I think what I would say is that David is looking at things policy by policy, as if he were comparing two conventional party platforms. And in many situations that's what you have to do, trading off virtues and faults and looking for a balance. But there are times when one option is fundamentally wrong, and asking whether it has some goo…
I think what I would say is that David is looking at things policy by policy, as if he were comparing two conventional party platforms. And in many situations that's what you have to do, trading off virtues and faults and looking for a balance. But there are times when one option is fundamentally wrong, and asking whether it has some good points is at best idle and at worst a distraction. We do not, for example, discuss whether the National Socialist German Workers' Party's concern for the natural environment was a virtue. I think that we are in a situation where "a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism," and it's a mistake to ask whether the abusers and usurpers have some good points.
But in fairness to DF he has said clearly to anyone paying attention that he agrees with you that team Kamala is indeed worse than team Trump.
He just chooses to root for a 3rd team because he doesn’t like either.
And he criticizes the policies of each that he doesn’t like.
I got no problem with any of that.
Perhaps where we do agree is on his answer to me elsewhere that even if in a swing state he would still vote 3rd party, as a “signal”, rather than vote for his acknowledged lesser evil.
I stipulate that. But there is a difference between "I would rather buy A than B" and "I would not even consider buying B." I think David is saying the first, and I'm saying the second.
I'm less confident of that, given that he immediately goes to saying that Trump is worse than Harris on two out of three major issues. That's somewhat equivocal as to which he might hypothetically favor, and it treats the matter as one to be decided by comparing platforms line by line, which is the approach I'm arguing against.
I just looked up Ayn Rand's record of political endorsements, and here is what she wrote in 1972: "This is no longer an issue of choosing the lesser of two commensurate evils. The choice is between a flawed candidate representing Western civilization – and the perfect candidate of its primordial enemies." And that was about George McGovern, who looks like a model of virtue compared to Obama, Biden, or now Harris.
I think David's stated emotional reaction is not merely understandable, but wiser than his intellectual analysis. But it's his method of analysis that I'm questioning.
I think what I would say is that David is looking at things policy by policy, as if he were comparing two conventional party platforms. And in many situations that's what you have to do, trading off virtues and faults and looking for a balance. But there are times when one option is fundamentally wrong, and asking whether it has some good points is at best idle and at worst a distraction. We do not, for example, discuss whether the National Socialist German Workers' Party's concern for the natural environment was a virtue. I think that we are in a situation where "a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism," and it's a mistake to ask whether the abusers and usurpers have some good points.
I hear you.
But in fairness to DF he has said clearly to anyone paying attention that he agrees with you that team Kamala is indeed worse than team Trump.
He just chooses to root for a 3rd team because he doesn’t like either.
And he criticizes the policies of each that he doesn’t like.
I got no problem with any of that.
Perhaps where we do agree is on his answer to me elsewhere that even if in a swing state he would still vote 3rd party, as a “signal”, rather than vote for his acknowledged lesser evil.
I stipulate that. But there is a difference between "I would rather buy A than B" and "I would not even consider buying B." I think David is saying the first, and I'm saying the second.
If B is Team Kamala, I think he has indeed pretty much said exactly that.
At least that’s what I take “Kamala Harris is an extreme representative of an ideology I have opposed for most of my life” to mean.
I'm less confident of that, given that he immediately goes to saying that Trump is worse than Harris on two out of three major issues. That's somewhat equivocal as to which he might hypothetically favor, and it treats the matter as one to be decided by comparing platforms line by line, which is the approach I'm arguing against.
I just looked up Ayn Rand's record of political endorsements, and here is what she wrote in 1972: "This is no longer an issue of choosing the lesser of two commensurate evils. The choice is between a flawed candidate representing Western civilization – and the perfect candidate of its primordial enemies." And that was about George McGovern, who looks like a model of virtue compared to Obama, Biden, or now Harris.
I think David's stated emotional reaction is not merely understandable, but wiser than his intellectual analysis. But it's his method of analysis that I'm questioning.