On Nominees You Can't Vote For in the General
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign | Mike Huckabee | Ron Paul | Rudy Giuliani — Comments (66) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There's been a few rounds now of discussions (see Alexham here, citing Ace and Dan Riehl) of people who say they won't vote for various of the candidates in the general election. I'm not one of those people - I've written more than 12,000 words thus far in my critique of Mitt Romney, but I'll pull the lever for him without a second thought if we end up saddled with him as the nominee, just as I voted for Bush in 1992, Dole in 1996, and Rick Lazio and John Spencer for Senate.
Now, arguably it's too early to burn this particular bridge, but people are trying to stop primary candidates they find appalling, and so they are putting it out there now. That's part of the process, like it or not.
I also don't buy any distinctions between sitting out or voting third party and voting D. We have, in almost all cases, a binary system; if you've refused to vote Republican, you have already made your choice. Might as well make it an honest one.
What I don't and can't countenance is the idea that you ever set out to win by losing. I know some people don't want to sully themselves by voting for candidates who take various disagreeable positions, but if you are a conservative and/or Republican and you are refusing to vote for the GOP candidate over a particular issue, you have to at least be able to credibly argue that the Democrat alternative would be better on that issue.
For example, if the GOP ran Ron Paul against Joe Lieberman, I would have to give very serious consideration to Lieberman. Now, it wouldn't be easy, because I agree with Ron Paul on a number of domestic issues, whereas Joe Lieberman's domestic views run the gamut from "liberal" to "usually liberal with occasional bouts of angst". But Joe Lieberman is, at this point, pretty much a reliable conservative on national security issues, whereas I find Ron Paul's views on foreign policy so misguided and bizarre as to be a danger to the Republic, a danger that would dwarf any differences on domestic policy.
But consider what you would have to say to refuse to vote Huckabee against Hillary Clinton: that Huck would actually be worse in terms of the size and intrusiveness of government than Hillary. Now, I suppose that's possible, if you think a Hillary win would lead to a suddenly ironclad GOP opposition to big government. (We tried that in the 90s, and it didn't last very long, and that was with Hillary's more pliable husband). But I regard that as an extremely unlikely long shot, like going to a roulette table and putting your house on a single number. Huckabee is as bad as it gets in the GOP on his big-government instincts, but he isn't and never will be Hillary when it comes to nanny-statism.
The same is true of Giuliani and Hillary on abortion and the judiciary. If you would choose not to vote Rudy in that matchup, you must credibly argue that Hillary would be better - would appoint better Justices, would do less damage via executive orders. And if preferring Hillary, even over Huck, on the size of government is a longshot, preferring her, even over Rudy, on life issues and the judiciary is the kind of delusional that gets people institutionalized - to extend the roulette analogy, it's like going to the roulette table and putting all your money on purple.
Is it true, as a predictive matter, that our nominee will drive away some voters? Yes. Any of them will, for different reasons. And it's very much a fair and legitimate question to ask in the primary process which ones will cost us the most, since part of what we are trying to accomplish here is pick a candidate with a fighting chance of winning. I don't begrudge anybody the argument that Rudy or Huck or any of the others is going to cost us too many votes.
But we have a two-party system. To justify committing not to vote for a candidate in the general election, you have to explain why we'd be better off at least on that issue with the Democrat alternative. Elections have consequences, and we don't get to pretend later on that we are not accountable for our contributions to those consequences.
Seems to me this ought to be promoted to the Front Page.
Dan: Do you see why if people like me never ever deviate from voting Republican, then people like me hold zero weight in our natoinal political process?
That's why I'm willing not to vote Republican. Our elections are a repeated game.
A voters only card in the game is his vote. If he gives it up no matter what, then there really is no meaningful say in the party politics.
At some point even the most altruistic of strategies must defect.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
But not much: consider all the people who think about 'electability.' My views become irrelevant in any discussions of 'electability' if I'm a guaranteed Republican voter.
Look, I am not saying you or I should be a guaranteed Republican voter. We ought to vote for the candidate that we believe will best represent our views as POTUS, whether D or R or a contender like Perot.
I am challenging the idea that you or I ought to look for extra special leverage, once we all had our fair shot in the primary, by sabotage with a protest vote which helps what we all agree to be a worse candidate into the WH.
