For over 60 years, U.S. Foreign policy has been predicated upon a doctrine known as “the lesser of two evils.” In essence, this policy was used as rationale for engaging in alliances with foreign dictators whose disdain for democracy held their own countrymen in virtual bondage to their whims. These dictatorships were free to act as they pleased within their own countries without pressure from the U.S. government with regards to human rights and freedoms so long as they sided with the U.S. in international matters or engaged in capitalistic endeavors with our government and corporations. Despite a stated goal of promoting democracy and freedom across the world (the chief rationale for a half century of opposing communism and a worthy ideal to be sure), successive U.S. administrations and Congresses have made pacts with tyrants who abhor individual freedoms and seek power and wealth at the expense of their countrymen.
The Shah of Iran was one. Idi Amin was one. Manuel Noriega was one. Ferdinand Marcos was another. So was Saddam Hussein. Osama bin Laden was one too. These and many others were at one time or another allied with the government of the United States in our battle against Soviet communism. Yet their tyrannical rule of their own people, with the acquiescence of U.S. governments and in total contradiction to our own stated beliefs of the state of man’s rights to freedom, led to tumultuous political upheavals in those countries and fostered an aura of distrust and outright hostility to the United States. We may have saved the world from the monstrosity of Nazism and Japanese totalitarianism, but we weren’t raising the lives of anyone but ourselves. In fact, we were nothing but hypocrites of the worst sort. We espoused ideas for the whole of humanity while embracing them for ourselves only.
Americans in general understood the concept at play, and recognizing Soviet communism to be a direct threat to freedom and democracy, accepted the rules of the game as the government wrote them. After all, American prosperity exploded. So what if the Arabs and Asians and Africans were being beaten and killed and starved around the world. We were too busy enjoying our access to cheap oil and trinkets to care about anyone else. The policy of the lesser of two evils had done us well, so why rock the boat?
Why indeed?
The simple truth is that the lesser of two evils policy is a fallacy. By choosing this method of foreign relations, the U.S. has not endeared itself to the people of the world. Despite the charity of our individual citizens to poor or ravaged countries around the world, the reputation of America is based on the actions of our government. We tout our freedoms and democratic principals everywhere we go, so the people of the world can only assume that we not only approve of what our government does abroad, we dictate that policy ourselves. They may want to come here and share in that power, but that doesn’t mean they like us. By choosing the lesser of two evils, we’ve shown the world that our means justify any ends, especially if the ends means more money and leisure for us. This approach to foreign policy has made us many false allies and real enemies, and the fruition of this approach is coming home to roost in the form of terror attacks and nuclear proliferation. And while the worst tyrants operate abroad, it is we who let them. Who is worse: the man who kicks the puppy or the one who pays to watch?
The lesser of two evils policy has come to haunt us in others ways too, ways equally as threatening to our way of life as the foreign enemies who are rising against us. So indoctrinated are we in this way of thinking, so convinced that there is always a time and a place to sacrifice our ideals to further our own comfort or success, we have adopted the theory to our own daily lives and politics. We accept throw away consumerism in exchange for cheap prices. We ignore illegal immigration for cheap produce. We vote for political hacks instead of people who really want to help their neighbors.
Well, we reap what we sow, both as a government and as a people. Not only do we have vicious enemies who really want to kill us and our way of life, we have a government who is becoming increasingly more like those dictatorships we propped up in the past. We have a government who espouses the use of torture, secret eavesdropping, indefinite detention, and defamation as a means of securing our freedom. We have a government who meets dissent with a sneer and a slur while telling us that our enemy is evil because they don’t let their people speak freely. We have an administration that will stop at nothing to protect us from our enemies, even if that means destroying the freedoms we hold so dear. We see the evidence mounting, and yet we allow it to continue.
Why?
