False Dilemmas and Cognitive Dissonance
If we want better political options, we have to start building a foundation for a revived political meritocracy now rather than incentivizing poor choices by succumbing to negative partisanship.
Back in 2020, when I was managing the crowdsourced blog The Liberty Hawk, there was a healthy debate on the difficult conundrum that faced some non-Trump Republicans and conservatives in that election year—whether or not to vote for Joe Biden to remove Donald Trump from office. Funnily enough, we’re now faced with a very similar conundrum in 2024.
Now, I say some non-Trump Republicans and conservatives because it is not a difficult choice for me. I resolved all the way back in 2016 that I was done playing the lesser of two evils game. I determined in that election cycle that, moving forward, I was only going to vote for things and not against things. Nothing that’s happened in the ensuing years has changed my mind.
I was unwilling to vote for Biden to remove Trump from office in 2020, and I’m unwilling to vote for Biden in 2024 to keep Trump from getting back into office. The mere fact that the terrible choice from 2020 has repeated itself demonstrates to me that when we vote for lesser evils again and again, that’s all we’re ever going to get.
Because this is my stance, I’m already being accused of foolish thinking by several corners of the more virulent anti-Trump effort. I’m no stranger to most of these accusations as they are resurrections of the same arguments I faced in both 2016 and 2020 when I refused to acquiesce to the binary choice partisans in those elections. One such strange accusation is that I’m engaging in a false dichotomy, which has been one of the accusations I’ve always had trouble squaring.
My accusers usually weave a tale of 2016 and 2020 experiences involving serious frustration that mainstream conservatives so fully buy into the false dilemmas of what Democratic presidents would do to the country, to the extent that they were constantly told: “If you’re not for Donald, you’re for Hillary/Biden.”
This is, indeed, a false dichotomy and one that I rejected in 2016 and 2020 and fully plan to reject in 2024. I would much rather stick to my principles and eschew the notion that I have to give my consent to an unscrupulous, unprincipled man because Hillary or Biden are some sort of existential threat.
On this point, I’m fully in agreement with virtually the entire anti-Trump effort. Nothing can induce me to pull the lever for Trump. He has gone so far beyond unfitness for office, has demonstrated such a lack of fidelity to the Constitution, and has corrupted the conservative movement to such an extent that there is zero, absolutely zero, possibility that I would ever vote for Donald Trump.
But where I depart from the more virulent parts of the anti-Trump effort is where they mirror the right’s false dichotomy while, at the same time, accusing me of embracing a false dichotomy.
Just as the right succumbed to “Flight 93 election” arguments to justify voting for Trump against first the declared existential threat of Hillary and then the existential threat of Biden (though, funny enough, we’re here having another election despite the declarations of doom in 2020), a lot of anti-Trump folks have succumbed to existential threat declarations regarding a second Trump administration. And they’re not shy in saying, “If you’re not for Biden, you’re for Trump.”
They argue that anything but a vote for Biden helps to usher in a second Trump administration and that voting according to my conscience instead of strategically understanding “the stakes” of the election will doom democracy. (In other words, I “don’t know what time it is.”) A constant question such folks love to ask people is, “If I put a gun to your head, who do you choose, Trump or Biden,” and they snicker at those of us who defiantly reply, “Pull the trigger,” because the efficacy of our values and principles matters more to us than the outcome of an election.
This represents the prevailing cognitive dissonance that has engulfed far too much of the anti-Trump effort. They’re making two different arguments at the same time. They’re clearly frustrated with the false dichotomy that so many Republicans have embraced in their fear of Democratic presidencies, and that has led to a Trump-dominated GOP (a frustration I feel myself). But then they argue that my refusal to participate in granting a mandate to a candidate whose vision I fundamentally oppose in order to keep Trump out of the White House is me engaging in the same false dichotomy.
Help us to continue to provide a platform for thought-provoking content.
