Conscience versus lesser of two evils

“The lesser of two evils” is an expression even the casual politically engaged person has heard. That’s usually what it comes down to on Election Day. As there has never been a perfect candidate, voters have to make a choice between one flawed candidate and another. My question is whether it’s ever acceptable to reject that approach and, instead, refrain from participating in “evil” of any kind.

In this 2016 presidential election, Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump are hailed the presumptive nominees of their respective parties. Both come with high negatives, and neither is without controversy. They evoke strong emotions; each seems to be either embraced wholeheartedly or rejected outright.

Although primaries are fiery, fraught with drama and downright dirty, when it’s all said and done, parties expect to unite and coalesce around the candidate. The nastiness fades to black, and the candidate blasted as unfit suddenly becomes the most qualified.

If not vociferously applauded, he at least is lauded as better than his rival. Toeing the party line is written somewhere in the rules, and God help the person who doesn’t obey them.

On rare occasions, a few adamantly against the last candidate standing feel they simply cannot vote for him. Those who believe — which are most people — that every party member must lay down his principles and support the nominee throw a fit. After all, not voting for the nominee is voting for the opposition, and that, of course, is unthinkable.

This is where we find ourselves now, particularly as it relates to Donald Trump. From the GOP establishment to the general voter, people are declaring that though they badmouthed Trump, said he wasn’t a conservative and bristled at his bristly approach, they will vote for him because “he is better than Hillary Clinton.” Nonetheless, some are declaring they cannot, in good conscience, vote for Trump.

I ask why someone must defy his conscience and vote for the “lesser of two evils.” Yes, I understand the mindset. I know every vote counts. I know no candidate is perfect. But what about people who believe principles trump party, that they have to answer to themselves and to God and seek to be true to both? What happens when that seeking leads to the conclusion that they can’t place that vote? Should we really insist that they dishonor that conviction because “not voting for Trump is voting for Hillary”? If I am that person, my reaction might be, “Wrong. Not voting for Trump is not voting for Trump. However that plays out beyond my right not to vote is however it plays out. It’s not my responsibility to even things out. It’s only my responsibility to do what I believe is right.”

“There is no perfect candidate” is the constant refrain. True. No one is perfect, but some issues matter more to a person than other issues. So while one may never find a perfect candidate overall, he may find one who stands up perfectly on the particular issue he deems most important. Conversely, he may find that neither candidate stands up for that same issue, and therefore, he would violate his conscience to cast a vote for either. Who am I to say he must vote for the party’s nominee in that case? Do I have the right to tell him his principles must take a backseat to his party?

Lest I be misunderstood, I am not suggesting people not vote for Trump; I wouldn’t dare. I am, however, requesting your feedback, not on the importance of every person’s vote — we all know that — but on the importance of every person’s conscience.

In the novel “To Kill a Mockingbird,” Scout suggests that her father, Atticus, is wrong for defending Tom Robinson in court. Her reasoning? “Well, most folks seem to think they’re right and you’re wrong.” His response? “They’re certainly entitled to think that, and they’re entitled to full respect for their opinions, but before I can live with other folks, I’ve got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience.”

So is “full respect” available for those on both sides of this issue — those who advocate voting for the “lesser of two evils” at any cost and those who sincerely believe their conscience says not to vote for either — and how do we reconcile the two?

Your thoughts?

Adrienne Ross is an editor, writer, public speaker, online radio show host, former teacher and coach, Southeast Missourian editorial board member, and owner of Adrienne Ross Communications. Reach her at aross@semissourian.com.