Elections and the lesser of two evils

As part of raising our kids, we included political education. As the national elections approached, I would explain we would be voting for “the lesser of two evils.” It wasn’t a derogatory statement, simply a method so they could comprehend the point. We wanted them to understand you were voting for the person and party that you hoped would do the least amount of damage to the country and accomplish some of the things they promised if they got into office.

For many, this recent election was a shock on how the election turned out. The winning candidate became the lesser of the two evils as demonstrated by the votes he gathered and the number of “blue states” that turned “red,” even in states not changing to red many of their cities and counties did.

I would think the losing party would stand back, take a look at themselves, their policies and ask themselves what are we doing that has turned party members away from us. But they aren’t, and many leaders have announced they’re going to resist the will of the people.  It almost seems they’re working to push their party members to the other side, ensuring another loss in their party’s future.

The winning party needs to do everything in its power to deliver on the promises made during the campaign. With so many declaring they will be resisting what the people voted for, their very resistance may cause the downfall of their older cadre and bring in new, younger candidates. Maybe they can rebuild the party.

EDWARD GOULD

Hope