Especially at the presidential level. I can understand a protest vote for, say, a House seat where it's been futile to try to recruit a primary challenger.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Do you think you might have been better off not voting or voting third party ?
President Bush I could forgive the read my lips business. He won a victory in the middle east the like of which was beyond comprehension. The tax pledge was upsetting, but it just did not compare to what I thought/hoped/delighted would be the erasure of Vietnam. I had an ulcer forming in the build up to GWI, and yes I am sad to say I believed the MSM reports of bodybags by the boatload. I understand however the need to punish a candidate for breaking a promise.
If you were that upset about the "No New Taxes pledge" why not go third party ? Why confine yourself to the box ? At least if you are willing to step outside it, you change the dynamic.
If you stay within it, you're trapped. Look at the african americans that have been throwing their support to the dem's forever and have been receiving bupkiss for their trouble.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Bloomberg is looming large, and there is always the Ron Paul possibility.
I don't know who Ron Paul would hurt more though, his base seems to be Antiwar Democrats.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The idea is that Rudy Giuliani will appoint judges in the mold of Thomas because he will have to in order to get re-elected. Ditto doing all the other things with respect to gun control and abortion that Republican Presidents are expected to do.
To do otherwise would risk getting the base split in 2012, costing him re-election.
It's a reasonable argument, I disagree with doing it mostly because I think nominating him would split us in 2008.
I actually like the idea of third parties even though in practice they wind up disruptive.
They can raise issues that the internal dynamics of established parties give short shrift to. I think it was Bob Dole who used to say that the deficit doesn't have a constituency. Well it should. Third parties can elevate such issues.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I also don't buy any distinctions between sitting out or voting third party and voting D. We have, in almost all cases, a binary system; if you've refused to vote Republican, you have already made your choice. Might as well make it an honest one.
You know good and well that as a proposition of simple mat this isn't true. Refusing to vote Republican or voting third party results in an effective vote of zero, voting Hillary results in a vote of +1 D.
I understand that people want others to not say they won't vote for Rudy/Huck/whoever, but to pretend there's no difference between not voting R and voting D is to ignore easily ascertainable facts.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
It assumes 100% turnout. This is false so that analysis fails.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If you assume I already voted R, but in certain cases I "protest" by withdrawing my vote and voting elsewhere, then yeah, it's a loss of a vote for the R for me to deviate.
But that isn't how it works. The nominated Republican does not start with all his base's votes already in the bank.
But what it *isn't* is an addition of a vote to the Democratic nominee. Again, let's ask Rudy if he wants his detractors to sit at home or vote for Hillary. Wanna guess what he answers?
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
That's what I thought Joliphant was getting at: If we go with Dan's view that it's a binary system, then a third party vote is functionally equivalent to staying home, and thus lowering turnout. Which means that it doens't help either side; it's a non-vote for either of the candidates that 'count.'
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If we go with Dan's view that it's a binary system, then a third party vote is functionally equivalent to staying home
Basically, yeah. Unless you have a third partyu candidate running so high that he has a reasonable chance to win, that's about the size of it.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I would expect Rudy to say: If you think Hillary will be better for this country than me, by all means vote for her. If you think I would be better than her, vote for me. If you think there would be no difference, sit it out or give your vote to somebody with no chance.
In point of fact, it's true at least in part *because* not voting is a viable and real option. And because voting in America is premised not on getting a majority of all possible votes, but a majority of votes actually cast. Therefore, a vote for Rudy is in fact a vote of +1, and a sit at home/3rd party vote really is a zero, and a vote for Hillary is a -1.
Honestly, this isn't hard.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
I feel like I did more damage than by staying home. Therefore, I vowed never to do that again. Therefore, I will vote for an R, no matter how smelly.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
And thats only theoretically, you can win with less than 50% of the votes cast. (this endlessly complicates things and is something of a pathological case anyway).
So if we nominate a candidate that does not inspire anyone in the party we have lost. We won't get 50+1%. The turnout of total R votes is depressed. So does a vote for Hillary have any effect except to express displeasure ?
