Who else is tired of this “binary choice”?

Hillary and Donald Hope

This week, in my high school Economics I class, I was told that I had to research both presidential frontrunners and their stances on six main issues: economy and jobs, national security, immigration, taxes and deficits, health care, and energy and the environment for our unit on the election. After collecting our research, we were told to write a paper which compared and contrasted each candidate’s views on the six issues and share who we would vote for and why. We were not only told to pick one of the two only, but we could only state our opinions of them based on issues and stances alone. I don’t know about anyone else out there who votes, but I am not one to choose who I would vote for only based on how they lean. It’s a package deal for me; they have to represent my principles and have a sound moral code.

For me, it was nauseating having to pick Trump or Hillary. In that paper, I realized how sickening choosing the “lesser of two evils” really is. In my concluding statement of my paper, I was sure to mention that I sided with Trump very reluctantly:

“As a former Republican, and looking at strictly issues, I believe that I would vote for Mr. Donald Trump because, based on my research, he holds more of the same views as I do than  Secretary Hillary Clinton holds.  Examining issues and ‘claimed beliefs’ only, my research was mostly consistent with my views of both candidates, and I…already knew most of their stances from volunteering for Senator Cruz in April and May and from conducting my own research in the past. Overall, though, I do not believe either are fit to become the president of our country because neither have the character nor the history of conservative values that I seek. I believe that a president should be honorable in both word and deed at the very least, and neither candidates have strong history of either traits. I personally am willing to accept an honorable candidate who may not have all of the same values as I do, as long as they are willing to defend life and liberty for all, and both frontrunners do not fit this description, in my opinion.”

I had a hard time siding with Trump for obvious reasons, whether the paper focused strictly on issues or not. I also do not completely agree with him in regards to policies in the first place, so it made it even more uncomfortable. Even if I did agree with his stances based on the research I collected, who knows for sure if that is what he actually thinks? He has flip-flopped multiple times on multiple issues, so who is to say he would not do it again in the future?

What made it all worse was that class’ lessons today. After conducting our research, all of the Economics students had to watch the first presidential debate in order to analyze the issues touched upon and relate them to our research. When talking about taxes on wealthier classes, my teacher asked everyone, “Why should the wealthy not pay their fair share in taxes to help those in need?” No one could answer the question. I believe the problem is rooted in education, not lack of taxation of the rich, as shown by my peers’ inability to defend their positions. After their dead silence and even some nods in agreement with his position, I asked my teacher, “Why is it the federal government’s job to determine if someone is paying their fair share of the money that person possesses?” He never really gave me a complete answer.

It is far too obvious that progressivism is winning in our society today. This “binary choice” system is their ploy, and it needs to stop. The liberals and Trump’s neo-Republican brand are turning over America, leaving conservatives in the dust with no way to stop them. A new conservative party must collapse the walls of the two party system. It is time to get rid of the old ways that are not working and replace it with something that can effectively combat the infectious liberalism in both parties. Our fight can no longer be brought to a two party system with expectations that it will result favorably. We must hold true to God and to conservatism, and the faster we unbind ourselves to corruptness, the quicker we can establish new grounds and restore respect to the Constitution and to Christ.

If you want to receive updates about the new conservative party of if you have questions, email me – [email protected] – or fill out the form below.

[gravityform id=”1″ title=”true” description=”true” ajax=”true”]

Megan Kerr

Christian conservative writer Megan Kerr is a senior in high school. In addition to being a freedom fighter, she enjoys debating, volunteering for political campaigns (such as Ted Cruz’s Presidential Campaign in Indiana) and writing about politics. She is also a violinist and violist at the Anderson University Chamber Orchestra as well as in her school music programs. When she isn’t writing for The New Americana, she is playing the viola and violin, studying American history, checking up on the news and spending time with her family and friends.

  1. What “binary choice?” We had more candidates to choose from than we usually have. If you’re talking about a European style election in which many candidates hold forth during the actual election, we do that. It’s called the Primary. We get the factions and coalitions out of the way before the general election – they’re called Partys. Spain is 10 months without a government because they can’t form a coalition government after their election. Under our superior system, the US will never be without a sitting government.

    Maybe you should pay more attention during the Primary season and stop complaining about the choices in the General.

    1. I think her point is that the “binary choice” that the assignment forced on the students is false. She is right.

      Our election system does not really force us to accept a “binary choice” when we vote. Rather, we are free to vote for anyone on the ballot (or even write someone in, as I did this year).

      Most of us willingly put ourselves in this “binary choice” prison most of the time, because the vast majority of other voters put themselves in it, which means that only 2 candidates are seen to have a chance. So if one wants to affect the outcome, he/she generally understandably believes that he/she must vote for one of those 2 candidates, thus joining the large group in the prison.

      But if one finds that neither major candidate is preferable to the other, and that both are unfit for the job, then what is the upside to voting for one of them? At that point you might as well leave the “binary choice” prison. (Which is really very easy — the door is not locked. You just walk right out.) And it is much more reasonable to vote for a truly good candidate, because the margin of victory matters, and mandates matter. It is much better to deny an unfit candidate a mandate, than to go ahead and vote for one because of a false binary choice.

      Incidentally, the 2 party system has developed over time, but it is not inevitable. There could be more than 2 competitive parties under our constitution, or multiple competitive candidates without parties at all. The fact that the 2 party system is well established might be evidence that it is the natural result of our way of voting, but nothing precludes having more than 2 strong candidates. States would allocate their electors, and if no one got a majority of electoral votes, it would be decided in the House of Representatives.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

© 2017 The New Americana