Would You Rather…? The False Dichotomy of Bipartisan Politics

Reposted from November 2023

When I was a teenager, it was popular for boys to play the game "Would You Rather…", in which the interlocutors take turns posing undesirable either/or choices to each other.  The choices were always ridiculous and often revolting.  Here’s a comparatively tame example, "Would you rather get kicked in the shins or punched in the face?"  The answer "Neither" is not an option: you must choose between the two horrible alternatives.  In fact, the absurdity of the false dichotomy is the hallmark of the game. 

If you don’t see a striking similarity between this game and the American electoral process, then this article is not for you.  To relate what I find odious about the platforms (and in some cases the people) of the two primary political parties would require more than a few paragraphs.  Rather, this article is for those who recognize that their dissatisfaction with the alternatives requires more than a mere choice between the lesser of two evils.  But, if the ballot presents only two options, both of which are evil, what choice do we have?

Before I tell you that a third option may be available on the ballot itself, I will first share an anecdote.  Years ago, in an undergraduate philosophy course, the professor asked us what we would do if we were held at gunpoint and told by our captor that we either must kill an innocent person or he would kill five innocent people. I was appalled when over ninety-five percent of the class indicated with confident hand raising that they would kill the one innocent person, ostensibly to save the other five. The moral repugnance of this choice is rooted first of all in the utilitarianism that undergirds it. The other obvious problem with the choice is that it accepts the false dichotomy of the scenario as if not killing the one innocent person requires a passive acceptance of the murder of the other five. In light of this consideration, the right answer may include 1) calling for help, 2) pretending to be deaf, or 3) inflicting on your captor either of the options presented in the aforementioned would you rather game. In short, the right answer is to do something, and that something can be just about anything other than killing an innocent person.

The point is, never in life are we truly presented with only two options. Even in an election between only two candidates, we have the option to not vote, or even better, to cast an empty ballot. Although this option may seem even less effective than calling for help or feigning deafness, it at least avoids your cooperation in the perpetuation of a broken system. If this option seems like an irresponsible shirking of your civic duty, consider that casting a vote is only one avenue for effecting political change. The ability to write to your representatives, attend rallies, and engage in meaningful discourse with friends and acquaintances further shatters the false dilemma presented to us in the ballot box.

A fundamental problem with the two-party system, beyond the platforms of the parties, is the polarizing effect it has on our discourse. We are expected not to think about the issues, but to pick a side. We have lost our ability to see nuance. We have become an either/or society in a world of both/and solutions. Voting for one of the predominant parties reinforces this polarization.

As an antidote to this polarization, a third option is becoming available in an increasing number of elections. I'm not referring to the third parties that you've heard of before that are merely more extreme versions of the already dissatisfactory options. I am referring to the American Solidarity Party: the party of the common good, on common ground, through common sense. It is no secret that the party is based on Christian principles, but the unifying theme of its platform, the recognition of human dignity, should appeal to all reasonable people. That the platform even has a unifying theme should be appealing, as it offers an internal consistency that is absent from other party platforms, which tend to be a grab-bag of unrelated positions. The ASP is uniquely poised to break through partisan polarization because the promotion of human dignity is an inherently nuanced undertaking that does not permit an either/or approach.

If you share the core values of the American Solidarity Party, you should vote for its candidates.  The only reason to not vote according to your principles is fear, and the most common fear on election day is the fear of a wasted vote. The fear that a third-party vote is a wasted vote only makes sense when two conditions are met: 1) there is a close race between the two predominant candidates and 2) one of those candidates is actually tolerable in the first place. Otherwise, the only wasted vote is the unprincipled vote. In fact, the unprincipled vote is not a mere waste: it is dangerous. To understand why we need to step back and consider the purposes of voting.

Winning the election is not the only reason to vote, and in an election that is not close, it's not even a meaningful reason to vote. The primary reason to vote is to be represented, to have your voice heard. Voting for a candidate who is morally bankrupt or with whom you disagree on a key moral issue is a poor way to be represented, but people regularly do this in an effort to vote against a candidate they like even less. We have to remember that our vote lends support to a candidate, not just against another. Even in a close election, if we vote for one evil to overcome another, the impact on the outcome of the election will very likely be less profound than the impact on our soul and on the soul of our nation.

It is important to realize that the intention behind a reluctant vote is almost always misinterpreted. It would be nice if the ballot were sophisticated enough to enable us to say, “I’m only voting for Johnny because Ricky supports murder and Susie has no chance of winning, but otherwise I think Johnny’s policies are dangerous and a hindrance to human flourishing.”  Unfortunately, your vote just says this: “I support Johnny.” When the polling is complete and Johnny wins the election, the analysts will say, “well, folks, the votes make it clear that people support Johnny’s policies.” Johnny then proceeds to enact all his dangerous policies with vigor.  So much for having your voice heard. You should have voted for Susie.

If all the people who agree with the core principles of the American Solidarity Party were to vote for its candidates, the effect would be tremendous. I have no illusions of winning a statewide or national race at this point, but again, winning is not the only goal. Third parties steer the major parties toward the third-party platform, and in my entire adult life prior to the birth of the American Solidarity Party, the only third parties out there have been the fringe parties that serve to induce even greater polarization than already existed. The American Solidarity Party is unique in its ability to take what is good and reject what is bad from both major parties and inject some common sense and decency into our political discourse. Furthermore, winning seats in local government is realistic, and the impact of such victories would reach beyond the local level. The recognition that would be gained by the positive influence of the party at the local level would eventually lead to change at higher levels of government. Real change will require the willingness to patiently and courageously chip away at the edifice of partisan politics.

If your only goal at the ballot box is to avoid being punched in the face, then by all means, elect to be kicked in the shins. My goal at the ballot box is to gradually realize a political landscape in which we have at least one reasonable option. I am writing this article because I am not alone.  There are many, many like-minded people in this country who are deeply dissatisfied with the two intolerable options that have been touted as the only viable ones. People whose values transcend the pettiness of polarized politics. It is time for our voices to be heard. It is time to stop voting based on fear. It is time to stop voting against the greater of two evils and to start voting for the American Solidarity Party.