How does this make any sense? Either voting for the lesser of two evils is a false dilemma, or voting your conscience is a false dilemma. It can’t be one way in 2016 and the other in 2020 and 2024. If I was going to engage in voting for the lesser of two evils, I would have done so in 2016 and voted for Donald Trump and likely set the stage for my evolution into the MAGA fold. After all, that was precisely the choice many conservatives made, and we’ve now seen how a lesser evil can evolve in dramatic fashion into a greater good in people’s minds. Yet, the argument from many in the anti-Trump camp is that because I’m attempting to be intellectually consistent and placing the same expectation on Democrats in 2020 and 2024 as I did on a Republican in 2016 (that they need to earn my vote and not just point at the other side) that I would be allowing Trump to destroy democracy.
And so, I respond to the existential threat arguments thusly:
Why must I accept the false dichotomy of: “If Trump wins, it will be the end of American Democracy?” No, it wouldn’t! Do you really think America is so fragile? America has been through two world wars. America has survived the Red Scare and yellow fever. We only recently survived a global pandemic, even with terrible leadership at the helm and with a medical community that dropped the ball in their consistency and messaging. If we are so vulnerable that bad elections can destroy us, then I have bad news for you: we’re already dead.
But I don’t believe that we’re dead, and deep down, I don’t think most people believe it either. Trump’s first term didn’t destroy us. Biden’s first term didn’t destroy us. If either candidate gets a second term, it won’t destroy us. We had an election in 2020. We’re now engaged in an election in 2024. No matter who wins, we’re going to have an election in 2028.
And what happens if Trump does win this year, as the polls are increasingly demonstrating may be the likely result? Do we give up on America since no matter what we do, Trump will be the end of American democracy? Do we curl ourselves up into the fetal position on the floor, waiting for the sweet release of death? Do we surrender to the supposed forces of darkness? Or would we be, each in our own way, fighting Trump’s agenda and continuing to work toward defeating his influence in the Republican Party?
No election will end America. No single politician can end America. America lives or dies in the hearts of Americans. That remained true under Trump’s presidency, it has remained true under Biden’s presidency, and will remain true no matter who’s president this time next year.
The arguments, from the left and the right, about existential threats from presidential candidates are logical fallacies and false dilemmas. And both sides have engaged in cognitive dissonance by disavowing these arguments from their opponents while engaging in the same arguments themselves.
I reject the claim we’ve heard, time and time again, for going on a decade now, that “if you don’t vote for ______, then you’re just voting for _______.” No, if you’re voting for neither, then you’re voting for neither. There are only two choices if we only allow ourselves two choices. If you want to vote positively for better choices, you have to start now. You have to start building a foundation for a revived political meritocracy now and stop incentivizing poor choices by succumbing to the demands of negative partisanship.
Justin Stapley received his Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from Utah Valley University, with emphases in political philosophy, public law, American history, and constitutional studies. He is the Founding and Executive Director of the Freemen Foundation as well as Editor in Chief of the Freemen News-Letter. @JustinWStapley
I agree with Justin's position today as stated in my own piece on this subject. Where I differ is Justin probably had better forsight than I. In 2016, on the hope (which is NOT a strategy) I voted for Trump thinking he might grow into the office. And again in 2020 because I liked enought of his policies. It was not just January 6, but also the lead up to that day that permanently changed my view. Should I have predicted it like Justin? Probably. But I cannot go back and change that, only decide with what I know. And Justin makes the great case for why I, a conservative, cannot vote for Biden. If one needed a reminder, the WH just declared this, Holy Sunday, a day of trans celebration. Seriously.
And finally Justin made an awesome point. The "existential" election is a great way to stir up the base, generate donations and achieve high turnout. It is awful for society and blatantly untrue. But let's assume that is rot in our nation that not today, five, ten or 15 years may not manifest. But in 20 or 30 years will lead to a permanent decline ala Britain or France. Things like destruction of institutions, piling up of debt, and cessation of a strong role abroad to communist China, thuggish Russia or theocratic Iran? Neither of our current candidates are doing, nor will do anything meaningful to address long terms issues such as these.
Man, I could not agree more. I’m so glad you continue to reject the “binary choice.”
“the terrible choice from 2020 has repeated itself demonstrates to me that when we vote for lesser evils again and again, that’s all we’re ever going to get.”
That’s a good line.