist? That makes no sense.

Author ID: 7827 | 6/6/2006 06:06 AM CST | #64486


McCain is not a centerist.  He is an oportunist. Hillary would be the quick disastar, McCain would be the slow one.

Roughy, by SWAG, I think the Republican party is about two thirds conservative.  Unfortunately, the distribution into seats of power in the House and Senate doesn’t reflect this. 
I find it interesting that the someone in the Bush administration thinks that the gay marriage issue will energize the mostly conservative base.  They don’t quite get the idea that a lot of conservatives think it should be a state issue not a federal one. ( One Roe vs. Wade disastar is enough thank you.) However the key thing is that they are getting the idea that they are in trouble with conservatives, they (the country club Republicans) don’t seem to be able to face the key issues though.  Immigration, tax policy, education, Social Security, and etc.
While gay marriage and the “full faith and honor” thing is a concern it is not exactly a priority and even the evangelicals that I know seem to think it is primarliy an attempt to blow smoke up their behinds.

Author ID: 67 | 6/6/2006 06:56 AM CST | #64491


Toad has it right. The only real difference between Hillary and McCain is 2025 vs. 2045. Maybe.

Author ID: 1448 | 6/6/2006 07:07 AM CST | #64492


He may not be running in ‘08 (alas), but there does appear to be someone “on the horizon”.  Ken Blackwell of Ohio.  I like what I’ve read of him so far.  He may need a bit more political seasoning, but a term of Billary should prime the pump well enough (assuming the country survived...but we survived FDR and Carter, so we can probably survive the Ice Queen).

Author ID: 8210 | 6/6/2006 07:17 AM CST | #64494


That’s how I read the tea leaves too, Jason. If we can get Ken Blackwell elected in 2006 and re-elected in 2010, I think he’ll have a shot at the Oval Office. I’ll be doing my paltry bit this year to help.

Author ID: 1448 | 6/6/2006 07:21 AM CST | #64495


“Toad has it right. The only real difference between Hillary and McCain is 2025 vs. 2045. Maybe.”

I’d rather it be 50ish than 70ish when the toilet flushes. I can actually do something useful. At 70 the odds are stacked much higher against me.

Author ID: 186 | 6/6/2006 07:23 AM CST | #64496


toad,

The FMA would NOT b another Roe v Wade - it would be an AMENDMENT, duly passed through proper Constitutional channels, including ratification BY THE STATES, not an edict from on high by 9 black-robed tyrants.  The two are POLAR OPPOSITES, not similar in any way, other than that they are both at the federal level.

If one wants to affect national level change (or protect the national level status quo), an Amendment is the PROPER way to do so.

(You could attempt a case that such natioanl changes simply shouldn’t be made at all, but then, you’ve got a fairly uphill battle, as the Amendment process exists for a reason and has been used a number of times over the years to do this very thing, with varying levels of success.)

Author ID: 289 | 6/6/2006 07:25 AM CST | #64498


PS.  You’re right about Hillary and McCain.  Well, maybe a bit optimistic in how long we’d last with McCain-style government…

Author ID: 289 | 6/6/2006 07:26 AM CST | #64499


The logic of the Peruvian example applies perfectly to the McCain/Hillary debate. I can’t imagine anything more shortsighted than to ruin the country by letting Hillary get elected just to spite McCain and the moderate Republicans.

Author ID: 7827 | 6/6/2006 07:26 AM CST | #64500


TSJ,

That’s the problem with McCain. Just when you’ve confidently said “Anyone but Hillary in ‘08!”, your resolve gets tested by this little neo-totalitarian prick.

Lest we forget: Hillary Clinton, as a senator, has never had legislation passed which curtails our freedom of political speech like McCain did with the Campaign Finance atrocity. (That doesn’t mean she wouldn’t if she could, though—her public pronouncements alone prove that.)

I have faith that somehow McCain will not survive the primaries, and I’ll work tirelessly to ensure that he doesn’t. The problem is that his appeal is not just to many Republicans, but also to “moderate” Democrats.

I have a bad feeling about ‘08…

0 Author ID: 1 | 6/6/2006 07:32 AM CST | #64501


I’m enough of an anarchist to want the country to get a taste of just how bad it can get, then let the pendulum swing back to the right...hard.
I’m thinking that if the American “silent majority” gets a good look at the face of evil AND the stupid party finds out how shallow is the tolerence for panty-waist PC in government, just maybe they will take a firm, conservative stand.
And maybe if a significant portion of the conservative base votes Libertarian, the stupid party might assume some moderate portion of that party’s platform.

