This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Recently I noticed a post in my Facebook feed from the campaign of Evan McMullin, whom many are touting as a principled alternative to the major party candidates. In it, the candidate says, "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil." How exactly is calling voters or their electoral choices "evil" any different from Hillary Clinton's "deplorables" gaffe, Barack Obama's "guns and religion" gaffe, Mitt Romney's "47 percent" gaffe, or any of the endless list of insults Donald Trump has delivered?
If you believe McMullin's experience, influence and policy proposals make him worthy of your vote, more power to you. But if you believe his or any other politician's claims of being more moral than all the other choices, I would encourage you to examine the history of politicians who claimed such things.
Given a few decades in the public eye making hard decisions and weathering the storms of uncharitable criticism, McMullin would amass a record just as complex as Clinton or any other normal politician. The only reason he doesn't have such a record is that he has no record at all.
Owen Witesman
Springville