Opinion: Rejecting the ‘two bad options’ narrative this election

We were all taught as children that there are “two sides to every story” and that it “takes two to tango.”
Both aphorisms speak to the reality that when conflict arises, there is often more than enough blame to go around; rarely is one party to a disagreement either wholly responsible for causing it or entirely blameless.
The impulse to hear out and understand all sides’ points of view is a generous, noble and important one. However, in the almost eight years since Donald Trump was elected president, I have seen too many cherished friends and family members allow this generosity of spirit to lead them down the perilous path of bothsidesism: justifying or even normalizing the behavior of both Mr. Trump and the Republican Party that he’s remade in his image by pointing out that, in essence, “the Democrats are doing it too.”
But Democrats, in fact, are not “doing it too.” I submit that there is an undeniable asymmetry in the present political contest between Vice President Kamala Harris and Mr. Trump, an undeniable one-sidedness to this national story.
The problem is American democracy as we have known it — abiding respect for the Constitution and the rule of law — is on the brink, and it appears to me that only Republicans, in their fealty to the former president, are undermining it. As we approach the conclusion of what will likely prove to be one of the most consequential presidential elections in U.S. history, it is imperative that we review the historical record.
A direct comparison of the presidential candidates themselves reveals a similar lopsidedness. Only Donald Trump is a convicted felon, 34 times over. Only Donald Trump faces serious felony charges across three separate indictments, two of them federal, including counts of conspiracy to defraud the United States and violate civil rights in an effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Only Donald Trump was found liable for sexual abuse. Only Donald Trump’s campaign is based on the lie that he won the 2020 election. Only Donald Trump incited a violent insurrection in order to prevent the certification of a free and fair election and remain in power.
Whatever Ms. Harris’s foibles, she is not a felon, sexual predator, serial liar, anti-constitutionalist or insurrectionist.
Here, Mr. Trump is in a completely different category. His faults are, in my opinion, disqualifying because they strike at the very foundations of our democratic system. And Mr. Trump’s criminal record is literally disqualifying in some sense — I do not believe he could now ever qualify for a security clearance. Ms. Harris’ liabilities, such as they are, present no such risks. To be clear, I have great respect for those principled conservatives who — while intending to vote for Ms. Harris in November — have publicly articulated their profound policy differences with her. By all means, they — and we — should challenge Ms. Harris on policy! That is democracy. But we must first vote her into office, so that we can preserve the system that allows us to peacefully debate and set policy in the first place.
So to those voters who are still undecided, I’d plead with you to remember this distinction, the glaring gap between Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris in temperament, background and integrity. Do not fall for the argument that the 2024 election is a choice between “two bad options.” This is, I submit, a false equivalence, one that does not stand up to a careful scrutiny of the facts. Rather, I believe the facts lead us to the conclusion that there is only one viable option for president on the ballot this November, and it is Ms. Harris. The survival of our government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” our grand experiment in self-governance, may very well depend on our collective capacity to see as much.
Joshua Stevenson graduated from Brigham Young University with a Bachelor of Arts in linguistics and is currently in the Master of Public Policy program at the University of Virginia’s Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy.