It seems that every Presidential election has been chalked up by many as “choosing the lesser of two evils.” Why is that, really? It’s too easy to blame it on the nature of politics or corruption by the media or corporate interests. It’s impossible to have a candidate that a majority of Americans would consider the ideal candidate—our country is far too diverse. But it seems that we can’t even find a candidate who the majority of people would agree is “good enough.”
There’s always the fringes to blame. Certainly the current litter of Republican candidates for 2012 shows the fringe’s influence. As last week’s debate in Iowa showed, every single participating candidate claims they would sooner watch our entire infrastructure collapse before they allowed a single tax to go up a dime. Nearly all of them believe that their personal religious values should become federal law, and many of them support permanently amending the Constitution to conform to their short-term political agendas. They are candidates who are promising to hand the entire country over to their constituency of just 26% of the population.
On the Democratic side, liberals complain of the opposite problem—tradition assures that President Obama will seek a second term without a primary battle, and even if he did have to survive a primary, there is no reason to believe that the competition would be any different than it was in 2008, when the Democratic candidate pool was so homogenous it came down to little more than whoever had the most celebrity status. While Republicans are being forced to choose between bible-thumping social engineers and neo-anarchist tax hawks, liberals who want to vote for gay marriage, expanded welfare, or corporate regulation are given no choice at all.
What happened? How did our only choices become ideologues and bureaucrats?