I was drawn to the same astonishingly specious analogy you were:

Let me try to make this point in another way. Suppose a slave master allows his slaves to choose between Overseer Goody, who has a very light and judicious touch with the whip, and Overseer Baddy, who never met a bloody back he didn’t like. The slaves take up the master on his offer, and vote for Goody. Are they thereby demonstrating support for slavery, for goodness sakes? No; they are only registering a preference for Goody over Baddy.

But in registering either preference, they voluntarily submit to the institution of slavery. I think this is exactly what Paul offers: "A very light and judicious touch with the whip." It's hard to get enthusiastic about that option. The only option for free men is to submit to no slave master.

I don't think anyone quarrels with the thought that Paul is the least among a vicious group of evils. But we also know the old saw about what you still have when you choose the lesser of evils.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be thrilled beyond description to see our Great Leaders replaced by people like Paul. But I'm not going to play the game of choosing the best slave master.