Editor’s note: The following column is satire.
“If there was an election where the only two viable candidates are Hitler and Hitler but 1% less bad, you are morally obligated to vote for Hitler but 1% less bad,” wrote X user Jacob Unruh (@JacobUnruh333). His tweet caught fire, as it eventually got the phrase “99% Hitler” to trend on the app.
The statement refers to the idea of damage mitigation. Centrist democrats argue that President Joe Biden isn’t perfect, but he will do less damage than Donald Trump. Childish progressives, on the other hand, argue that if the two options are undesirable, it’s better to focus attention on other methods of enacting political change.
READ MORE: LSU students react to new ban on gender affirming care, lawsuit
The 99% Hitler post was widely mocked by silly leftists for being narrow-minded in approach, and it also raised questions about the hypothetical dollar store Hitler. Did he only want to take over 99% of the world, or did he believe in a slightly higher carbon tax? Was he a bit looser in his views of racial purity, or did he believe in funding public education over supporting charter schools?
In a hypothetical election between the two Hitlers, liberals would rightly throw their full support behind the lesser of two evils. They’d lead a huge movement to vote for 99% Hitler and then push him left through public pressure. Simple-minded leftists would criticize them for ignoring any other possible course of political action and attack the system they claim is unjust for producing such options.
Liberals would wear shirts with swastikas missing a tiny chunk to represent the difference between the two Hitlers. The generic brand Hitler campaign would make money hand over fist from Democrats that would buy merch to proudly show that they’re nothing like the horrific monsters 1% to the right of them. They’d proudly wear the edited swastika and their 2.999th Reich gear all around town.
If full-on Hitler were able to win, only to be defeated by discount Hitler four years later, centrist Democrats would celebrate by partying in the streets and drinking all night. They could rest easy knowing that the concentration camps may not be closed down, but at least the smoke coming from them would be rainbow-colored. They’d feel comfortable knowing that there would be more female faces in the SS. They could rejoice at the idea of a more inclusive racial extermination, which is really all one can ask for.
Being cynical about liberals’ capitulation in this hypothetical election is easy, but what’s more productive is understanding that the only option in this situation is to vote for markdown Hitler. Leftists have to give up their pointless show of political petulance and realize that the prospect of 100% Hitler is far worse.
READ MORE: Several LSU schools scrub diversity content within same few weeks; here’s what we know
Imagine a scenario where a foreign ethnostate was, say, doing a genocide. Having a president that supports that while his party is shown to be vehemently against it by polling would be unfathomable.
The election is binary; there’s no point in questioning or opposing a system that produces such options. In this scenario, the only moral thing to do is to support bargain bin Hitler.
Biden shouldn’t run from this reality. He should hire Unruh to lead his initiative, since he’s already done such a great job producing an enticing message for the campaign. Unruh would be incredible at showing progressives that the best they can ask for is the lesser of two Hitlers.
Frank Kidd is a 22-year-old LSU graduate from Springfield, Virginia.
