Bipartisan deal-breakers.

Here is conservative Catholic blogger Erin Manning, who blogs as Red Cardigan at ...and sometimes tea, discussing why she refuses to vote for Mr. Romney just because he's the "lesser of two evils" compared to President Obama.  In a comment on an earlier post she wrote:

[T]he issue to me has always been about character.  I've never voted for a pro-abort, not even the so-called moderate Republican ones, because to me anybody who thinks that human beings can be legally declared disposable due to age and/or condition of dependency doesn't deserve to be dogcatcher, let alone president. The same thing goes for people who think it's okay to manufacture, buy and sell human beings based on age and/or condition of dependency--even if their church thinks it's okay.

 

And here is Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic Monthly discussing why he refuses to vote for President Obama just because he's the "lesser of two evils" compared to Mr. Romney.

Sometimes a policy is so reckless or immoral that supporting its backer as "the lesser of two evils" is unacceptable. If enough people start refusing to support any candidate who needlessly terrorizes innocents, perpetrates radical assaults on civil liberties, goes to war without Congress, or persecutes whistleblowers, among other misdeeds, post-9/11 excesses will be reined in.

Both writers use the term "deal-breaker" to describe their discomfort with the major-party candidate.  For Ms. Manning, the "deal-breaker" is purportedly a revelation that Mr. Romney personally paid for an IVF/surrogacy arrangement; prior to that she'd already stated that she wouldn't support him because of his history as a supporter of legal abortion.  For Mr. Friedersdorf, the "deal-breakers" are "a sustained assault on civil liberties and the ongoing, needless killing of innocent kids."

FWIW, I won't criticize either Ms. Manning or Mr. Friedersdorf and say they're "throwing away their votes." Neither will I criticize anyone who wishes to use the vote to express a preference among the two major-party candidates even if he doesn't like either.   I think it's acceptable either to vote for the lesser evil OR to vote for the best candidate even if s/he won't win.  

I just thought it was interesting to see the same point expressed on both ends of the spectrum on the same day.   Particularly since I have sympathies with both their arguments, although -- unlike either Ms. Manning or Mr. Friedersdorf -- I'll probably cast a perceived-lesser-evil vote between now and November 6.

Comments

[Lisa]

Yikes. I just cannot, cannot, cannot see this point of view as anything but C-R-A-Z-Y. The next president could appoint two or three Supreme Court justices. A vote against Mitt Romney is a vote for more abortion. No other way of seeing this is even comprehensible to me.

[Bearing]

I don't agree that it is crazy. It is being articulated by reasonable people who have real reasons.

What it comes down to is *proportionate* response in the face of decisions among a field of candidate -- and proportionateness of the responses are entirely within the subjective judgment of the voter.

Really, I think there is far too much "your point of view is stupid and/or crazy" going on across the political spectrum. It is much more charitable and intellectually honest to write, "You're wrong and here's why." It is also more profitable if your goal is to convince the so-called crazy people that they should vote instead of not voting, seeing as calling them crazy is an inherently alienating response that will tend to confirm their suspicions rather than refute them.

And it is worth noting -- obviously, since this is the point of the post -- that a parallel position is being articulated by people who lean left for whom President Obama's positions on various civil-liberties and human-rights issues are deal-breakers. I suppose there are people on the left going "Shut up and vote for Obama" just as there are people on the right going "Shut up and vote for Romney."