by Kym Robinson

September 16, 2024 - The lesser of two or many evils is a line of reasoning that tends to favor the status quo. It compromises principles and human dignity to a point where we are made to understand the benefits of injustice and less freedom. We are told that it could always be worse. If one ruler is a better option than another, the compromise is that we should be ruled, but by a less bad gang of murderous thieves. Such pragmatic reasoning can also expand to acts of mass murder; a genocide is a lesser evil in particular contexts. For those who consider themselves principled, it can be a seduction to drop their dignified convictions.

Democracy thrives with compromise because one political Party is generally more despised than another at any given moment. The promises of one can be as repulsive just as the promises of the other are appealing (assuming there’s much of a difference at all). It is not uncommon for people to vote out of spite or as a protest, whether for a smaller Party or against the current ruling Party. Whatever the outcome, it ensures that government remains, validating it through the process of elections. The appearance of choice is a powerful thing, even if it is understood to be limited. The pragmatic approach is to pick the lesser of two evils.

The nature of compromise in politics is to seek a supposedly pragmatic approach, or to ally oneself with a supposed enemy of an enemy. There are many ideologies that destroy individual liberty, including some that use the language of freedom. The pragmatic approach itself becomes a form of political ideology based on the assumption that something is done for a greater good or to accomplish a great feat. For example, public works projects are often used to justify central planning as it can be an effective way of developing infrastructure while “creating” jobs, along with the “seen” benefits to the community; free market alternatives are unimaginable to the coercive minded. When it comes to imperialism, people seek the greater good for a civilization. The chauvinistic bias that one race or group is superior extends its supremacy to “help” those inferior by subjugating, converting and eradicating them so that they no longer exist as savages.

Politics and the nature of government policy have a tendency to ignore morality or principles despite claims that they stand for both. In the case of imperial ambitions, the conquest of others can be seen as an expedient means to secure greatness, security and wealth for one’s own tribe. When it comes to mass murder and even genocide, one can find the pragmatic approach meshing with a form of delusional utopianism. A free market does not satisfy the ambitions and self-interested desires of the central planners who seek glory or empire for themselves.

Inside the liberty movement lurks the conflict between purists who believe in concepts like the non-aggression principle, and others whose approach requires baby steps in that direction while working within the coercive monopoly of the State. Some who consider themselves principled have a tendency of meandering when fear and crises emerge, and take pragmatism and political compromise as a salvation that never comes. In playing politics, one is expected to make alliances on issues that may lead to liberty. In the end the State remains the status quo, and allies usually betray or seduce the liberty-minded into their cause. Politics ruins everything, usually by conflating the self-interest of individuals and pragmatism.

It is hard to retain principles and stand by them when it feels like others lack any. Politics is the theater of compromising on principles as an expedient act of survival. Political creatures are survivors and tend to respond to the whims, wishes and fears of the populace (at least, how they interpret them). They mold their messages accordingly, regardless of what they intend to do or end up doing. All that matters is their own survival and that they benefit, profit and rule.

During war, a national government can find itself crossing lines that in peacetime it would have considered abhorrent or unimaginable. The pragmatism of “winning” or accomplishing total victory over an enemy can see a nation commit the same atrocities that it condemned its enemy for doing. Even when the effectiveness of area bombing was questioned, the urge to hurt the enemy and kill as many of a pariah government’s citizens as possible satisfied a collective impulse and took the form of strategic retribution. While acts of mass murder are evil, they are less evil compared to victory by the enemy. Objective right or wrong does not really matter; the mindset of a population and its leadership claim principles one city at a time.

In a recent appearance with Tucker Carlson, popular historian Daryl Cooper sparked a viral storm where the argumentation between Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill reached a point of absurdity. Extreme takes naturally dismiss nuance. People who see Hitler as a champion of their values interpret criticism of Churchill as validation for their favorite despot; and those who despise Hitlerism think any of his opponents are good because they are the lesser of two evils. Therefore, Churchill must be good, regardless of any evils for which he may be responsible. History gets reduced into binaries, and the reality of the wider world gets dismissed.

Be under no delusion: having principles does not mean that we will ever find a Heaven on Earth. It is a dignity that transcends politics. Setting an example and inspiring others can erode away the coercive monopoly. Individuals will embrace the principled and those who stand as proof of a concept. Standing out from the inconsistent is itself an outlier than can grow a philosophy.

It is easy to look at the world and realize that one person has little power or control. But you have self-control, the ability to act or not act and make key decisions based on your own set of principles that can inspire and influence others. Should paid mercenaries or zealots to a cause threaten or even kill you, that is their weakness. You can resist and fight back, and others may fight alongside you. If we don’t have our principles, then what do we have? In the end, the best they have is the lesser of two evils, a promise of the greater good based on fallacy and self-delusion.

Principles exist to stand the test of extremes rather than be fair weather positions for the lazy and undignified. Power lies with those who uphold principle because it is they who are always approached to yield and bend their position in favor of the politically minded. The principled don’t need the mercenaries, the reverse is true. Power lies in one’s ability to resist fearmongering, bribes, threats and seductions. That requires courage and tenacity. It is tough but beautiful. Above all else, it is right.