More than a simple choice: The “lesser evil”—or the “lesser good”?
- Oct 2, 2007 - 35
Pastors and Christian leaders have a responsibility to teach the whole counsel of God, as the Apostle Paul says in taking leave of the Ephesian pastors: “Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God” (Acts 20:26-27).
This responsibility certainly would include talking about what it means to be “salt” and “light” in the culture and about where the Bible stands on issues challenging our society, such as contending for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death and everywhere between, the sanctity of marriage as being only between one man and one woman, racial equality and racial reconciliation, and the perversion and degradation of human sexuality.
Those in pastoral leadership in the church must make sure God’s people understand what the Bible has to say about these issues in season and out of season. The church is not to crank up some grand information machine just during an election cycle. A maturing, healthy Christian faith weds personal confession with personal convictions played out in the culture—all rooted in Scripture.
As Christians, we have no excuse for remaining silent when God’s Word has spoken. God has preserved His Word for our sake—that we would know of His enduring love for us through Jesus Christ and also know of His righteousness and that we have a duty to seek after that righteousness.
Encouraging members to register to vote and then urging them to become informed voters is clearly within the purview of the faith community. A Christian voter, just like every other voter, should ascertain where all the various candidates stand on the issues.
Determining candidates’ stances on moral issues should be a primary consideration; determining how the candidates’ policy positions will benefit an individual personally (e.g., tax policies) should always be a secondary consideration.
Christians don’t have the choice of sitting on their hands in an election season. They are to vote their values, their beliefs and their convictions, while taking into account the candidates’ positions on non-negotiables, such as the life issue.
Yet even with all this preparation, Christian voters may face an extremely difficult ethical dilemma: What if the candidates do not present clear and complete distinctions among themselves, and what if the choices voters make may have unintended consequences?
In most ethical systems, if voters have to choose between a candidate they agreed with on moral issues 20 percent of the time and a candidate with whom they have no agreement on those same issues, they could choose not to vote (conflicting absolutist system) or they could choose to support the lesser of two evils (hierarchical system).
But consider a much more complicated scenario in which voters with a particular worldview are facing a decision about which candidate to support in a field where there is Candidate Baker, with whom the voters have 100 percent agreement on moral issues; Candidate Jones, with whom the voters have 80 percent agreement on moral issues; and Candidate Smith, with whom the voters have 10 percent agreement on moral issues.
This slate of candidates does not provide a clear choice between two starkly contrasting candidates. Instead, the voters are faced with a more complex choice among several candidates. In fact, the candidate the voter has the most in common with (Candidate Baker), may be the weakest candidate across all voting blocs.
Thus, you have a scenario in which the voters are faced with supporting a candidate they agree with 100 percent of the time while fully recognizing the fact that in supporting Candidate Baker, they will help insure the success of another candidate they agree with on moral issues only 10 percent of the time (Candidate Smith), and the defeat of a candidate they agree with 80 percent of the time (Candidate Jones), as well as their “first choice” (Candidate Baker).
However, if they choose to vote prudentially for Candidate Jones (80% agreement), there is a very good chance that their support might insure the defeat of Candidate Smith (10% agreement) and the victory of Candidate Jones (80% agreement).
If they know this and still vote for Candidate Baker, do they become morally responsible, at least in part, for Candidate Smith’s win? Also, in the general election that follows, voters would be faced with the grim choice of not voting, voting for Candidate Smith (10% agreement), or voting for a candidate 100 percent opposed to their values.
In such a hypothetical scenario, if they choose to vote for candidate Jones in the primary, are they choosing the lesser evil—or the lesser good?
Is it more moral to choose prudentially to vote for the candidate who agrees with them 80 percent of the time on moral issues (Candidate Jones), knowing their support will insure that candidate’s victory, thus giving the nation a choice between someone they agree with 80 percent of the time and a person they don’t agree with at all?
Most ethical systems contend that a person has a responsibility to take expected, even if unintended, consequences into account in their decision-making process.
Here is THE question: Borrowing from the philosopher Voltaire, does a person make the perfect (Candidate Baker) the enemy of the good (Candidate Jones), and thus help insure the least desirable outcome (the victory of Candidate Smith)?
This is an ethical exercise that may or may not find real application in the lives of Evangelical voters during the upcoming primary and general election cycles.
