Changing the language

For so long I've heard the two-party system referred to as 'choosing between the lesser of two evils.' I'm guilty of having uttered that cliche once or twice myself. Followed, then, to its logical extension, one hears quite often, 'the lesser of two evils is still evil.'

And this points to the chief problem with this cliche: It sounds cute, it has symmetry, it seems to make sense, and it abrogates intelligent thought by summing complicated issues with a simplistic platitude. And it contributes to a fundamental, corrosive cynicism about politics, society and civic life.

Its base assumption is that all Republicans and all Democrats are irretrievably and unequivocally evil; it's just that one party, or the other, and its adherents are more evil than the other. If that's actually what you believe, then by all means, please continue spewing forth this old chestnut. But it demonstrates a fundamental inflexibility of thought. Because the necessary corollary to this (thank you, statistics professors for teaching about null hypotheses, et al.), is that third parties are incorruptibly and unequivocally good (or, to be charitable, that at least one third party is incorruptibly and unequivocally good, as are all its members and adherents. Um, if there's an absolutely perfect political party out there, without blemish, someone let me know what it is, K?

Democrats and Republicans never do what's right. Third parties ALWAYS do (or some specific party always does).

Now, trust me, I have my beefs with the Democratic Party and they are many and legion, and in some cases severe. And John Kerry and the slate of Democratic electors up for the vote this time around are far from perfect. But generally speaking, even at their worst they are, collectively, 'a small step in the right direction.'

So. Frigging. There.