Personally I could never bring myself to vote for Hillary. I would cheerfully vote for Mitt or reluctantly relctantly vote for RP/the huckster. But in the later cases, I respect the willingness of anyone to vote third party. I can even appreciate the argument that Hillary might be preferred.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Except that getting 50% +1 isn't even necessary, it's actually x% +1 where x is the percentage of the vote your closest opponent gets.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
This is what I said last night - imagine a pool of 20 voters. 8 are committed to Rudy, 7 to Hillary. The remaining 5 are committed not to vote for Rudy. Or substitute Huck for Rudy, as you prefer.
Now, if all 5 of those voters exercise the option to stay home, or if all 5 vote for Ron Paul or Sam Nunn or whoever, Rudy still wins and all is well in Rudy land. However, if even one of those 5 decides that he's actually going to vote for Hillary, the election becomes a tie and the House decides this thing. If two of them decide to vote Hillary, she wins.
So as you can see, there is a huge difference between not voting/voting third party and voting Hillary.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
That’s all well and good as long as you elide the anti-Hillary term.
If those anti-Rudy voters are not anti-Hillary; that is, they believe that Hillary will be better or at least no worse than Rudy then no harm is done. If they are anti-Hillary though, then by withholding an R vote they may advance Hillary to victory. That is the trouble
since your scenario is set up – by starting with Rudy 8, Hillary 7 -- in a way which hides the impact of Republican primary voters making protest or non-votes.
Suppose instead that 8 are committed to Hillary and 7 to Huck. Suppose that 5 are Republican primary voters committed not to vote for Huck. Suppose none of the 5 actually believe that Hillary’s government would be better or no worse for the country than Huck’s. In this case it is the Republican non-votes which are decisive and give the election to Hillary. Actually changing to a + vote for her would be irrelevant.
So your claim that the non-vote has less impact than the D vote is valid only in a subset of the possible scenarios. This is why Dan is right to argue that we ought to vote according to our assessment of the head to head comparison.
but this discussion seems fun ;).
So your claim that the non-vote has less impact than the D vote is valid only in a subset of the possible scenarios.
Leon is right. A non-vote has less impact than a D vote because the non-vote will not end up in the D column. You can construct scenarios where the non-vote will not affect the result. You can construct scenarios where the non-vote will adversely affect the result.
But averaged over all possible scenarios, the non-vote definitely holds less weight than the D vote.
Except that I argue that there is no possible scenario in which a vote for a D is not worse than a non-vote.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
Every person who decides not to vote for Huck does not change the fact that he is one vote behind - all that has to happen is that one of the five has buyer's remorse and it's a tied game. However, every one who votes for Hillary creates another vote that Huck needs to pick off the pile of 5. Thus, if two of them actually decide to vote for Hillary, they make it impossible for Huck to win outright.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
But if no votes are changed to R, then whether all, one or none are changed to D-votes is irrelevant. Huck loses and Hillary wins. I think you must grant that in that case there is no effective/relevant difference between a non-vote and a D vote.
But just as you point out, putting those protest votes into play in this scenario could change things in Huck's favor. If those happen to be 4 (there are other comparable scenarios) Republican primary voters who swore not to vote for Huck even though they believe Hillary would be worse, then by their protest votes they have effectively thrown the election to Hillary. They bear responsibility for this incongruent result; the effect of their non-vote was no different than if they had voted for her outright. OTOH, if they happen to be voters who really prefer Hillary or think it doesn't matter either way then their non-votes are congruent with the result.
I am disagreeing on this: if you are a natural GOP voter, as you and I are, a choice to not vote the R is not morally neutral; it's a choice to assist the other side. We don't have the luxury to pretend otherwise.
The people who sat home or went Perot are absolutely as responsible for Justices Breyer and Ginsburg as the people who voted Clinton in 92.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
But that of course is another argument that you and I have had hundreds of times and won't recreate here.
However, it is worth noting that choosing not to vote and choosing to vote Hillary are also not morally equivalent choices, and your post disputes that. If you grant that choosing not to vote for Rudy is a morally blameworthy choice (something I reject absolutely, but let's assume it for the sake of argument) - then you ought also to accept that it is a less blameworthy choice than the decision to actually vote for Hillary.
The Rudy supporters, having now been hoisted on their own petard with respect to seeing some of their prominent brethren actually promising to vote for Hillary over Huck (rather than staying home) are now pretending that this is some sort of morally superior choice, which is... well, I can't describe it in terms that are fit for this site, so I'll leave it to your imagination.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
Your comment also ignores that this discussion begins with the proposition that you and I are "dedicated Republican voters" for certain identifiable reasons, other than "just because."
