Lesser of Two Evils

Lesser of Two Evils
Vol: 75 Issue: 20 Thursday, December 20, 2007

You know, it doesn’t really matter what party you belong to this season, the best anybody can hope for is the lesser of two evils.

It is a phrase we’ve been hearing since the early 1990’s, when many voters considered Clinton/Gore the lesser of the two evils when compared to George H. W. Bush and Dan Quayle.

The elder Bush had just broken his famous promise; (“Read my lips. No new taxes!”) and Dan Quayle became a running joke on the late night comedy shows.

Along comes Clinton/Gore and many voters shrugged off their choice as the lesser of two evils.

In 1996, America already had some inkling of the fact it had turned over the keys to the kingdom to a refugee from the Playboy mansion who had turned the Lincoln Bedroom into a Chinese Motel 6.

But when compared to the Bob Dole/Jack Kemp ticket, to the majority of voters, Clinton/Gore was still the lesser of two evils.

This year, the Republicans are all about selecting the lesser of two evils — or three, at this stage of the game.

Who should best carry the GOP standard forward for the next four years? A pro-abortion cross-dressing liberal disguised as a conservative? A Mormon? A former Baptist preacher using Jesus as a campaign prop?

Do we choose a social liberal who is strong on defense? A Mormon who appears to be scandal-proof? Or a conservative Christian who made rejecting evolution a campaign issue, but pledges to maintain the practice of teaching it in public schools?

Which is the lesser of two (or in this case, three), evils?

Assessment:

If the Right has a problem with its choices, consider the conundrum facing the Left. In the first place, they don’t believe in ‘evil’ — except when it comes to politics.

Then ‘good’ becomes ‘evil’ and ‘evil’ becomes ‘good’.

Hillary Clinton arranged to have a ‘ringer’ ask her at a debate if she believed in God. Hillary’s campaign denies it was a setup. . . but, for heaven’s sake, Hillary!

(The questioner was Hillary’s Sunday school teacher!)

It makes you wonder what she was thinking.

To her own constituents, admitting to a belief in God is blasphemy!

For believers in the political center, there was something disingenuous (to say the least) about having her Sunday School teacher wring the admission out of her under false pretenses.

(As for me, it sent a different message. Even Hillary’s Sunday School teacher wasn’t sure Hillary was a believer.)

But then, Hillary has to be compared with Barack Hussein Obama.

While the Right wrestles with the possibility of a Mormon in the White House, the Left is wrestling with the idea of electing an African-American with troubling links to Islam, seemingly on the sole qualification of race.

Barack Obama was sworn in to US Senate in January 2005, and has spent most of his Senate career running for president, so he has very little national political experience.

He has no executive experience to speak of. Prior to running for the Senate, he was a one-term member of the Illinois State Senate. Prior to that he was an attorney, and prior to that, a student.

And that only takes us back to 1988.

His worldview is a mystery — his father was a Muslim, his mother an American atheist. There are rumors he was educated in a Muslim madrassa. His autobiography admits he attended Muslim schools. When Obama’s parents divorced, his mother married another Muslim.

Obama wrote in his autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope”; “During the five years that we would live with my stepfather in Indonesia, I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic schook, and then to a predominantly Muslim school. . .

(Under Islamic law, that makes him a Muslim.)

So, the Left has a choice between a totally inexperienced black candidate with ties to an ideology at war with the United States, or a totally inexperienced female candidate with ties to Bill Clinton, Al Gore, the Chinese government, organized crime, etc., etc, ad nauseum.

To the Left, the principal question is, “do we choose a black guy or a woman?” — and only after that question is satisfied do they get to the question of which is the lesser of two evils politically.

Now we get to the heart of the matter. Over the past month or so, I’ve been accused of both endorsing Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee AND slamming their campaigns.

In each case, the general consensus of the feedback is that, depending on whether one is for Romney or Huckabee, the preferred candidate is the ‘lesser of two evils.’

Those who prefer Romney compare his Mormonism to his lifestyle and conclude his Mormonism is the lesser of the two evils.

Huck supporters argue that, his socially-liberal political record notwithstanding, the fact he is running as the only true Christian in the race makes him the lesser of two evils.

(Other self-proclaimed ‘Christian candidates’ who were ultimately elected as the ‘lesser of two evils’ included Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and George W. Bush, the poster boy for the ‘lesser of two evils’ argument.)

So, the question for Christians is whether or not we should select someone based on the criteria that he is the lesser of two evils?

Inherent in that question is another question — does being the ‘lesser of two evils’ equate to being ‘good’?

The Bible makes a promise to those who choose one form of evil over another. It promises ‘woe’.

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil . . .” writes the Prophet Isaiah (5:20)

America chose Jimmy Carter as the lesser of two evils. We got woe.

We chose Bill Clinton, who never failed to show up on Sunday morning television carrying a big, black Bible. Woe.

We got Southern Baptist Al Gore, who brought a Bible to church on Sunday, and spent the rest of the week preaching earth worship. Woe.

So how should a Christian vote? It depends. If one is voting for a Christian leader whose Christianity matches their own, they might just as well stay home and avoid the disappointment.

If one is voting for the lesser of two evils, the Bible says that is what they will get — evil. Evil begets woe.

The simple fact is this. God sets leaders in place according to His purpose and His ultimate plan.

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” (Romans 13:2)

Your vote is your civic duty, and your allegiance is to your elected government, but it is up to God to judge the lesser of two evils.

Humans are only capable of judging right and wrong. That is the question before us.

Good and evil are outcomes — and outcomes are known only to God.

Being a Christian isn’t easy. Especially at election time. Selecting a leader demands wisdom. And that is where the Christian has the advantage:

“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” (James 1:5)

So what is the duty of a Christian in such matters? Ask God for wisdom, vote for the candidate best qualified to do the job at hand, and let God be the judge of good and evil.

We’ve got enough woe already.

This entry was posted in Briefings by Pete Garcia. Bookmark the permalink.

About Pete Garcia

Christian, father, husband, veteran, pilot, and sinner saved by grace. I am a firm believer in, and follower of Jesus Christ. I am Pre-Trib, Dispensational, and Non-Denominational (but I lean Southern Baptist).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s