Do we choose the “best” candidate (Baker), knowing this may result in the ultimate triumph of the greater evil (the candidate you agree with 10% of the time)? Or do we choose the lesser evil —or lesser good—of supporting the more viable candidacy of the person we agree with 80 percent of the time (Candidate Jones)?
Most religious, and many secular, ethicists would say that one should at least take such questions into consideration before making a final decision.
This is clearly a question of individual conscience. Each person must make this decision for himself or herself, praying for God’s guidance and direction.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Citizenship, Christian Citizenship
Comments are closed. Please use our contact form if you have any thoughts or questions.
comments
1 On Oct 3rd, 2007, at 8:31am, Dr. William D. Blosch wrote:
You stated in your article, “This is an ethical exercise that may or may not find real application in the lives of Evangelical voters during the upcoming primary and general election cycles.” I propose to you that we are already faced with just such an ethical choice among the Republican candidates. Mike Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist pastor, is at or near the 100% agreement mentioned in your article. However, his chances of winning are pretty slim at this point in the election process. On the other hand, Fred Thompson is that 80% candidate mentioned in your article. He has a very good chance of winning and is definitely more desirable than the Democratic alternatives who are all at 0%.
2 On Oct 3rd, 2007, at 8:32am, tom davis wrote:
We cannot afford the ‘lesseroftheevil’. The continued rape of the U.S. Constitution IS a moral issue no less important than others because the very usurpation of the Constitution is what allowed the Federal leviathan to do things like outlaw prayer in schools and legalize abortion in all the States or furter restriction on gun ownership. My choice would clearly be Congressman Ron Paul. The most conservative member of Congress for 20 years, he is a constitutional scholar and a libertarian in the Jeffersonian tradition, a State’s Rights man who understands that solutions are found on the local and State level, not in the City of Political Pimps (Washington D.C.). He is against entangling alliances and against unconstitutional, undeclared wars like Vietnam and Iraq. If Iraq had had anything to do with 9-11, Ron Paul would have been the first to vote for a Declaration of War on Iraq, a war which would not have taken long to win and get out of.
3 On Oct 3rd, 2007, at 8:57am, Dan Jividen wrote:
While the article is helpful in looking at the totality of the issue facing voters, I am afraid that the idea of supporting the good but not the best is what has influenced Christians so strongly that now they have become complacent about voting for “the lesser of two evils”. In which case, the bottom line is that they end up voting for evil. I have come to the conclusion that if Christian voters would choose the candidate they think is the best qualified and morally upright, we could win any election by simply writing in that person if need be to vote for good instead of evil. Having grown weary of voting for the lesser of two evils, this is now my position. Therefore, henceforth, I will be voting for the greater good, not the lesser of two evils.
4 On Oct 3rd, 2007, at 9:39am, Steven wrote:
To put it in more concrete terms, should we vote for Huckabee, who doesn’t stand a chance, or should we try to choose between Guiliani and the others, men with whom we have so much less in common?
The question was already quite clear; I’m disappointed you were unwilling to suggest an answer.
5 On Oct 3rd, 2007, at 12:34pm, Nathan Falco wrote:
An important reminder to all those who call themselves evangelical Christians:
As evangelical Christians, we have-through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit-the ability to discern good from evil and the will to do good according to the good pleasure of God the Father.
Any politician elected to any office who is unsaved and without the Holy Spirit cannot have the mind of Christ. We cannot expect an unregenerate government figure to be able to rightly discern good vs. evil and thus form their policies in ways that will please our Heavenly Father.
Furthermore, we cannot expect an unregenerate politician to make good on his/her promises made during an election campaign. With that said, no matter how “good” or “evil”, Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian, all politicians who are unsaved are in fact on the same team…
6 On Oct 3rd, 2007, at 9:02pm, Mike Smith wrote:
Why don’t you use the real names of Huckabee, Thompson, and Giuliani? It is obvious that you are pandering for Thompson over one of our own—Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee won the governorship, not once, but twice in a state where over 89% of the elected officials are Democratic. He also won 48% of the African-American vote. How does that make him less likely to have national appeal?
Maybe this makes sense when you support a less than godly candidate, but it does not affect how I should vote my principles instead of my party. Surely Samuel would have agreed.
When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, “Surely the LORD’s anointed stands here before the LORD.