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
And abandoning the GOP candidate presumably is based on the idea that the other side has offered something better.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
It's based on the idea that we can't vote for the Republican.
Voting for Hillary would imply what you said.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
is just another way of saying that you think the Republican is not better than the Democrat.
Otherwise, the perfect has become the mortal enemy of the good.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
it's a decision not to oppose a Hillary presidency.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I'm not any more in favor of those guys doing this, as I explained, and for precisely the same reasons. And honestly, is Riehl a Rudy guy (I think Ace is).
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
To happen with Colorado this cycle ? My bet is they make the Florida fiascoes look minor.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
So our battlecry should be "One more than You"
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison
I don't believe in making those choices lightly, or halfway.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
In the real world, one candidate is *always* going to be better than the other. The only thing gained by sitting out an election is that you help the worse candidate win.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I haven't done either.
It would have been ridiculously easy for Rudy to get my vote, at least in the general. Ridiculously easy. He made his own choice in that regard, unfortunately.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
I've heard this same argument a million times over when I've told fellow Conservatives that I would not vote for Rudy since I can't bring myself to vote for someone for President who believes it's okay to take the life of an innocent, unborn baby.
You see, I look at this long-term and as scary as it sounds to have someone like Hillary or Obama nominate Judges, it's even scarier to think that there will never again be a Presidential candidate with the C.A. Jones to publicly state he is pro-life.
That's why we have primaries, where these factors get to play out. If the party voters pick badly, well that's human imperfection at work. While I historically tend to be a "lesser of two evils" voter, the bottom line is that candidates have to persuade and close the deal; they have to earn my votes.
They're not entitled to my vote just because of party affiliation, although as a Republican, there is a strong presumption that I will support my party's candidates. However there are certainly cases where this presumption can be overcome if the Republican candidate diverges strongly enough from my convictions and/or in combination with an extraordinary opponent.
In many situations, it is optimal to vote for the Republican. However, there can be situations where 1) sitting out or 2) voting for a Democrat may be warranted.
It all depends on creating a cost function (based on your political biases) over your possible actions and finding the optimal decision.
Granted, this "cost function" is very noisy since nobody can accurately predict the future. Thus, people have resorted to heuristics, like voting Republican every time, or voting pro-life every time. These are not bad heuristics, if the goal is to advance conservatism. But sometimes it may be necessary to deviate from these heuristics.
For instance, if the Republican candidate is a dyed in the wool pro-choicer, and if it seems that the Republican party will be trending pro-choice in future elections, the only way for pro-lifers to ensure that their voice is heard may be to form a third party (a long term option) or to throw the election to the Democrat to prevent the GOP from thoroughly embracing the pro-abortion stance (a short term solution).
The optimal choice depends on the circumstances and one's personal cost function.
then you should vote for the GOP candidate in the general, whomever he is.
These arguments of not voting because the candidate doesn't pass some litmus test are silly. The POTUS can only influence.
The power is in the SCOTUS picks. If you think ANY of the Dems would be preferable to ANY of the GOP you are essentially forgoing ANY POSSIBLE CHANCE at overturning Roe v. Wade.
The litmus tests are vain and selfish. There is a much bigger set of issues at play then one's personal feelings about the general candidate.
You are either a Republican or you are not.
The hemming and hawing and hedging is self absorbed hogwash.
Due to SCOTUS, the only recourse is to vote Republican for the forseeable future, assuming we can get certain guarantees from the Republican nominee.
That's going to change a lot of minds, right there. Especially for someone who thinks that abortion is morally equivalent to murder.
"Just shut up and think like I do!"
It's a time-honored effective persuasive technique.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
A non-vote or a vote for the Dem is the essentially walking away from any chance of overturning Roe v. Wade.
It's giving up.
How will that save any unborn?
But individual Republicans are going to disagree on how much to weight this factor in their POTUS voting decisions. And of course, the more passionately we hold to an issue, the harder it can be to accept that some others can hold a different position and still be a conservative acting in integrity.
