THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS

In many ways, besides literally being the very next national election, the 2020 presidential race has followed the disillusioning tone of the 2016 race, for many voters.

One needs only to immerse themself in present-day political discourse for a second to realize just how much collective trauma we are still reeling from, after almost four years.

It is easy to assume this feeling is exclusive to one side of the major-party spectrum, but looking into the reactions of prominent Republican politicians and everyday voters’ immediate reactions following the 2016 result (and even now) shows that, for them, to say Donald Trump wasn’t/isn’t their first choice is an understatement. In the same way, for an innumerable amount of Democratic and politically-progressive voters, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden wouldn’t have been their first choice, either.

Being a representative democracy, American politicians as currently elected will never fully satisfy the extremely varying and specific political viewpoints of the people they serve. The reality is, if any two individuals are so rarely aligned in their perspectives, any leader who is meant to speak for thousands or even millions simply cannot match everyone’s personal standards. The situation is made even trickier when one takes into account just how much a politician’s actual decision-making rarely exactly aligns with the attitudes they have so boldly and proudly expressed on the campaign trail. However, voting for someone with whom you may not completely agree is a far different situation than reluctantly simply voting for the “lesser of two evils” – a phrase infamously heard over and over again during those crucial months in 2016. Feeling so forced to support an individual you otherwise wouldn’t take a second glance at, because the alternative is that much worse, is antithetical to the purpose of democracy.

The U.S. is constantly criticized by its own citizens about how restricting an insistence on a primarily binary voting system is. Alternative parties do exist, of course, but the trouble is just how small their voices ultimately are in the great debate of American politics. That being said, there is a very relevant reason why the liberal/conservative dichotomy has existed so long: This particular duel between ideologies is evidently the one being battled by the most people.

Democratic and Republican candidates often have practically identical policies when pursuing their party’s nomination, and it is not at all uncommon for their voters’ decisions to be based around these politicians’ general attitudes and histories. This is certainly justified given the circumstances, but these are arguably the most subjective parts of their perceived “character,” things that will inevitably disappoint so many voters at one point or another.

There is a clear reason for the polarizing divide between these two parties in the American voting system, but it doesn’t make the bad taste in one’s mouth after voting for someone you have so little faith in go away any better.

The widespread disappointment felt by many Democrats, Republicans, and alternative-party voters after seeing the names printed firmly onto their ballots is a troubling sign of the true lack of control so many citizens feel so heavily. Our lives depend on such a relatively small amount of people; the least the process could do is make us feel like we actually have a say in their selection.

It is the entire point of the democracy to know that a collective, though not uncontested, decision is being made. Being forced to take the side of the “lesser of two evils” with no meaningful choice otherwise is a destructive assault on this idea.