But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”—I Samuel 16:6,7
7 On Oct 3rd, 2007, at 11:17pm, Brian Snow wrote:
Dr. Land,
I think we should wait a little longer to pass this judgment and make this decision. We have a Michigan debate next week where Fred Thompson will finally make his case among his peers. Then there is the Washington Briefing straw poll the following week. We should let these candidates prove their ideas in these forums, then move toward a consensus. To call for consensus around a candidate who has thus far avoided a major debate is premature.
8 On Oct 4th, 2007, at 8:13am, tom davis wrote:
Huckabee: one of our own?? One of our own in the sence of a brother in Christ, of that I have no doubt. A good Christian I am sure.
But NOT a clear thinker Constitutionally. Huck does not see the absolute necessity of beginning to dismantle the WELFARE/WARFARE state that is 1.ungodly
2.unconstitutional, and 3.so impracticle that the once great U.S. is now a debter nation dependent on China to support the value of our currency.
I encourage you to consider congressman Ron Paul, the Jeffersonian constitutional scholar who has the most clear grasp of the problems we face. And yes, he is a fellow believer in Jesus Christ our Lord.
9 On Oct 4th, 2007, at 8:21am, Dan Hite wrote:
The spirit and the flesh desire supremacy over each other(Gal. 5:17). Which one do I choose? My reasoning needs to be submitted to the Spirit of Truth. That is the way the choice is made. The prayerlessness of American Christians will be the downfall of this nation. Primaries and elections are not here yet. Many things can happen between now and then. If we do not pray and then act on God’s promptings, then we deserve whatever we get. If we do pray and act, God will lead us and provide a way. “God always gives His best to those who leave the choice to Him.” At the present time, I am reserving judgment on ALL the candidates. I don’t think God wants us to reason with statistics. He wants us to be led by His Spirit.
10 On Oct 4th, 2007, at 11:43am, Manny Tomes wrote:
Apparently most of you don’t understand that Richard Land when speaking as head of the ERLC cannot make statements for or against specific candidates or parties without endangering the ERLC’s tax exempt status. He obviously has done well enough in the article that everyone knows who or what he is talking about, so why the complaints. But then what do I know, I’m a liberal, pansy democrat.
11 On Oct 4th, 2007, at 12:55pm, Steven wrote:
But only God can know another man’s heart, particularly a candidate few of us will ever meet face-to-face.
Jimmy Carter was elected on the strength of his ties to the Southern Baptists and his professing having been born again.
Bill Clinton is likewise a Southern Baptist.
Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.” Lost men may not know the Mind of Christ, but I’ve known plenty of professing Christians who know little more.
God can speak through a donkey; He can change the world through any vessel He chooses.
12 On Oct 4th, 2007, at 1:48pm, Benny Cummins wrote:
REF: “More than a simple choice:” Richard Land - Oct 2, 2007.
Dr. Land, I respect you and am thankful for your ministry. Our family always votes pro-life and by the issues, not the party. Your article is very confusing and does not seem to be right to me. (1) vote your conscience, (2) ask God who to vote for, (3) check the current Vegas “line”, (4) Voltaire says??? (5) with this info in hand figure it out yourself. Bottom line; vote the “Vegas line candidate” who is the “lesser evil”. Maybe this line of “reasoning” is why Candidate Baker (100% agreement) ends up being your long shot choice. God is still in control regardless of what the Vegas line is and regardless of which lesser evil candidate gets elected. “The great enemy of the life of faith in God is not sin, but the good which is not good enough. The good is always the enemy of the best.” Oswald Chambers (May 25th - “The Test of Self-Interest”) Thanks, Benny Cummins
13 On Oct 4th, 2007, at 2:36pm, Grace wrote:
Dr Land,
This could have been a great article to show support for Mr. Baker, AKA, Mike Huckabee. He is truly the best choice for President.
As my grandmother used to say, “Never compromise your values.”
14 On Oct 4th, 2007, at 6:45pm, Robert George Dunn wrote:
Dr. Land has described the attitude or concept that is best left for the hour of voting, not the trail to the voting booth. If the voter properly practiced their responsiblity, they would be doing everything within their power and ability to see to it that the candidate that has the greatest moral fiber or is of the Spirit of God is elected. If Dr. Land would wish to follow up with an article that would speak to this and challenge Christians on their civic duty to God by helping a true Christian get elected, then he would be fulfilling. As it is, the article has left God’s value in defeat without a chance of success.
