Blagnet.net

Honesty and evil

Some recent exchanges with my roommate prompted this post. I have given up writing very critical things about my close friends without their knowledge, so I am not here to secretly lambaste her. Luckily, I don’t even think anything very critical of her, so I abstain from criticizing her out of honesty and not out of guilt or anything.

Since we are 99% certain to have Hillary or Obama as president-elect next November, I have to admit I almost find myself rooting for Obama, not unlike Andrew Sullivan does, but to a far lesser extent. This doesn’t mean I’m choosing the lesser of two evils while still admitting I’m voting for evil, or anything. I just kind of hope we can be blessed with the lesser of two evils for four years. (Though we might be better off with Hillary because the extreme socialism and animus she would bring would either help plunge this nation towards rock-bottom faster or cause a much stronger and earlier repulsion of the things she and Obama stand for; either way a Hillary presidency would cause an earlier reversal of this leftward movement we’re on than a not-so-contemptuous Obama administration would.)

Since Obama is a hardcore socialist who is enamored with State coercion as a means to effect positive change in society, the only thing he has going for him is honesty. I believe that he truly believes in all or most of what he says. He is honest and genuine. He wants, or at some recent time wanted, to be president for the good of the nation in addition to himself; Hillary is an evil monster who lives for political power and wants to increase her own power and that of her idealogical allies to no end. She is a totalitarian fascist-socialist.

This reminds me of my preferred definition of evil, which an LRC writer stated years ago: knowingly doing wrong to someone. Knowingly is the key word of the sentence, because if you don’t know it’s wrong, then it can be bad and harmful, but your thoughts and actions were not evil. Another important part of that definition is wrong, not harm. Any number of things could be called harmful, from laying off a worker to winning the object of their affection to out-bidding them for a contract or promotion. A moral wrong is more fitting for the definition of evil. Different people define right and wrong differently, but if they know (or think) something is immoral and they do it anyway, then that is evil. If the person deserved it, like a murderer or rapist, then you might argue that it isn’t wrong at all, whereas the same punishment would be completely wrong for a completely innocent person. You get the idea.

So I don’t think Obama is evil at all. He certainly must know how dirty politics is and how many unintended consequences stem from State coercion by now. But I don’t think he sees his ideas as wrong or immoral, or harmful to undeserving people. He certainly doesn’t see how his policies harm the very people they target the most, poor minorities. But he strikes me as the only other genuine and honest presidential candidate among the Democrats and Republicans in recent memory besides Ron Paul.

My roommate has become quite the Obama fan, which is a little bit amusing if only because she can’t vote, being a non-citizen. Her friends, especially this one guy who’s sort of like a boyfriend but they aren’t even dating, he just comes over and she goes out to lunch or dinner with him often, influenced her attraction to Obama. She has told me Obama took all four primaries this weekend, as if I should care or take that as good news. Like I said, it’s better than Hillary winning, but I don’t want either of them.

She has asked me if I had any thoughts about the debates or the candidates, and who I support and why, and I told her Ron Paul. It would take way, way too long, and I’m not good at talking about it anyway, to explain what strict Constitutionalism is, or why Ron Paul is the only candidate to believe anything resembling what our founding fathers believed, or why it is better than the corporate-state socialism the Republocrats have inflicted upon us, or why the Democrats aren’t a lick better than the Republicans and are, in fact, worse in some ways while being only marginally better in others (too bad foreign policy isn’t a major difference between ‘em!). So I tell her Ron Paul is the best because he is honest and genuine, and is the anti-Republican, and is the anti-mainstream candidate. Gosh, I feel bad for not selling his positions and his philosophy better, but I know most of my friends are lost causes anyway, so that makes me feel less bad.

Tonight she asked me if I would vote for Obama in November if he got the nomination. No amount of political-discussion shyness or cowardice could make me even hesitate at that question. No way, no how. I don’t care how honest and sincere he is, his policies are immoral and harmful and I will have no part in it. I won’t even pretend to support him to avoid rocking the boat with my friends, except to say he’s better than Hillary. (Though, as I said, from a historic standpoint, maybe worse would be better in the long run.)

I responded that I would either write Ron Paul’s name in or not vote at all. Since a Democrat is going to take Michigan in a landslide, I have no qualms about failing to vote against McCain. The Democratic nominee is going to win Michigan (and the nation), and I will have no part in it. She was kind of surprised and even taken aback that I said I wouldn’t vote for Obama even though he is the honest one and it’d be a vote against McCain. She asked me: So, you will make your vote not count instead of voting for Obama? And I said: It’s better than voting for someone I don’t want to vote for. A write-in vote for Ron Paul, who was my candidate, is not a wasted vote at all.

Obama’s honesty and sincerity is not a saving grace for a libertarian or even a conservative (*cough* Sullivan *cough*), and I’m not going to pretend or admit that it is. Voting against national-socialism by voting for the candidate of peace, liberty, and prosperity is the only concsionable thing I can think to do; even better than staying home.