Lesser of two evils principle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Lesser of Two Evils" redirects here. For Futurama episode, see Lesser of Two Evils (Futurama).

The lesser of two evils principle, also known simply as the lesser evil, is the idea that of two bad political choices, one is less bad than the other, and should be chosen over the one that is a greater threat.

[edit] Modern usage

The lesser of two evils principle is today most commonly used in reference to electoral politics, particularly in Western nations, and perhaps in the United States more than anywhere else. When popular opinion in the U.S. is confronted with what is often seen as two main candidates — normally Democrat and Republican — that are substantially similar ideologically, politically, and/or in their economic programmes, a voter is often advised to choose the "lesser of two evils" to avoid having the supposedly "greater evil" get into office and wreak havoc on society. Arguably the most recent and widespread example of this phenomenon in the U.S. was the 2004 presidential election between John Kerry and George W. Bush.

Some people consider the lesser of two evils principle to be an instance of the false dichotomy fallacy, particularly those advocating third parties.

[edit] Original uses

Originally, "lesser evil" was a Cold War-era pragmatic foreign policy principle used by the United States and, to a lesser extent, several other countries. The principle dealt with the U.S.'s attitude regarding how third-world dictators should be handled, and was closely related to the Kirkpatrick Doctrine of Jeane Kirkpatrick.

The Government of the United States had long stated that democracy was one of the cornerstones of U.S. society, and therefore also that support for democracy should be reflected in US foreign policy. But following the Second World War, dictatorships of various types continued to hold power over many of the world's most strategically and economically important regions. Many of these dictatorships were pro-capitalist, consistent with at least some US ideological goals; thus the United States would thus form alliances with certain dictators, believing them to be the closest thing their respective nations had to a legitimate government—and in any case much better than the alternative of a communist revolution in those nations. This struggle posed a question: if the end result was, in any realistic case, destined to be a dictatorship, should the US not try to align itself with the dictator who will best serve American interests and oppose the Soviets? This is what became known as the "lesser of two evils" principle.

Conflicts over dictatorships began to occur when the Soviet Union, Cuba, and the People's Republic of China began to support communist revolutions and populist guerrilla warfare against established dictatorial regimes in the 1960s and 1970s, particularly in Latin America. In many cases these movements succeeded (see Vietnam War) and replaced an American-allied dictator with a pro-Soviet one; to counter the trend, the U.S. would often use its intelligence services to help orchestrate bloody coup d'etats that would overthrow shaky Marxist regimes (see Chilean coup of 1973).

One example is Iraq. In the mid-1970s, the United States supervised Saddam Hussein's rise to power, to counter the threatening growth and influence of the Iraqi Communist Party, which was on the verge of taking state power. Though many in the government at that time recognized Saddam as a dictator or a potential dictator, they viewed him as the "lesser evil" when compared with the damage the ICP might do with its planned nationalization measures and other reform programs that would probably have run counter to U.S. interests. Similarly, in 1991, when Shi'a across Iraq revolted against Hussein's regime, the U.S. justification for staying out of the revolt and allowing his security forces to suppress the rebels was that Hussein's rule was better than the risk of a jihadist or Iranian Revolution-style takeover.

Probably the best example of this principle in action was the political struggle behind the Vietnam War. Ngo Dinh Diem was the dictatorial ruler of South Vietnam during the initial stages of the war. Though his regime was brutal, he was also an anti-communist who was determined to fight the expansions of the Communist North. Ho Chi Minh was the dictatorial ruler of North Vietnam, backed by the Soviets, and a Marxist who wanted to see a united, communist Vietnam. The United States thus supported the regime of Diem and his successors during the war, believing that he was the "lesser of two evils."

[edit] Other applications of the term

Many other countries, including the Soviet Union, also had their own "lesser of two evils" policy. Earlier, during World War II, the Western Allies justified their support for Stalin under a lesser-of-two-evils principle. Justifying the act, Winston Churchill said: "If Hitler were to invade Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." Meanwhile, the Soviets and other leading communists justified their anti-fascist united front under an essentially "lesser of two evils" policy, arguing that allying with capitalist powers to overthrow fascism would be better than having the latter successfully occupy the world and permanently consolidate power.

The decision of the leadership of the People's Republic of China to seek rapprochement with the United States in the 1970s was also an application of the "lesser of two evils doctrine," with the United States being deemed a lesser threat than the Soviet Union. Mao Zedong argued at that time that it would be impossible to continue to deal with the tumult of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the after-effects of the Sino-Soviet Split, and a hostile stance towards the United States and its "imperialist aggression" all at the same time. The rapproachment measures later expanded into full-blown cooperation between the United States and China and the introduction of Chinese economic reform and Socialism with Chinese characteristics, but at its origin, the act was meant as an ostensibly temporary tactic by which China hoped to gain a strategic advantage over the Soviet Union, with the U.S. thus being viewed as the "lesser of two evils."