If we would but show support up front and join the campaign, like Huckabee’s, the best would blossom into the strong candidate and worthy of full support. Yes, choosing a half full cup to prevent an empty cup is wise, but to not bring forth a full cup to choose as the likely choice is foolish.
15 On Oct 4th, 2007, at 7:48pm, Larry Jackson wrote:
I can not understand why the Christian leaders are so against Mike Huckabee. I really don’t believe in conspiracy theories and all of that, but I really wonder in this case. Huckabee is so far above and beyond the other candidates in his ideas and beliefs and his articulation of them, that it is crazy for Christians to not support him. However, all I can hear those leaders say is “he can’t be elected because he doesn’t have enough money”. That is pure and utter nonsense. If the Christian leaders would stop being afraid of who might win and get off the fence, then the money would not be a problem. It shouldn’t be about the money, in the first place, but about the issues and how the candidates stand on them.
16 On Oct 4th, 2007, at 8:08pm, Karen wrote:
You will admit that Huckabee (Baker) IS the man that best represents our values & would be the best choice if he were a “strong” candidate-GOOD! Have you stopped to consider that not saying so is part of why he is not yet a strong candidate? If we all get behind him, he could be that strong candidate that we agree with 100% of the time! He’s a real conservative with 10+ years of executive experience. As a former pastor, he has a heart for families. He shares our values. He has excellent communication skills, charisma and wit. His stands on the issues are what we need & has crossover appeal from independents & moderate Democrats. He could win in the general election. What more do you want, Dr. Land? Oh, money. Let’s do something about that! Let’s work for him, endorse him, & make him the strong candidate he can be. Anyone who hasn’t, check out for yourself what he has to offer. Even Dr. Land says he is our 100% choice though he refuses to drop the code & say it in plain English!
17 On Oct 4th, 2007, at 8:41pm, Lisa wrote:
So let me get this straight, you are basically telling Christians to compromise their moral values to vote for a candidate that can beat Hillary Clinton.
I am sorry but a candidate who represents only 80% of my moral values is not good enough for me, especially when we are dealing with candidates who do not have their feet planted firmly on the ground with important issues like abortion.
There is only one candidate for President that represents 100% of the moral values that Christians stand for and that is Mike Huckabee. If all Christian’s chose a candidate based on their moral values then Mike Huckabee would be at the top of the pack.
What would Jesus do?
18 On Oct 5th, 2007, at 11:34am, Rett wrote:
Why should we comprimise….Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were both on the same pace as Huckabee at their repsective times….Clinton finished 3rd in Iowa Caucus and 2nd in NH…yet he still won the nomination…Fred has no substance…no desire to help us move forward in our cause…his only cause is federalism…We must choose Mike and Not Comprimise our values…Mike is moving up…steadily…and as far as beating clinton goes…lets not pick another bob dole that no one can get excited about…aka fred thompson…Mike Huckabee was a 2 term Gov in a state where 80% of the Government is in Democrat Hands…now thats ELECTABILITY…
19 On Oct 5th, 2007, at 12:15pm, Dan wrote:
I agree exactly with what you all said. We should support the man who best reflects our ideals, have faith that God will honor that and let God deal with the probabilities. And to say Huckabee does not have a chance, is incorrect.
20 On Oct 5th, 2007, at 12:46pm, Dan wrote:
had to abreviate because of the 1000 letter limit)
http://www.insideradvantagegeorgia.com
S.C.
F.T. 21%
R.G. 16%
J.M. 16%
M.R. 16%
M.H. 11%*
R.P. 3%
S.B. 2%
D.H. 2%
N.O. 13%
Survey of 1,281 likely GOP primary voters was conducted Oct. 2-3. M.O.E. is +/- 3 % points.
N.H.
M.R. 28%
R.G. 20%
J.M. 17%
M.H. 8%*
F.T. 8%
R.P. 6%
S.B. 2%
D.H. 1%
N.O. 10%
Survey of 1,082 likely GOP primary voters was conducted Oct. 2-3. M.O.E is +/- 3 % points.
Michigan
R.G. 19%
M.R. 16%
J.M. 15%
F.T. 14%
M.H. 6%*
R.P. 5%
S.B. 2%
D.H. 2%
N.O. 21%
Survey of 1,190 likely GOP primary voters was conducted Oct. 2-3. M.O.E is +/- 3 % points.