Author ID: 2360 | 6/6/2006 08:12 AM CST | #64512


A few things you need to remember/acknowledge:

First, the democrats are totalitarian socialists-the want to redistribute wealth and disarm the population

Second, Republicans are merely less totalitarian and SLOWER socialists

Third - McCain is a democrat - ok across the pond, but the product of multiple generations of bureaucrats(albeit military) - still thinks big government is an answer, not a problem

Author ID: 8266 | 6/6/2006 08:24 AM CST | #64513


If McCain is a “neototalitarian prick”, then what is Hillary? McCain has antagonized the right wing on some issues, Hillary is beyond the pale. For example, I’m sure she’s a staunch supporter of Australian/British type gun control, under which the “evil” paramilitary rifles we discuss and enjoy go into the smelter. Do you think they’ll come back after Hillary is defeated for reelection? I reject the nihilism that says “let the country collapse, it will only prove how right I was about left wing Democrats”.

Author ID: 7827 | 6/6/2006 08:29 AM CST | #64514


The issue I have with this approach is that it will never lead to reform of The Stupid Party.  That is to say, if we keep rewarding their stupidity it will continue.  So, do we reward their stupidity with political office or take our hit for a few years in hopes that the stupid party unstupids itself?

Damned if you do . . .

Author ID: 743 | 6/6/2006 08:36 AM CST | #64517


TSJ,

McCain antagonizes everyone—that’s why he’s so beloved by the media.

And Hillary Clinton is also a neo-totalitarian prick: hence the difficulty of the choice between the two.

As for her GFW credentials: they’re a given. But never forget that McCain is a huge supporter of AGS (Americans for Gun Safety), who would impose gun control by regulation rather than by law, all under the guise of “safety” and “reasonable restrictions”.

0 Author ID: 1 | 6/6/2006 08:39 AM CST | #64518


FlintlockTom, SayUncle -

my challenge to you is to name any 3 socialist laws that were enacted during the Clinton administration, that have now been overturned by the swing back to conservatism of the last 6 years.

The point, for me, is that once the other side gets in, and slathers their agenda over everything, it’s very very hard to get rid of it.

I come originally from the UK which has had centuries of useless socialist laws layered on top of each other. That’s the way we are headed unless we keep plugging away to prevent them being introduced or approved in the first place.

Author ID: 2334 | 6/6/2006 09:01 AM CST | #64521


AnotherKevin:

Assault weapons ban.  Clinton’s tax increases.  Reversing the policy of the justice department that the second amendment guaranteed an collective right.

Now, The first had an expiration date.  the second was not entirely a rollback of the increases.  And the third wasn’t a law.

It’s better than nothing. 

But point taken.

Author ID: 743 | 6/6/2006 09:06 AM CST | #64522


“I come originally from the UK which has had centuries of useless socialist laws layered on top of each other. That’s the way we are headed unless we keep plugging away to prevent them being introduced or approved in the first place.”

AnotherKevin,

An excellent comment. Just for the record, though: if the Evil Party controls Congress, as they did during the Dark Times, it’s almost impossible to stop that flow of socialist laws. Even the most conservative President can’t veto everything.

Better to keep them out of power forever, the easier to roll back their filth.

Understand that what I’m suggesting isn’t pretty—in fact, it makes me gag sometimes just thinking about it—but it is realpolitik.

Philosophers don’t get to govern, except in totalitarian scenarios. Pragmatists do.

And short of pressing the Reset button (and we’re not even close to that situation), the only way to effect change is from within.

0 Author ID: 1 | 6/6/2006 09:38 AM CST | #64525


I heard on the radio this morning that Tancredo is seriously considering throwing his hat in the ring for 2008.

Author ID: 2187 | 6/6/2006 10:42 AM CST | #64534


The four-year Carter disaster led to eight years of Reagan. Two years of Clinton led to the Republican House takeover. Some time in the Hildebeast’s jungle might just be worth it for the result - conservative supremacy and the destruction of the Democratic party (leading to my libertarian dream of battle between libertarians and conservatives over social freedoms with economic freedoms being a given.)

Author ID: 1256 | 6/6/2006 10:56 AM CST | #64538


I’m just theorizing here, but if Hillary was elected president, then all the Clinton-era figures of corruption and ineptitude and abuse of power would come back.  Do you really want the return of Janet Reno, of Madaleine Albright, the same machine that was investigated by the FBI for 8 years, suicided Vince Foster, and did an amazing amount of last-minute pardons for scum and dangerous criminals?  Do you want the Devil you know, or the Devil you don’t?

Frankly, I’m against Hillary because I don’t want Reno or Albright back.  A heavy hand upon the American people and a slap on the wrist for foreign terrorists, no thanks.

Author ID: 1257 | 6/6/2006 11:31 AM CST | #64543


I forget where I saw this, but it’s accurate and it fits.

The difference between bad and worse is much more stark than that between good and better

Author ID: 7066 | 6/6/2006 11:55 AM CST | #64544


Saysuncle:

You can’t reward or punish the Stupid Party. It isn’t an individual, and is not effected by such.

