"In politics the choice is constantly between two evils"

John Morley’s assertion speaks to the inherent complexities and moral ambiguities embedded within political decision-making. Throughout history, politics has rarely presented options that are wholly good or entirely without compromise. Rather, those engaged in governance or public service frequently confront situations in which every available course of action carries some form of negative consequence or ethical cost. Decisions must often be made with incomplete information, under constraints of power, and within systems shaped by competing interests and pressures.

The phrase “choice between two evils” highlights the reality that political frameworks, by their very nature, demand prioritization and sacrifice. Laws, policies, and reforms might alleviate certain issues while exacerbating others; initiatives designed to protect one group may inadvertently disadvantage another. Politicians and leaders, therefore, are compelled to weigh outcomes, measure potential harms, and, in many cases, select the path that presents the least detrimental consequences, as opposed to achieving an unequivocally positive result.

This perspective does not merely apply to extraordinary situations like wartime decisions or crises, but extends to everyday governance: budget allocations, regulation, foreign policy, and social reforms. Pursuing a perfect solution may be unattainable, and clinging to utopian ideals can lead to paralysis or unintended negative outcomes. Compromise becomes a necessity, not a failure, highlighting the imperfection of political reality.

Moreover, the statement serves as a critique of idealism in politics. Citizens and leaders alike might desire clear moral guidance, but the dynamics of collective governance rarely permit pure expressions of virtue. Rather, pragmatic judgment, ethical reflection, and a willingness to accept imperfection are essential qualities for responsible political actors. Recognizing that choices involve trade-offs may foster humility and a deeper sense of responsibility, prompting individuals and societies to engage more thoughtfully, and less judgmentally, with the uneasy, imperfect nature of political life.