It is because of the lesser of two evils theory, that foul, false policy that does nothing but decrease the total amount of liberty in this world by promoting fear over freedom; profit over people? Our government is telling us that unless we give them the power to do anything, anywhere, and anytime that they see fit, to stop the enemy from attacking us again, then we will surely lose the war on terror and fall victim to a dictatorial theocracy. They want us to believe that by suspending our own liberties to them at home, we will be averting an even greater decimation of our liberty in the long run. They are presenting themselves as the lesser of two evils.
By accepting the doctrine of the lesser of two evils, we may have driven Soviet aggression into the ground. But the price we are paying for our chosen method is an even more unstable world and a more unpredictable array of enemies. Perhaps had we chosen another path of confrontation, we would have won that battle with some real friends in the world. We can’t change the past, but we can learn from it. And we should start our first lesson here.
Our government still pursues the lesser of two evils doctrine abroad, and now they want to use it at home. We are at a crossroads. By choosing the lesser of two evils, we are giving up on the chance of choosing good. We are giving up on the promise of freedom, equality, and peace. We must oppose those who support the tyranny of others for our own prosperity. We must cast out those who would destroy freedom for the sake of false security. We must choose to follow those who will defend freedom for freedoms sake.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 3rd, 2006 at 7:28 am and is filed under Common Sense, Democracy, Politics, Reform.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Wow, I can’t believe I’m the first commenter today! Okay, anyway, besides the fact that I agree with your post, I would like to add that it also applies very strongly to our situation in American politics. Throughout my adult life, I have been left with no realistic option than to vote for the “lesser of two evil” candidates for president, governor, etc. (post-primaries, I guess). That sucks, and it has resulted in a nation that is split down the middle in what amounts to an ideological civil war – the division in the U.S. is incredible. I would like to see more people leave the safety of the partisan nest for alternative candidates at voting time. The diversity could only result in a more accurate voting process, instead of “more of the same” from two largely identical parties.
January 3rd, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Hear, hear, Ken! A fabulous – and vital – post, that every citizen and elected official should not only read, but print out and hang in a place of prominence! Thanks for such an eloquent summation.
January 3rd, 2006 at 10:29 pm
hmm, pretty interesting. i’m not sure if i agree with everything you talk about, but i will certainly take a closer look at your site, since you’ve put a lot of work in your site.
http://www.traeblain.com/kschaub
January 4th, 2006 at 12:09 am
Fine post Ken, but you left me with a question – What do you think of China? Certainly the doctrine of “the lesser of two evils” permeates our relationship with the Chinese. Has it done either one of our countries any good? That’s debatable.
On another tact, I may have missed this point as I did’t find you pointing out directly the whole issue of spying on American people. Certainly, the W, Rove and Co are all about sacrificing certain freedoms for a false sense of security.
The broader point I hope to make here is that this doctrine of “the lesser of two evils,” often leaves us with less of whatever ends the means were set in motion to accomplish.
Can it be changed, or will we be left with three monkies hearing, seeing and speaking no evil?
January 5th, 2006 at 3:02 am
I agree with almost everything you wrote for one simple reason. G.O. politics has always been that way. This is nothing new and in fact it is the game of all games that involves life, economic stability, and prosperity while ensuring our short term and long term strategic interests.
One thing I disagree with is this statement: “we have a government who is becoming increasingly more like those dictatorships we propped up in the past. We have a government who espouses the use of torture, secret eavesdropping, indefinite detention.”
You see in the world of espionage and life and death covert operations, this has always been the nature of protecting our countries vitality.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:04 am
Typo error. I meant country’s
January 6th, 2006 at 2:54 am
we here in Indonesia call it: “Double Standard”
January 6th, 2006 at 5:14 am
People here either choose to ignore these facts, are completely ignorant of them, or worse – spin them to suit their political agenda. Somehow, W manages to do all of the above.
January 6th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
(responses)
Shea- Yes, the choice between two seemingly disparate but strikingly simliar candidates leaves many in the lurch. I am now constantly advocating for independent candidates and can only hope that people will wake up and heed the call. Thanks, as always, for the comment.
