Every four years, Americans are treated to the same, tired, sanctimonious twaddle — this year, we're told, is the Most-Important-Election-Ever, and invariably, we're urged to vote for the "Lesser of Two Evils," a tacit admission by the speaker of their support of "evil."
These vacuous talking points cross party lines, and they've plagued American political discourse for decades. For instance, in his 1972 classic, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, Hunter S. Thompson implored his readers:
“How many more of these stinking, double-downer sideshows will we have to go through before we can get ourselves straight enough to put together some kind of national election that will give me and the at least 20 million people I tend to agree with a chance to vote FOR something, instead of always being faced with that old familiar choice between the lesser of two evils?”
Years of "'lesser voting" have led Americans to our current predicament, and we have little reason to think this November will signify a fundamental change in course, despite all the partisan theatrics and hand-wringing.
If you find this year's Demo-publican nominees distasteful, you can either vote for a severely handicapped third-party candidate, or simply withdraw your consent by not voting. Of course, if you choose this latter option and join the growing ranks of conscientious non-voters, you can expect to hear a familiar refrain:
"If you don't vote, you have no right to complain!"