Is politics always about choosing the lesser evil?

More often than not.

 

  This is one of those things in life that truly cannot be confined to “always” being true, especially when taking into consideration the long history of politics worldwide. In many instances, however, the lesser of two evils (or more) is the crux of choices. 
~

Yes.

There was a time, back in the long ago, when there were two good candidates on the ticket, but it's been a long time since that has happened.  It used to be that politicians of both parties were socially friendly with one another and I think a lot of decisions were agreed to over drinks or dinner and then presented as bi-partisan.  Those days are over.  Now, you probably wouldn't see a member of one party dining with another.  For the most part, elections now come down to "Who do I dislike the least?"

Two sides of the same coin I'm afraid. 

Too often, unfortunately. Too much money is involved, and politicians are necessarily beholden to their backers today. Blame the media (both sides) - public office is beyond the means of all but the obscenely wealthy.

Some times
it is a must.
Political evolvement
is slow.

I believe that is usually the case.

But in my country's last two General Elections, I genuinely felt that there was no "lesser" evil to be found. Both the main contenders seemed equally dreadful, but in different ways. In the end I either voted for one of the smaller parties or wrote "None of the above" on the ballot paper. It's no wonder that election turnouts are down on what they were in the '80s and '90s.

There is nothing wrong with voting for the lesser of two evils, if it's an informed choice, but at the same time there is no disgrace in rejecting both main contenders if you feel that neither deserves your vote.