Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another



Rabbi Telushkin answers your questions

Print Email
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin.(Random House)

As we approach Yom Kippur, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin—author of Nextbook Press’s Hillel: If Not Now, When?—answers questions submitted by Tablet Magazine readers. Here, a special Primary Day-themed question.

During election seasons, we are often presented with a dilemma. We may have clear-cut choices or we may feel that none of the candidates are quite up to par. Are we morally obligated to abstain from voting if we don’t like either candidate enough, or is it a moral choice to pick the one we think is the proverbial “lesser of two evils”? And is it morally wrong to vote for someone we don’t know enough about because we haven’t done our homework—for example, sitting judges who only need to be reaffirmed?

As a young man in 1972, I remember my displeasure with the two presidential candidates, the incumbent Richard Nixon and the Democratic challenger George McGovern. I mistrusted Nixon on moral grounds—most significantly, I suspected from early on that he had knowledge, perhaps considerable knowledge, about the Republican cover-up of the break-in at Democratic Party headquarters. And I thought McGovern dangerously naïve, for example, when he spoke of negotiating a Middle East peace through the United Nations, or expressed his belief that J. William Fulbright, a highly intellectual but anti-Israel senator, was the sort of person he’d like to see as Secretary of State. In addition, McGovern had very naïve views about the dangers and evils of communism. I felt certain that, if elected, McGovern would be a disaster.

So whom did I vote for? I cast a write-in ballot for Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson of Washington, a man for whom I had deep admiration, and who I had long hoped would be the Democratic Party nominee. In any case, it was clear from the polls that Nixon was going to win. But what would I have done if I had felt my vote might really make a difference? I had decided that in such a case, I would vote for Nixon, on the grounds that the sort of immoral behavior in which he engaged was reprehensible but less dangerous to the country than McGovern’s ideological obtuseness (obviously, if I had believed Nixon’s immoral qualities to be of a greater dimension and McGovern’s naïveté to be less extreme, I would likely have decided differently). A year later, when the Yom Kippur War occurred, I realized that had McGovern been president and J. William Fulbright Secretary of State—and there had not been the aggressive resupply of arms to Israel undertaken by Nixon (which Golda Meir wrote of so appreciatively in her memoirs)—far more Israelis might well have died.

So, in general, I find the doctrine of the lesser of two evils to be both a reasonable and compelling one.

As a general observation, for democracy to continue, it is important that many citizens feel invested in the democratic process. Having said that, I have no good answer on questions regarding judges, given how little we generally know about the candidates. On the other hand, that people vote for a candidate about whom they have little knowledge simply because they identify with the candidate’s party is unfortunate but probably unavoidable. Where people lack sufficient knowledge about candidates, it makes sense that they are going to vote for the party in which they have greater trust. Then again, it is good for one’s soul to periodically cross party lines and accept that your party is not 100 percent right and the other party 100 percent wrong. But this will only come about if you do invest the time to follow at least certain political races carefully.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

David Gleicher says:

I did the exact same thing for the exact same reasons. It was my first time voting (I’d just turned 18), and it took a while for the Queens election judges to figure out how a write-in would work. But this is the first time I’d heard of anyone else writing in Scoop. Great minds think alike, I suppose.

Arthur Schoenfeld says:

Dear Joseph,
This is a question, not a comment.
In the Amida, in the paragraph of Chol Hachaim the blessing
is: Baruch Ata Hashem, Hatov Shimcha Ul’cha nae l’hodot. Why is the word Shimcha included?. Hashem Hatov is also correct and even more satisfying.
Mazal Tov to your latest book Hillel. I already have it and we are looking forward to read it.
Shana Tova Um’tuka,
Arthur and Mona Schoenfeld

It is definitely NOT unfortunate that people vote for candidates they know little about by party affiliation! Quite the contrary: it is a safeguard of democracy. Imagine if the only people to vote for ‘minor’ candidates like judges or water commissioners or the like were the people who were personally interested. In fact, when I have seen judges’ elections being personalized, owing to the availability of enough money to publicize the candidate(s), I have shuddered! Either it means that a rich person has bought himself a judgship, or that a moneyed interest has bought itself a sympathetic judge. Neither of these can be good for democracy. The parties certainly had their failings, but as Winston Churchill said of democracy in general – it is the worst system imaginable, except for all the alternatives! (Of course one maintains the right to vote against the party’s candidate if the person has committed an act reprehensible enough to come to public knowledge — an important safeguard). —— As a student of ancient history, I know that democracy is a fragile bloom. This entire question may be moot in another generation as the power of money to control access to information and to influence elections makes the vote increasingly less relevant. Already, a representative who listens to his voters over his contributors does so at his peril. (As the techniques are ever more perfected to use “swift-boaters” and “tea party” and other pseudo-grass-roots creations to destroy any politician unwilling to go along.)


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.


Rabbi Telushkin answers your questions

More on Tablet:

Kerry Links Rise of ISIS With Failed Peace Talks

By Lee Smith — Secretary of State: ‘I see a lot of heads nodding’