...and if I find myself opposing not just a few issues or having a few areas of contention with a particular presidential candidate, but if I find myself disagreeing with an overwhelming majority of both candidates' platforms, then you cannot tell me that I must vote for the lesser of two grave evils.
We're not talking, milk chocolate or dark chocolate here. We're talking REALLY REALLY bad.
Your theory is basically, if Fidel Castro were running as a Democrat and Hugo Chavez ran as a Republican, I must choose one.*
Well, Dan - I refuse.
* - Of course I'm not suggesting that either the D or R nominee (even if Huckabee) would be as bad as either Castro or Chavez...I'm just illustrating the absurdity of Dan's underlying argument by being absurd, as Rush would say.
Lenin. He didn't kill millions of people. Go ahead and sit it out and help the mass murderer get elected, though. I'm sure you'll feel good about that decision when he's running things.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
There's been a few rounds now of discussions of people who say they won't vote for various of the candidates in the general election. I'm not one of those people - I've written more than 12,000 words thus far in my critique of Mitt Romney, but I'll pull the lever for him without a second thought if we end up saddled with him as the nominee, just as I voted for Bush in 1992, Dole in 1996, and Rick Lazio and John Spencer for Senate.
Up front, I'm one of those who will never again pull a lever for a candidate for whom I hold thoughtfully-considered, serious, principled reservations. I've been here before and caved into fear of the short-term loss despite my angst. Simply put, I'm tired as heck of feeling like snot after the fact and I refuse to go down that path ever again. There simply are things I was willing to do when I was younger that age and wisdom now prohibit.
For me, Conservativism is mode, not my political persuasion. My principles are more important than and will always come before my party. If the GOP tacks too much farther left, or becomes too neocon, or too myopically fiscal con, I don't need it. And, while it will sadden me a bit, I won't miss the party if it leaves me because I'm not defined by it.
On the other hand, if a loss were to give a deserved harsh boot to the current party hierarchy...the people whose principles or lack therof have guided the political strategy side of our current mess...then I'd find some comfort in that. In such a scenario, the bigger the loss the deeper the housecleaning tends to be; I believe all all the nooks and crannies could benefit from being scraped and disinfected.
Now, arguably it's too early to burn this particular bridge, but people are trying to stop primary candidates they find appalling, and so they are putting it out there now. That's part of the process, like it or not.
Are you saying that my clearly defining that there are some GOP contenders who don't have a snowball's chance in the desert of getting my vote under any circumstances is wrong but "part of the process?" Would you advocate some sanction against people like me when we speak such warnings with the intent of influencing the outcome? It sounds like it. Is there some manual they handed out? I didn't know I had to be an unflinching partisan to be a good Republican.
I also don't buy any distinctions between sitting out or voting third party and voting D. We have, in almost all cases, a binary system; if you've refused to vote Republican, you have already made your choice. Might as well make it an honest one.
Obviously you don't take a long view on much. If I refuse to vote for the nominee because I think his election will damage Conservatism's place in the GOP, perhaps permanently, I'm being dishonest by not voting for a Democrat? What page of your rule book is that on? Where does it say we're not allowed to inactively participate toward a loss if we really believe that in helping the GOP nominee win, we'll be participating in the end of Conservatism's place in the party?
What I don't and can't countenance is the idea that you ever set out to win by losing. I know some people don't want to sully themselves by voting for candidates who take various disagreeable positions, but if you are a conservative and/or Republican and you are refusing to vote for the GOP candidate over a particular issue, you have to at least be able to credibly argue that the Democrat alternative would be better on that issue.
Oh. So this is only about winning this particular election is it? Sorry, it's not. And I don't have to argue squat if I'm standing on principle and I believe in my soul that it's the right thing to do for the future of Conservatism's place in the party, or my nation's sovereignty or my child's heritage. It's sad that there are so many so unfamiliar with taking a principled stand that I'm castigated for it.
No. I don't have to argue that the Democrat would be better on my key issues. I only have to believe that the Republican would spell long-term disaster on them. If I hear one more of those juvenile "abstaining or voting third-party is half a vote for Hillary" rants, somebody's going to get hurt for being so simple-minded.
But consider what you would have to say to refuse to vote Huckabee against Hillary Clinton: that Huck would actually be worse in terms of the size and intrusiveness of government than Hillary.