Iowa
M.R. 24%
R.G. 16%
M.H. 13%*
F.T. 13%
J.M. 10%
S.B. 5%
R.P. 4%
D.H. 2%
N.O. 13%
Survey of 1,339 likely GOP caucus voters was conducted Oct. 2-3. M.O.E. is +/- 3 % points.
FL
R.G. 29%
F.T. 19%
M.R. 16%
J.M. 10%
M.H. 6%*
R.P. 3%
S.B. 1%
D.H.1%
N.O. 15%
Survey of 725 likely GOP primary voters was conducted Oct. 2-3. M.O.E is +/- 3.5 % points
21 On Oct 5th, 2007, at 2:33pm, Nathan Falco wrote:
I wonder why the SBC is not throwing itself behind its pastor who is running for president? There is enormous power there. Is it really about money? Or is it really about Christian leaders being afraid deep down inside that an avowed Christian cannot stand up to and win a general election for president? What a lack of faith!
Why is the Church in America today so afraid to speak out in the political arena and define who we are and what we stand for? After all, it was Baptists who provided America with the first Amendment.
BTW: the unconstitutional grassroots lobbying bill that would effectively censure any religious organization on political matters has not been passed yet, so Dr. Land as well as everyone else would not face any consequence by stating their political stances.
22 On Oct 5th, 2007, at 4:50pm, Kerry wrote:
Dr. Land -
If all the evangelicals who are supporting Thompson out of fear of Clinton would stand up for their convictions and get behind Mike Huckabee, he would have what he needs to win the nomination and the general election.
Following are comments that Dr. James Dobson made in a recent article (I would like to know how you think your proposition that we compromise our values fits in with Dr. Dobson’s comments):
“Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.”
Thank you.
23 On Oct 7th, 2007, at 8:23pm, Willis B. wrote:
Within our abilities, we are called to be active participants in this grand experiment called the United States. Our faith is to be in no man but in our God. I pray if the Lord wills give U.S. the strength to become as Deborah, Daniel, Nehemiah, Bunyan, Tyndale, Ten Boom, or Bonhoeffer?
24 On Oct 8th, 2007, at 9:46am, Kerry wrote:
Dr. Land ... we would not have to choose the lesser of evils if “Candidate Baker” (ie, Mike Huckabee) would get leading evangelical and conservatives like yourself to stand with him. There are people in this country who wait until November to see who’s on the ballot and then vote thier party without knowing much about the person. So it is up to us to make sure the candidate that is most closely aligned with the convictions of evangelicals and all true conservatives ... Mike Huckabee.
To follow the path you describe Dr. Land is truly following the path to destruction.
25 On Oct 8th, 2007, at 10:51am, R. George Dunn wrote:
The U.S. Constitution does not say that a religious organization cannot stand up for it’s principles and support a candidate. SBC should support tone of their own and do so. I hereby entertain a motion that the SBC convene and cast a vote of support for Governor and Pastor Mike Huckabee. Be as Steven and stand UP!
26 On Oct 8th, 2007, at 12:34pm, Timothy wrote:
While I’m not a liberal, I (like Manny, post 10) am rather amused by the criticism Land is getting on this thread.
On the very same article, Land is harshly criticized for the following things, all at the same time, all by ‘conservatives’:
1) simply raising the question (posts 12, 14)
2) answering the question (posts 7,22)
3) not answering the question (post 4)
...which apparently means…
4) not endorsing ‘their’ candidate (Huckabee or Paul)(post 13 and others)
Amusing, no?
One thing is certain: all the critics on this post have either ignored or not trusted Land’s last sentence:
“This is clearly a question of individual conscience. Each person must make this decision for himself or herself, praying for God’s guidance and direction.”
Evidently, these conservatives don’t like to be told who to vote for… except when they do. :-)
27 On Oct 8th, 2007, at 1:17pm, Steven Wales wrote:
It is unfair of commenter #26 to suggest the readers of Land’s article are some fickle monolith. We are, in fact, a diverse group of thinking individuals, each expressing our different reactions to his article and to the comments that followed. To read all comments together and then pretend to find hypocrisy is ridiculous. A diverse group can hardly be faulted when its “members” depart from your perception of their allegedly common views.
Author of comment #4.
