As we have argued before, the "Lesser of Two Evils" argument is no argument at all for voting, as the lesser of two evils is still evil. It is no compromise to be heading in the wrong direction half as fast. The Sydney Morning Herald article "Alliances and the American Election" though, raises an even more interesting hypothesis. The "Anything But Bush" Democrats have been running around cynically trying to sell their guy to the voters as "The Lesser Evil," but what if he's not? What if Boy George is "the more harmless candidate" simply by reason of what his incompetence and lack of trustworthiness is likely to effect in the long run? I am not one to choose "lesser evils," but when the real lesser of two evils cannot even be identified, you must concede that the strategy is a fool's errand.
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no
constitution, no law, no court can save it."
~ Judge Learned Hand