...but he apparently doesn't believe in voting for your principles.
Listened to much radio commentary today on the Arnie candidacy, and as usual there was much lamenting and rending of garments on the ironclad right; he’s not this, he’s not that, he said this, he sleeps with a Shriver, etc. I am always mystified by people who would rather die pure than live with imperfections. Every candidate will always disappoint, somehow. Any candidate with whom you agree 100% is probably unelectable. If your bumpersticker says DON’T BLAME ME, I VOTED FOR AYN RAND I'm not particularly impressed. 'Cause she’s dead and none of that stuff is going to happen. Doesn’t mean we can’t keep the ideas in play, but if you don’t vote because no candidate vows to privatize the sewage systems and disband the Food and Drug Administration, don’t come crying to me when your marginal tax rate hits 71 percent.
I'm not going to vote for someone who wishes to expand the problems we already have. I'm not going to vote for someone who stands contrary to the things I value. Most major politicial candidates fall in this category. It is possible some candidates deserve my vote, but that's on a case-by-case basis, as always.
I do believe in "stopgap voting" where my vote goes towards the candidate with the best chance of holding back the expansion of government and the necessary retraction in individual freedom. I also believe that he probably heard some stupid criticism of Schwarzenegger. But James isn't "impressed" when he comes across someone who refuses to compromise in their politics and philosophy. This is probably because he feels "Politics is the art of the compromise, after all."
That doesn't impress me at all. Particularly when that which is being compromised are our rights.
ATTENTION: Comments are closed. You are viewing my old blog, archived for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To find the current version of this entry, search here.
Well, you know me, I'm pretty uncompromising with my ideas and principles. If I were of legal age to vote, I would vote for someone that shared the same principles if he were on the ballot. If there isn't an agreeable candidate, then I honestly would rather not vote. But if, out of the two major candidates, one was really morally repugnant, I'd feel more comfortable using my vote to support someone who would at least uphold SOME of the principles that I find so important.
Lileks bases his statement on the fact that, as disappointing as it is to admit, good candidates don't stand much of a chance of winning at the moment. Very few people are willing to support candidates with clearly defined, consistent worldviews. Sure, a libertarian will win every once in a while in small elections, but what are the chances that one will win presidency in the upcoming election? Since it's unlikely that a libertarian vote would do much other than send a message, a lot of people would be more comfortable supporting the lesser of two evils in a really close election.
Yes, it's a compromise, but it's a good one. Ultimately, I think that giving a truly terrible candidate a better chance at winning is worse than compromising a few standards, mainly because you'll be giving up on even more standards by letting the worst win.
We're idealists, and it's a good thing. I just don't think we should adhere to our ideals so strictly that it ends up being detrimental to our goal in the long run.
Posted by: Erik on August 11, 2003 01:24 AM