The Stupid Party belongs to whomever chooses to seize the controls. You don’t like where this portion of the ship of state is going?

Then seize the wheel.

Author ID: 1358 | 6/6/2006 12:58 PM CST | #64552


People want a silver bullet to make government better, and see a third party as such.  It ain’t gonna happen.  Work to refomr the party, don’t throw effort after foolishness.

Author ID: 8061 | 6/6/2006 01:38 PM CST | #64555


“And lest we may have forgotten what it was like before Bush 43, think: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (with at least two USSC judges facing retirement), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Appropriations Committee Chairman Teddy Kennedy, and weekly Oval Office meetings with Handgun Control Inc. the Brady Bunch.”

How’s this for a true nightmare:  Attorney General Schumer, ultimately in charge of the ATF.

Author ID: 7384 | 6/6/2006 01:47 PM CST | #64556


Veeshir,
That would be R.A. Heinlein.  You were quoting Jubal Harshaw from Stranger in a Strange Land.

Author ID: 8097 | 6/6/2006 03:49 PM CST | #64559


“And lest we may have forgotten what it was like before Bush 43, think: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (with at least two USSC judges facing retirement), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Appropriations Committee Chairman Teddy Kennedy, and weekly Oval Office meetings with Handgun Control Inc. the Brady Bunch.”

How’s this for a true nightmare:  Attorney General Schumer, ultimately in charge of the ATF.

AAAAAUUUGGH! Thank you two so very, very much for these new gray hairs.

Author ID: 1773 | 6/6/2006 08:16 PM CST | #64575


Kim is correct, nearly every time there is an election, a compromise has to be made. It is too easy to just throw one’s hand up in disgust, but that gets you into trouble. The MAJOR problem with the Republican party is in the SENATE! As far as I am concerned, the Republicans do not hav control, John McCain does! Nearly everytime there is a close vote for a conservative agenda bill, there is John McCain staking out a separate stance and using a small gang of likeminded Senators, like Senator Graham, and the most liberal democrats. He has been so successful, that other senators are geting into the like Chuck Hagel. On just about any issue there will be McCain taking some slightly different stance just to be noticed and gain notoriety. Clinton bombs Serb Civilians, McCain goes on TV and says, “We should send in the Ground Troops!” Bush sends in the gound troops in Iraq, and there is McCain saying we should bomb more. The scumbag is far past being merely an “Opportunist” All the time he takes advantage of his former status as POW, he backstabs, double crosses and lies, just so he can gain power. People seem to forget than McCain was one of the “Keaton five”, probably one of the few along with Alan Canston to politically survive the scandal.

What McCain has done is to discredit the entire Republican party. It is so easy to forget the republicans that continue to vote for Conservative ideals. For those of us in North Texas, we have several good examples of conservative republicans. The challenge is to replace bad republicans with good ones in the primaries, and help get rid of democrats, especially the bad ones, and replace them with republicans for those oher districts. Democrats have been doing it for years, as even Texas democrats like Ann Richards and Martin Frost raised the majority of their campaign funnds in California. A good example would br to send money to the republican opponant of some traitorous scumbag like John Murtha. It is the kind of thing that the NRA used to do, except, as Neil Knox used to point out, not very well. Bush is someone we can’t do much about except to try to influence a change in his immigration policy. There is also the possibility that at least one or more SCOTUS justices could drop over dead, and open up a vacancy. Bush did respond to that after a Harriet Meyers “hiccup” and we sure could use a conservative or constructionist majoriy on the Supreme Court. Imagine how difficult another such appointment would be with a Democraic majority in the Senate. I believe that a Democrat led House would pass anoher Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), permanant, including all semiautos, and wihout grandfathering. Bush with his 2000 election campaign promise would be obliged to sign it. An AWB has already passed the last “Republican” Senate.

Author ID: 7801 | 6/6/2006 08:33 PM CST | #64576


problem with this math is it assumes the reptiles govern as conservatives,

ie we are confronted with Geo the duce pandering for a rino like the specter of Specter in senate justice,

while the reptile party recruits and funds a challenger to run against Ron Paul.

tell me again how voting for reptiles and rinos saves the republic?

Author ID: 1107 | 6/6/2006 11:07 PM CST | #64586


If you have noticed, the evil party is starting to unravel like a ball of
string. They still control most of the press, but---- the net has put a big
dent in that. I have a friend thats a lib. She is getting a wake up call
because of somthing that happened to her son. She had/has to deal with
the idiots that run the school system, the county, and their minions. I can’t say any more about that, but she’s starting to come around. Funny
or not so, reality can set in and change peoples ideas. It usually takes
something that affects their lives for it to happen. For me it was waiting in
line to buy gas.  J. Carter, thanks not

Hillary?  God help us.

Author ID: 8167 | 6/8/2006 02:27 PM CST | #64799