Bob- It is always a pleasure to highlight these kinds of thoughts, especially when people get it. American politics, and world politics, should not be about having to choose between two bad choices. Thanks for your support.
kschaub- Thanks for takinig the time to explore Common Sense. I hope you will be pleasantly surprised with what you read here, or at the very least, it will make you think. I look forward to hearing from you again.
windspike- My opinion on our relations with China mirrors the thoughts in this post also. Again, we have chosen to support their regime in practicality and are even subverting our own economy to them in an effort to enrich our corporations. It is a recipe for disaster to be sure. And while our engagement may have risen the level of money for some Chinese, their governments continued stranglehold on democratic reforms have not significantly improved the freedoms for those folks.
Change, of course, can occur, but only if people will wake up and demand it.
Opinionnation- Your points are well taken, and yes, this is the way the game is and has been played. That does not make it right. In a country such as ours where we espouse certain virtues while ignoring them in reality reeks of hypocrisy and can not ever lead to true peace and freedom.
Eko- Double standard may be too simple in this case, but the general idea is the same. Only when people face the reality of this evil can it ever be confronted and ended. Good to hear from you again.
Matt- I agree, and it is a sad state to be in, isn’t it? Thanks for your comment.
January 6th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Ken…this is one of your best yet! It is an important and powerfully written piece. The “lesser of two evils” policies promoted by American corporations and practiced over the years by the American government provide the best answer to the question asked by our bewildered citizens after 9/11. Why Do They Hate Us?
We’ve been cozy with quite a line up of tyrants over the years! Heck, Saddam Hussein was barely shaving when the CIA began training him. It then paved his path to power by financing Saddam’s activities. George Bush, the senior, gave Hussein a two billion dollar taxpayer secured loan right before Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. George Sr. wanted to insure that the 70 American companies who were looking to “make a killing” doing business in Iraq were successful. Bob Dole stated that Saddam Hussein was “a man we could really do business with”. I think we are probably still paying off the two billion dollars.
January 7th, 2006 at 3:49 am
What an excellent post. I really enjoyed your arguments and especially enjoyed the main ‘LoTE’ theory. It’s given me quite a bit to think about. Also as an Englishman it’s interesting for me too see how the kind of thinking you discuss has permeated our own politics. Our politics could have once been said to have been ‘characters’ (for better or worse). They then became ‘suits’ and now they are cardboard cutouts barely real beyond the image they attempt to portray. And yes, we only have ourselves to blame.
January 7th, 2006 at 5:54 am
Yes I beleave we have no one to blame but ourselves. Yet I wish we had or would have more of a choice besides the lesser of two evils, because no matter which one you choose it is still evil. So which do you choose if you do not want to choose evil at all?
Mary
January 7th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
(responses)
KWW- Thanks! I think this does go a long way in explaining why other people and cultures view us with such disdain. It is a policy that will continue to haunt us for years, even if we change it today. Great to hear from you again.
Journeyman- I know that this type of thinking isn’t limited to the US, but we are certainly the biggest instigators of it, and our global reach has the widest implications. It also affects the way our allies do business. Thanks for the thoughts.
Mary- You find a choice that isn’t evil and you go with that. If you don’t have one in front of you, you seek one out or demand for one to appear or make one appear yourself. But you don’t give in without trying. Thanks for dropping by.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
SheAnc – I rather agree that it is a characteristic of an uncreative mind to just present two options – as if those are the only solutions.
These are games … and these games are played throughout the levels of US government too.
January 8th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
(response)
Blue- It is a mindset that we have allowed ourselves to buy into too. People need to realize that politics are more than just games…they are responsible for our actual livelihood and well being, especially in an age where government is infused into every part of life.
Thanks for dropping by.
January 28th, 2009 at 5:34 am
[…] from my article The Lesser of Two Evils (Jan.3, […]