28 On Oct 8th, 2007, at 2:42pm, R. George Dunn wrote:
Timothy, Dr. Land has done more then raise the question on how, when or who to support. He has brought the subject of our collective unity into question and has ran up the red flag of caution. More good is coming from this opinion of Dr. Land then one can possibly declare.
Let us find unity behind the candidate that leaves us without compromise and press our Christian brothers and sisters to be responsible. Here in America, the founding Fathers established a government in which it manifests our God appointed duty to fulfill God’s will in our Government through the elections by helping to get elected those who are of God’s flock without doubt or waver.
I am sure Dr. Land appreciates your defending him, but Dr. Land has some large shoes and God knows him and protects him.
In short, God Bless Dr. Land for this discussion.
29 On Oct 8th, 2007, at 3:15pm, Nathan Falco wrote:
How is it that Dr. Land is expected to project the voice of the “majority” of the SBC, seemingly even to the point that it contradicts his own personal beliefs? Sure, Dr. Land is the head of the ERLC and we expect him to express the views of the majority—and that under the authority of scripture—but such a man is selected for his post only because he already holds such views personally.
You cannot expect Dr. Land to violate his own personal religous convictions to placate the majority or the minority. If you don’t like what he says, feel free to debate him or ignore him, but understand that he is speaking out of his own religious convictions, and he is not trying to put words in your mouth!
30 On Oct 8th, 2007, at 5:19pm, tom davis wrote:
Brethren,
Most of you seem to be for Huckabee. Fine, I see your point.
But if and when Huck drops out, I encourage you to consider Dr. Ron Paul. By trade, Congressman Paul is an OB/GYN who has delivered over 4000 babies and is very much pro-life. He is also a strict Constitutionalist who would, as the Founding Fathers, leave most government in the hands of the people at the
State and local levels. Dobson may oppose him because Paul does not favor the Federal government defining marriage: clearly that is the job of the Church, or at the most the State level gov’t.
31 On Oct 9th, 2007, at 9:17pm, Brenda Brown wrote:
As a Southern Baptist who has a great deal of respect for Dr. Land, I must say that I am SHOCKED to read this article. God calls us to do what is right ALL the time and leave the results to Him. He is able to do above all that we can ask or think, including the election of a lesser known candidate. I listened to Dr Dobson Monday night on Hannity & Colmes so eloquently express why he has stood for the sanctity of life for the last 35 years and why he will never vote for a candidate who will kill babies or the disabled like Terri Schiavo. That’s what you’re asking me to do and I can say that this is an attack from the one who came to destroy life, Satan himself. This is a deceitful argument concocted by Satan to divide the church. The Holy Spirit will never lead us to vote for someone who will use our own money to kill innocent babies. Period. Forgot all the psychobabble. We are accountable to God for all our actions and we are to do what He asks and leave the results to Him.
32 On Oct 10th, 2007, at 11:49am, steven wales wrote:
The terms of Dr. Land’s article were general enough to have been published during any election cycle. How can so many people infer that he is endorsing so many different candidates and parties?
I read the article as merely teasing out an interesting political question. Dr. Land certainly writes well enough to provide an express (rather than implied) endorsement. The article was not about endorsing a candidate, but illuminating an issue.
33 On Oct 12th, 2007, at 2:43pm, Paul T. Rosson wrote:
Borrowing from the philosopher Voltaire, does a person make the perfect (Candidate Baker) the enemy of the good (Candidate Jones), and thus help insure the least desirable outcome (the victory of Candidate Smith)?
I would suggest Dr. Land borrow from the bible and the teachings of Jesus rather than a philosopher. Did Karl Rove write this article?
34 On Oct 17th, 2007, at 1:55pm, Robert George Dunn wrote:
The Lord said” You are neither hot nor cold, but are luke warm and I spit you out of my mouth!”
35 On Nov 1st, 2007, at 9:27am, David Jeffers wrote:
Dear Mr. Tom Davis,
You have made some erroneous statements about Ron Paul. First of all, Ron Paul has not served in Congress for 20 years; he’s served 16 years. He is nowhere near “the most conservative member of Congress;” quite the contrary, he is not even the most conservative in the Texas delegation. Ron Paul has a lifetime rating of 82.26 from the American Conservative Union, fifth to Ralph Hall 82.97%, Lamar Smith 92.36%, Tom Delay 92.88% (no longer serving since 2006), and Joe Barton 93.88%. You can check their conservative ratings at http://www.acuratings.org.