No. I only have to say that if given a choice between an elitist, socialist candidate widely known to be untrustworthy and a populist candidate with expressed socialist-leanings who sounds an awful lot like he's melding "compassionate conservatism" with liberation theology, I'll say: Vote for neither and pray that my party's bad choice doesn't become the disaster I fear.
The same is true of Giuliani and Hillary on abortion and the judiciary. If you would choose not to vote Rudy in that matchup, you must credibly argue that Hillary would be better...
There you go again. Stuck in the same old "this election is all that matters" fog. Again, the long view says I only have to be of a conviction that my voting for either (or any) immoral, social liberal would go against my convictions.
To justify committing not to vote for a candidate in the general election, you have to explain why we'd be better off at least on that issue with the Democrat alternative. Elections have consequences, and we don't get to pretend later on that we are not accountable for our contributions to those consequences.
I don't have to explain anything of the sort. Yes, elections have consequences. And I'm tired of holding myself accountable for going against my principles and my gut instinct about candidates. I refuse to do it again.
Now that I realise the consequences of helping the party succeed in electing a social liberal, or a populist socialist, or a cultural relativist, or a compassionate conservative to this nation's highest office means that the party pecking order will be filled with people with similar bents that I find repugnant, I'm not all that keen on playing even a small part in it.
You see, there's this thing called "faith." Mine includes embracing the notion that standing on one's principles in the low matters of politics will ultimately result in greater good than caving into the shrieks of false or short-sighted harbingers.
For the record, Fred and Mitt are the only contenders that don't set my conservative compass completely askew. The rest are offal.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
All the philosophy and high minded rhetoric meaning NOTHING if the Dems get to pack the Supreme Court over the next eight years.
Yes, politics is a low business. The ONLY thing that truly matters is Winning. Those who feel the candidate is beneath their personal standards and refuse to vote for them only help us to Lose.
Win the WH, then the debates over socon/fiscon/policy/etc can be held in the Oval Office, guided by fellow conservatives.
Lose the WH, and you can kiss goodbye the Supreme Court, all the good work that has been done the last eight years, and any shot at accomplishing anything good for this nation.
A non-vote, or a vote for the Dem, is a vote for losing. Losing the GWOT, losing the gains we have made with GWB in the WH, losing SCOTUS.
I'm sure this anathema to the pipe and slippers crowd. To them conservativism and politics seem to be a game, an exercise of figuratives and theoreticals.
It is not.
Politics is about winning and losing.
A non-vote or a vote for the Dems is a vote for losing.
All the philosophy and high minded rhetoric meaning NOTHING if the Dems get to pack the Supreme Court over the next eight years.
And demagoging the Supreme Court issue is irrelevant if a side-effect of the next Republican president's election is the end of traditional conservatism's role in the party. It might keep appointments in the realm of acceptibly originalist for a time, but sliding the whole political spectrum to the left would mean that eventually originalism will disappear from the debate.
Yes, politics is a low business. The ONLY thing that truly matters is Winning. Those who feel the candidate is beneath their personal standards and refuse to vote for them only help us to Lose.
Yes, winning is everything in politics. But I think we disagree as to what constitutes a win. If people sharing my "personal standards" affect a loss in 2008 and it equals a Goldwater moment, then eventually it will become a win. Then, I'll just have to hope, pray and work to make sure that the party isn't hijacked back by the same kind of people who have run it into the ground this time.
Win the WH, then the debates over socon/fiscon/policy/etc can be held in the Oval Office, guided by fellow conservatives.
If that "guidance" is directed by folks who are anything akin to what we've had with this administration...no thanks. I'll pass.
Lose the WH, and you can kiss goodbye the Supreme Court, all the good work that has been done the last eight years, and any shot at accomplishing anything good for this nation.
We don't yet know how "good" the appointments of the last eight years have been. If you think you do, then I think you need to look at past GOP appointments that initially passed conservative muster and turned out to be long-term disasters.
A non-vote, or a vote for the Dem, is a vote for losing. Losing the GWOT, losing the gains we have made with GWB in the WH, losing SCOTUS.
Fearmongering in attempt enforce party loyalty is a desperate strategy that speaks volumes about how truly bad our choices are this time around.
I'm sure this anathema to the pipe and slippers crowd. To them conservativism and politics seem to be a game, an exercise of figuratives and theoreticals.
