It happens every few months. You’re sitting there with your coffee, staring at the grid, and you see it: "Lesser of two evils," or some variation of that phrase, tucked into the New York Times crossword. Or maybe you're scrolling through the Opinion section, and an op-ed is yelling at you about why voting for a candidate you actually like is a "spoiler" move.
The phrase lesser of two evils nyt isn't just a search term; it’s a cultural touchstone that bridges the gap between the intellectual puzzles we solve for fun and the high-stakes binary choices that define American life. It’s frustrating. Honestly, it’s kind of exhausting. We’re constantly told that the "correct" answer—whether in a 15x15 grid or a voting booth—is the one that sucks the least.
The Crossword Obsession with Binary Choices
The New York Times crossword is a beast of habit. If you've been playing long enough, you know that the editors, particularly Will Shortz and the modern team, love idioms that fit a specific letter count. "Lesser of two evils" is a 17-letter phrase, which makes it a dream for a Sunday puzzle or a grid with a wide-open middle.
But why do we see it so often?
Crossword construction is basically a game of "what fits?" Words like ETUI, OREO, and ALEE are "crosswordese" because they have high vowel-to-consonant ratios. "Lesser of two evils" functions as a thematic anchor. It’s a phrase everyone knows, it has a clear meaning, and it provides a lot of "crossing" opportunities for shorter words. It’s a foundational piece of the puzzle's architecture.
Usually, the clue is something straightforward like "The better of two bad options" or "Choice between unpleasant alternatives." But sometimes they get cheeky. They might reference the phrase's origin, which traces back to ancient philosophy. Aristotle touched on it in Nicomachean Ethics, suggesting that when we are forced between two unpleasant things, we should choose the one that is "less bad."
The Political Weight of the Phrase
When people search for lesser of two evils nyt, they aren't always looking for 42-Across. Often, they’re looking for the Times' editorial stance on specific elections.
The New York Times editorial board has a long history of grappling with this concept. It’s a recurring theme in their political coverage, especially during "swing" years. Think about the 2016 or 2020 elections. The "lesser of two evils" narrative was everywhere. Columnists like Ross Douthat or Jamelle Bouie often dive into the morality of this choice. Is it a pragmatic necessity or a failure of the democratic imagination?
🔗 Read more: When is the Next Hurricane Coming 2024: What Most People Get Wrong
Here’s the thing: the Times doesn't just report on the "lesser of two evils" sentiment; it often helps define it. By focusing on the "electability" of centrist candidates versus "radical" outsiders, the paper of record reinforces the idea that your choice is always between two pre-selected options, neither of which might actually represent you.
It’s a feedback loop. The paper writes about why voters feel they are choosing the lesser evil, and then voters read the paper and feel validated in their cynicism.
A History of "Bad" Choices
The concept didn't start with the 20th century. It’s been a part of the human experience since we first had to decide which cave wasn't currently occupied by a bear.
- Thomas Aquinas: He argued that one should always choose the lesser evil if a choice is unavoidable, but he also cautioned that one should never actively do evil to achieve a good result.
- The Cold War: This was the peak of "lesser evil" foreign policy. The U.S. often supported dictators because they were "less evil" than the alternative (usually communism). The NYT archives from the 50s and 60s are full of this justification.
- Modern Puzzles: In the context of the NYT Crossword, the phrase gained popularity in the late 90s and has remained a staple. It’s familiar enough that a Tuesday solver can get it with just a few letters, but long enough to satisfy a Saturday veteran.
Why We Hate the Logic but Use the Clue
There is a psychological toll to this way of thinking. When you’re constantly looking for the "lesser of two evils," you stop looking for the "greatest good."
In the world of game theory, this is often called a "minimax" strategy. You are trying to minimize the maximum loss. It’s a defensive way to live. If you apply this to your crossword, you’re just filling in the blanks. If you apply it to your life or your politics, you’re essentially operating from a place of fear.
The NYT’s obsession with this phrase—both in its games and its journalism—reflects a certain kind of establishment realism. It’s the idea that the world is messy, perfect options don’t exist, and the best we can do is manage the decline.
Some people find that comforting. It’s realistic. Others find it incredibly stifling. They want a third option. They want a "none of the above" or a "actually, this is great" candidate. But those don't fit in the 15x15 grid of the status quo.
💡 You might also like: What Really Happened With Trump Revoking Mayorkas Secret Service Protection
The Strategy Behind the Search
If you're searching for lesser of two evils nyt, you're likely in one of two camps.
You might be a crossword enthusiast who is stuck on a grid. You have the "L," the "E," and the "S," and you're trying to figure out if it's "Lesser of two evils" or something more obscure. Pro tip: if the clue mentions "choice" and it's long, it's almost always this phrase.
Or, you’re a political junkie looking for that one specific article that explained why a certain candidate is the "pragmatic" choice. The Times has a deep archive of these. Searching their site directly for "lesser of two evils" will bring up decades of hand-wringing by the editorial board.
It’s a fascinating look at how our language hasn't really evolved. We're still using the same idioms to describe our dissatisfaction that our grandparents used.
Moving Beyond the Binary
Is there a way out?
In crosswords, constructors are starting to push back against these clichés. We see more diverse clues, more modern slang, and fewer tired idioms. The "lesser of two evils" is becoming a bit of a "boomer" clue—something that felt fresh in 1985 but feels a bit dusty now.
In politics, the "lesser of two evils" logic is being challenged by ranked-choice voting movements and a more vocal rejection of the two-party system. People are tired of the binary. They want the grid to have more than two directions.
📖 Related: Franklin D Roosevelt Civil Rights Record: Why It Is Way More Complicated Than You Think
But for now, the phrase remains a powerhouse. It’s a linguistic Swiss Army knife. It fits the letters, it fits the mood of the country, and it fits the brand of the New York Times perfectly.
Actionable Takeaways for the NYT Solver and Reader
If you’re dealing with this phrase today, here’s how to handle it:
For the Puzzler:
Memorize the letter count. "Lesser of two evils" is 17 letters. If you see a long clue about a "tough choice" in a Sunday puzzle, count the boxes. If it’s 17, don’t even think—just write it in. It’ll give you the "crosses" you need to solve the rest of the section. Also, keep an eye out for "Greater of two evils"—it’s a much rarer clue but shows up when the constructor is feeling particularly dark.
For the Political Reader:
Read between the lines. When an op-ed uses the "lesser of two evils" framing, ask yourself what options are being intentionally ignored. Who benefits from you believing there are only two choices? Use the NYT’s "TimesMachine" archive to see how this same logic was used in the 1970s or 1990s. You’ll quickly see that the "evil" candidates change, but the argument for settling stays exactly the same.
For the Skeptic:
Recognize the "binary trap." Whether you're filling out a grid or a ballot, the way a question is framed determines the answer. If the NYT tells you it's a choice between A and B, check if C, D, and E are hiding in the margins. Sometimes the "lesser of two evils" is just a lack of imagination.
The next time you see lesser of two evils nyt pop up, don't just fill in the boxes. Think about why that phrase is there in the first place. It's a reflection of a system that loves balance, even when that balance is between two things we don't actually want. Solving the puzzle is easy; solving the logic behind it is the real challenge.