When you vote for President will you go with the “lesser of two evils”?
Question: Which would you prefer?
1) Republicans fighting a battle against a President Clinton?
2) Republicans following a President Trump?
Hard to choose.
But I’m not making that choice. I say a hearty “neither.”
“Lesser of two evils” is inferior as a strategy. Worse, it’s a rejection of the mindset that made America great in the first place. Specifically: “End Tyranny.”
Whatever happened to that? Have we fallen so far? Do we now only call for “The lesser of two evils”?
I make my choice by what will do most good in the long-term for the health of the conservative movement (constitutional conservatism as explained by sites such as Conservative Review).
The best vote is one that shows I am forever unwilling to vote for a pro-abortion candidate (Clinton), and I am forever unwilling to vote for a tyrant (Trump).
That’s a clear stand.
— Cody Libolt (@CodyLibolt) June 20, 2016
Only when people take this a stand for multiple consecutive elections (and en masse) should we expect a party to start going out of its way to court us as voters. Which voting choice will most likely to bring the result I want, long-term? That’s how I’ll vote.
We will not see virtuous candidates until American voters show that they are unwilling to cross a certain line. The “lesser of two evils” strategy has brought us where we are today. It will not help us in the long run.
It’s never too late to vote on principle.