Playing to win long term is not any more an exercise in figuratives and theoreticals than playing to win short term. It's just a belief that sometimes delayed gratification is a greater good for future generations.
It is not.
Politics is about winning and losing.
A non-vote or a vote for the Dems is a vote for losing.
And winning today with no concern for tomorrow is a selfish and actually rather progressive notion. There's no conservatism at all in playing solely for immediate gratification with no consideration of the extended cost. If you're not capable of grasping the notion of a "good loss," then I can't help you get through this fog. I can only remind you that we would not have had Reagan without a good loss.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
Look, my #1 & 2 issues are the war and the courts, and in either case the consequences of a loss in 2008 will be with us for many decades. Ignoring that is dangerously short-sighted.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I'm pointing out what it is that I intend to do if the GOP nominee is morally inept (Giuliani), a socialist wearing conservative garments (Huckabee), or a cultural-relativist with a reckless bent regarding the Constitution (McCain).
There are many traditionalists these days who have decided that, upon considering dearth of conservative choices, they're simply not going swallow hard, vote for a pathetic party standard-bearer, and then pray they won't regret it again.
I don't have a "number one issue." I have a number one mode: Conserving the future of the republic as a salient, cohesive entity enmeshed in the continuity of an historically magnificent cultural thread.
If politics makes it so that conservatism, or "traditionalism" I suppose, is marginalized or excluded from the GOP, I surely don't need it. But I'll help by coming back to sweep up the ashes of what's left after the party implodes for lack of a moral compass, prudence and historical conscience. I think the Dems can live without any moral absolutes, but I don't think we can.
If Giuliani, McCain or Huckabee get the nomination and, as a result, the GOP finds it has severed it's already frayed ties to traditional conservatism, it really doesn't matter if we have a Republican president to appoint judges. Without conservative brakes knitted to the GOP's fabric, whatever originalist judges might be appointed during a Giuliani, McCain or Huckabee administration will likely be the last.
It seems a poor trade-off.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
Ilja says she can’t bring herself to vote for Rudy because “I can’t bring myself to vote for someone for President who believes it’s okay to take the life of an innocent, unborn baby.” So she threatens to vote for Hillary, someone who is even more aggressively pro-choice. The inconsistency with her principle in that is too plain, so we have to be charitable and assume that she only means to issue a protest vote for some also-ran pro-life candidate or perhaps not to vote at all. But the math exercise engaged with Leon shows that under possible scenarios her protest/non-vote may function just like an actual vote for Hillary. But never mind her principle of not voting for a pro-choice candidate; the real motivation is a long-term strategic play to gain power over the Republican party.
Mr. Finch gives us a screed on this strategy. Leaving aside all challenges to Mr. Finch’s assumptions about the future effects of his strategy – for if those assumptions fail there is nothing to redeem the predictable losses he already admits – let’s consider the present effect if every faction of the Republican coalition fashioned a creed from his screed.
No faction will compromise. That is treated as neglect of principle. Rather, every faction will demand preeminence for their own political goals/views or else make it known that they will happily see political power ceded to the opposing political party’s detestable candidate. One faction will get their nominee and be assured of losing in the general. As long as the MAD game is played, this same scenario will repeat in every election cycle. If everybody follows that strategy it is Lose-Lose.
Seems to me that I learned something about how and why I needed to play the game differently than this back in the sandbox. That strategy worked only if I was the only one who played it, but unfortunately for me, other people could play it too. And they did, because they didn’t like to make me king.
I’m just sayin’. If they can really make this work for them, then congratulations. I guess the rest of us can admire their ability to grab power over us. But… perhaps they have underestimated the blowback. There is no account of how that can be dealt with, but maybe they learned something in the sandbox that I didn’t. That might be a precious secret.
Unfortunately I don’t know it, so I am stuck with a different strategy of mutual sympathy, loyalty and a hope for some consequent accommodation. The alternative appears to me to be ruination.
I wholeheartedly agree with it (though not a Huck or Rudy supporter)
However, I think some people look at the issue from the point of view that if we support a Republican who is pretty bad on a certain issue (thought not as bad as the Democrat) we are betraying the soul of the party. I don't agree with this assertion, but I can understand the point of view of those who make it.