Hobbesian choice

[Laurence Horn]

At 12:40 PM -0800 1/28/05, Arnold M. Zwicky wrote (quoting various
authorities):
>In a letter printed in the NYT 1/28/05 (p. A20), John A. Viteritti
>asserts:
>-----
>In "Winning Cases, Losing Voters" (Op-Ed, Jan. 26), Paul Starr presents
>the Democratic Party with the Hobbesian choice of living by its
>convictions [AMZ: and losing votes] or compromising its principles in
>order to get more votes.
>-----
>...
>>  Surely, the correct phrase is:
>>  "HOBSON'S Choice."
>
>No, actually "Hobbesian choice" appears to be a legitimate term that is
>not a malapropism for "Hobson's choice."  It is used to mean a choice
>between brutish options,

Or more generously, a choice of nasty, brutish, or short.  Reminds me
of my favorite question on one of those standardized career-options
psych exams (sort of like SATs, but with life choices rather than the
usual academic questions) they used to give us in high school and
college:

Would you rather be
a.  lazy
b.  stupid
c.  mean

Little did I know at the time that this too was a Hobbesian choice.
(Of course I chose (a), since I figured I had a head-start on that.)

>whereas "Hobson's choice" means no choice at
>all.
>-----
L