In some of the strongest and most unambiguous language of his pontificate, Pope Francis said choosing between America’s two presidential candidates is a choice between “the lesser evil.” On his flight back from his pastoral trip to Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste and Singapore, the 87-year-old pontiff responded to a question from CBS reporter Anna Matranga:
In political morality, it is generally said that not voting is ugly, it’s not good. One must vote. And one must choose the lesser evil. Which is the lesser evil? That lady or that gentleman? I don’t know; each person must think and decide according to their own conscience.
The pope’s remark was made just days after last week’s ABC News presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
This was not the first time I heard that voting for candidates for president was akin to selecting the lesser of two evils. I have heard it a depressing amount of times.
Why does it always seem we are settling for U.S. presidential candidates we invariably deem “the lesser of two evils”?
I decided to find out. I reached out to both contacts and cold calls from across the globe to ask that question. At the same time, I wanted to keep an open mind: perhaps there were some who did not see such it as selected the “lesser evil.”
I received an array of responses, all thoughtful in their own way, including the pithy reply from Don Novello (Saturday Night Live’s Fr. Guido Sarducci):
“Why ME? I suggest you ask the great Cleveland philosopher Steve Harvey who asked, ‘If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?’”
The following are presented here in the order they were received:
Thomas R. Nevin, author (France)
Before Pearl Harbor was attacked, Reinhold Niebuhr of Union Theological Seminary, argued for “intervention” in the European War on the ground that sometimes a lesser evil is necessary in order to defeat a greater one. What he did not realize is that any winning side will claim to be good and the enemy forever evil. Only very few (I’m one of them) consider Roosevelt and Churchill war criminals: FDR because he wanted to get the USA into the empire game, Churchill because he extorted grain from India that caused a famine in 1943 and cost 3 million lives; he also had Holland blockaded in the winter of 1944/1945 so that the Germans there would not have access to Herbert Hoover’s relief shipments. The foremost war criminals on the Allied side are Sir Arthur (“Bomber”) Harris, fire-bomber Curtis Lemay, and Julius Oppenheimer, who was the final cause, as Aristotle would say, of not only the atomization of 180,000 people but introduced the terrorific dread of nuclear war. Where will that war be played out? Pakistan vs. India over Kashmir?
Phil Metres, author/poet and professor of English, John Carroll University (Ohio)
The two-party system as presently manifest in the U.S. looks more and more like a binary oligarchy — with one party representing one segment of the oligarchy, and the other representing another. With the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, and the effective lobbying by transnational corporations and the billionaire class, politicians seem to have a decreasing level of freedom to make meaningful legislation for the common good. While the presidency continues to accrue greater power (also thanks to recent rulings), this amounts to a form of imperial billionaire protectionism.
I would vote for a third party candidate any chance that I can get, though I don’t have that chance often enough, due to pragmatic considerations about the potential damage of an autocratic president.
James Lateer, attorney/CPA and author of The Three Barons: The Organizational Chart of the JFK Assassination (Wisconsin)
This quote from Pope Francis is being widely repeated — -he has seen only the second Catholic president rudely and prematurely retired and replaced with Kamala on one side and Vance on the other, both with strong Hindu family influences. The Pope apparently doesn’t see anything positive for his flock in this mix of religious traditions that is now “on the table.”
Gary Hill, retired teacher and author of The Other Oswald: A Wilderness of Mirrors (Pennsylvania)
I agree 100%. At least from my experience. I have voted in every presidential election since I became old enough to do so in 1968. That year I voted FOR RFK in the primaries. That’s the last time I voted FOR a candidate. After that it became a vote for the lesser of two evils. One election, both were so bad I did a write-in.
Paul Badde, journalist and author of Benedict Up Close: The Inside Story of Eight Dramatic Years (Italy)
Honestly I don’t really understand what is happening in my beloved America but was shocked by the shots on Trump [in July], which gave me the deep impression that the bullet was an inch away from another civil war in America, absolutely frightening. And isn’t the pope right when he says that there is the abortion case and the migrant case. Very difficult.
It’s such a great nation. I can’t help but think, however, that also Germany used to be a great nation before it derailed completely in the last century. It was not a Banana republic.
Hugh Farey (England)
In a world when every citizen has access to whatever information they want — true or false — everybody knows exactly how they would run the country, and how the perfect president should behave. It is inevitable that none of the choices they get match these ideals, so they have to choose the one that seems nearest. That’s what I understand by the lesser of two evils.
Charlie Christopher, economist (Minnesota)
With a population of 350 million people, it’s natural that there will be disagreements when choosing a leader. Inevitably, you’ll find yourself supporting a candidate with whom you disagree on various issues, making them the lesser of two evils. When one of those disagreements involves a moral issue, such as abortion rights, the term “evil” becomes even more pronounced.
Michael G. Stack, businessman (Ohio)
I think we’ve lost the spirit of patriotism & responsible leadership as a core desire in the hearts and minds of our young people. When we were young, if you asked a boy aged 8–11 what they wanted to be when they grew up, your responses were; baseball player, astronaut, firefighter/police, and President of the United States (in no particular order). Ask today, and you won’t have any of those responses. Losing a generation of young, hopeful, open minded, and motivated leaders that instead look up to perceived “leaders” in technology, corporate dregs, or social media platform stardom leaves us with little left. So whomever is left that is willing to put their entire life on display for the 24 hour news cycle, make a blood pact with a single party, and put their family and reputation at risk for the potential of a $400k payday only to be saddled with taking on the issues from the past 20 year legacy of “the lesser of 2 evils” is playing a game they have no chance to win. But they play anyway, we spectate, and the outcome of the game is not a win for the people of this great country, and the promise from sea to shining sea is lost.
Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, authors (Massachusetts)
To suggest that voting for “the lesser of two evils” is the only solution to the reality of that fact is unacceptable. Who is responsible for creating this deplorable dilemma?
Gore Vidal addressed what he considered to be the cause of our political crisis with this quote:
“It doesn’t actually make any difference whether the President is Republican or Democrat. The genius of the American ruling class is that it has been able to make the people think that they have had something to do with the electing of presidents for 200 years when they’ve had absolutely nothing to say about the candidates or the policies or the way the country is run. “There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat … essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.”
Bruce de Torres, author of God, School, 9/11 and JFK (New Jersey)
If we always seem to settle for presidential candidates, or must choose between, the “lesser of two evils,” it might be because we feel that the two who can win, the Republican and the Democrat, are sub-par. No Independent gets a chance to win. And fifty percent of us, according to recent studies, identify as Independent, not Republican or Democrat. And this year, the most well-known and accomplished Independent candidate ever in US history, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was ignored or demonized to the point where he gave up, realizing that his chance was non-existent. Too many of us feel, and plenty of us know, that our systems are controlled by self-serving big-business, big-money interests that are corrupt, making fifty percent of us want nothing to do with the two candidates who seem “evil.” We hold our nose to avoid their stench and vote for one of them, and then try to cheer up before our kids see us.
Ana Laura Bochicchio, Faculty member at Universidad Nacional de Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur (Argentina)
I think that having to choose the lesser evil is not something new. Even in my country, Argentina, it is something that has been said for a few decades now.
It is the consequence of the lack of confidence in our politicians, but also the sad conformism and quietism that dominates in our western society. People just accept the candidates given to them, and do not demand their interests to be represented. We have just been used to corruption and not very prepared leaders. The Pope is being very conformist himself.
Andreas Sobisch, political science professor, John Carroll University (Ohio)
My sense is that this sentiment is very much “baked” into our system, which is very candidate (as opposed to party) focused. And when you are left with just two candidates after a long primary season, it is inevitable that many people will be unhappy with both (especially if their preferred candidate got knocked out in the primaries). The stakes of the election are high, too, since we are not just electing a head of government, but also the head of state (i.e., the symbolic leader of the nation). Compare this to Canada or the UK, where they have a monarch to play that role.
Richard James DeSocio, author of Clash of Dynasties (New York)
After 40 years of investigative work on the Rockefeller conspiracy, I have come to the conclusion that the money authority rules over the government authority which rules over the people. The proof is in the multi-million-dollar contributions pouring into political campaigns each election cycle. Yes, some money does come from Ma and Pa in small bills, but the vast amount comes from the masters of high finance — Rockefeller, Sores, Gates, Buffet, etc. — through a confidential network of 501 (c ) 3, tax-exempt, so-called “charitable foundations.” Big money has bought most candidates with few exceptions. So the 99% percent is left with two unattractive choices: capitulate their right to vote and accept zero accountability; or cast ballots for candidates claiming to serve the people, but who are greatly favoring the 1% at the expense of the 99%. Throw the dice or spin the dial! “The lesser of two evils.”
Kris Millegan, publisher, TrineDay (Oregon)
I see it as a rhetorical question used to mollify and stultify voters. Our body politic has changed in many ways in this digital age and the old ways of control are slipping away.
Dino Entac, education professional (California)
When looking at any choice, is it a “lesser of two evils” or just which one is better? Do we have to look at the negatives or can we frame it in the positive? In current US political terms, do we have to choose between one who is anti-immigrant and one who is pro-abortion? Or can we look at what each candidate DOES propose as his/her platform: who supports all forms of life (and not just life in the womb)? Who supports maternity care, child care, supports family-positive policies? Who supports the dignity of work? Who supports a living wage? Who supports care for the environment?
All of these questions can have negative counter questions. But the Ignatian way isn’t about choosing between good and bad choices; indeed, we know we should never choose the bad choice. Ignatius invites us to discern between good and better. That’s at the heart of what Pope Francis is inviting us to look at — which of the politicians and policies that we choose are better than the other choice. We must do our discernment — taking into account the wisdom of the Church, the wisdom of our community, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit — and follow what our conscience dictates.
Dr. Francesco C. Cesareo, President Emeritus, Assumption University (Pennsylvania)
As I thought about this what I concluded is that we have lost a sense of absolute truth in our culture that is grounded in natural law. Consequently, there is no longer an acceptance that some actions are always absolutely good and some actions are always absolutely wrong. But, since we now live in an era of relativism, it is no wonder that politicians reflect the constantly changing winds that determine what secular society deems as a right, whether that “right” reflects an absolute good or an absolute wrong. As a result, politicians (and many in society) do not embrace a consistent ethic or moral framework that guides society or their policies, but rather advocate for the stances that will be most popular, regardless of the consequences or implications for society and the lives of individuals in carrying forward that particular perspective. For that reason, leaders today can hold a variety of views simultaneously that are inconsistent, in which one can agree with several candidates on certain issues even if they advocate some policies that are absolutely good and some policies that are absolutely wrong, resulting in individuals having to choose which candidate holds the least absolutely wrong views on different social/moral questions in order to participate in the political process. Until society as a whole reclaims belief in absolute truths, we will be stuck in this cycle of who holds the least problematic (or wrong) views.
That lady or that gentleman…it reminded me of Frank R. Stockton’s short story “The Lady or the Tiger?,” read in freshman English classes over the many decades since its debut in the 1880s. This Kafkaesque trial by ordeal is well-known, the open-ended question from the narrator leaving the accused decision to choose either the lady or the tiger up to the reader:
“And so I leave it with all of you: Which came out of the opened door — the lady, or the tiger?”