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'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'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.