Sometimes the “Lesser of Two Evils” Makes Almost Perfect Sense.
I fear there are times when “consistent” libertarians contradict themselves. This often happens with fundamentalist thinking.
I think this comes through with the “lesser of two evils” principle.
In this sense the “lesser of two evils” principle is very much reliant upon the Nirvana Fallacy. Under the Nirvana Fallacy a person concocts a mental construct of a “perfect” solution and then compares all other options to the perfect one. Of course, they others solutions, no matter how good they may be, are deemed to fall short of the perfect one. The result is the perfect becomes the enemy of the good.
The dilemma may be that actual life is filled with imperfect choices and ONLY imperfect choices. What if a real choice between utter perfection and total evil are rare? The Nirvana Fallacy may leave one utterly paralyzed if applied consistently.
For instance, we work to extend life all the time. We take actions to reduce disease, slow down aging, prevent fatal accidents. What we aren’t doing is ending death. Our most basic choice in life is between dying now or dying later? That isn’t what I’d call a perfect choice. I’d rather die much later thank you very much — but that’s the “lesser of two evils” isn’t it?
Libertarians have long advocated legalization of drugs — not just marijuana but hard drugs as well — though we were for legalizing pot before liberals were ready to get on board. What was the typical libertarian argument on the matter — it wasn’t a denial that drugs could be harmful, it relied on the opposite. It said drugs were harmful, but prohibition was worse.
Legalization of drugs is the lesser of two evils. It is harm reduction, not the abolition of harm. There is no Nirvana to be had.
Consider a major debate in classical economics where libertarian forbearers argued explicitly against a concept of perfection in markets. Classical economists were found of speaking of equilibrium in markets — such as the point where supply of good are equal to the demand of goods.
Austrian economists challenged that version of the Nirvana Fallacy and argued the market is not a perfect static state but a dynamic process. There never is equilibrium nor should we attempt to achieve it. Markets work because they are dynamic; always shifting as demand and supplies shift. The world is not static, supply and demand are not static, and thus equilibrium is NEVER achieved and not possible.
Various advocates of planning, such as Joan Robinson, made a lot out of the fact markets never achieve equilibrium. She labeled this as “imperfect competition.” This was proof of market failure and evidence for interventionism as a general policy. If markets are always failing — as evidenced by the failure to ever see equilibrium — then markets need to be managed. This interventionist fallacy is rooted in the idea of perfect competition — something that doesn’t exist and never will exist.
Markets are not perfect; they are processes. They are a series of feedback loops where there is a tendency toward equilibrium, but ONLY a tendency. The nature of reality means it is never reached, not even for a second. Markets are not places but processes.
Libertarian economists of the day realized this and argued against the perfect competition/equilibrium theories. They proposed the process theory of markets. But what is the process? It is a constant choice between imperfect conditions. You could say that every market transaction is a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Ideally you want to eat your cake and have it too. You want your money and the goods your money will buy. These are imperfect choices, so you make a transaction to improve your lot, not to perfect it. You make a series of trades, which put you in a better spot than not trading — it isn’t a perfect spot, but it’s better.
Yes, the lesser of two evils is still evil, but not all evils are equal. Dying later isn’t perfect; it’s just better than dying today. Spending money to eat isn’t great, just better than starving.
All around us we are faced with imperfect solutions and the same is true in the political process. There are many libertarians, who embrace the fallacy of a perfect end state of anarchism, who still vote for Libertarian candidates. It’s a tacit, but not explicit acknowledgement, that there can be huge differences between the “lesser of three evils.” After all, no anarchist should be voting for any governing official in a perfect world.
Historically the choices in the United States have been between a sort of Tweedledee/Tweedledum party system. The Democrats and Republicans converged toward a statist middle — one that was meddlesome in foreign policy for both, but where Republicans were slightly less meddlesome when it came to economics and Democrats slightly less meddlesome when it came to social liberties. The difference between those evils was measured in inches.
The domination of the Republican Party by Trumpian authoritarianism is not the same thing. In this case the two evils differ by miles, not inches. Trump is waging explicit war on core American values including limited government, markets, civil liberties, etc. Even the Constitution, in his mind, is something he can change by executive order.
This is a man who has openly appealed to racists, Nazis, and bigots of all stripes.
Admittedly there are some Democrats doing their damndest to reduce the differences between Republicans and Democrats back to inches — they want the failed policies of socialism imposed on the United States because it’s fair for everyone to be equally miserable. People like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are rushing to far fringes of the Left because the extremism in the GOP allows them to do so, and still appear moderate by comparison.
Right-wing extremism feeds Left-wing extremism, and vice versa. Neither one is particular in tune with historic American values; no matter how often the Right wraps itself in the flag. Typically right-wing extremists appear good when it comes to symbolism but utterly shitty when it comes to practice. Contrary to the law and order crowd the concept of the rule of law was to keep government in check, not the people.
I want to remind you of the Weimar Republic. One problem with such reminders is people immediately jump ahead by another decade or two and then color the history with the results. Well, the results were NOT known during the Weimar Republic. That is precisely why I use it. Our situation is one where we don’t know the results.
During the Weimar years the choices were all imperfect ones. You could vote for the Nazis, the Communists and Social Democrats. The liberals of the day had largely disappeared and those still around were sadly compromising too easily. Voters fearing one extreme or the other shunned the Social Democrats and moved to the extreme depending on which extreme they feared most.
In 1928 the Social Democrats had 9.1 million votes, the Communists 3.2 million and National Socialists just 810,000. But, that was an increase of 1 million votes for Communists. Communists had attempted several coups to take over the country. Not far to the East was the menace of tyrannical Bolshevism. Hitler shook this communist menace in the face of the people and blamed it on the Jews.
By 1930 people started moving toward the fringes. Those on the Left voted for extremism in the Communist Party because they feared National Socialism. Those who feared Communism most voted for the extremism of the National Socialists. Support for the Social Democrats declined to 8.5 million, the Communists received 4.6 million votes and the Nazis secured 6.4 million votes.
By 1932 the Communists were able to secure 5.2 million votes and the Social Democrats fell to 7.9 million. Things were looking rosy for the extreme Left — except for the problem of the National Socialists receiving 13.7 million votes. By 1933 the only choice was National Socialism.
The Social Democrats were the lesser of multiple evils. And certainly when it came to the Nazis, Communists and SDP, the SDP was miles apart from the other two. The SDP was the more moderate choice during the Weimar years and the differences between it and National Socialism became MORE apparent with each passing year.
Today’s Democrats are closer to the SDP than to Communists and today’s Republicans, under Trump, are far closer to the National Socialists than they are to the SDP. In other words, from a libertarian perspective the Republicans are grotesquely worse than the Democrats. That wasn’t always the case.
There is much to be said in favor of the “lesser of two evils” principle, but all principles are reliant upon facts. Principles don’t trump facts; facts determine principles. When the differences between the choices are measured in inches, avoiding the lesser of two evils has few costs. When the choice is measured in miles, the costs are vastly higher and it’s a principle one should discard. If the facts on the ground are different next election, then reconsider your position. But, when the choices are miles apart, refusing to vote for the “lesser of two evils” could be suicidal.
If you wish to support these columns donate on our page at Patreon.
