You may think you know the answer. But think again.
“Who’s running for President?” This may seem like a silly question after two years of endless straw polls and pre-primary campaigning, a myriad of televised debates, and with enough declared and undeclared candidates in both parties to field opposing baseball teams. But two months before the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, I find that a vast number of people are still quite confused about this matter.
No, it isn’t that they can’t name the latest declared Republican candidate missing from the last debate (Alan Keyes), or that they’ve forgotten about the on-again off-again speculation on the Democrat side that Al Gore will jump into the race once he wins his Nobel Peace Prize for inventing man-made Global Warming. The reason for this confusion can be traced to a simple, but profoundly-neglected fact.
Those who think that Fred Thompson is running against Ron Paul, Rudy, John McCain and the other Republican nominees are just as confused as those who believe that Hillary is being challenged by Obama, Edwards and the rest of the Democrat political dwarfs. This contest isn’t the one that matters. It’s the lineup in August-November 2008 that counts, when the Republican nominee faces the Democrat nominee before the national electorate. The race for president is between the Republican and Democrat candidates, period. Everything else is just a side-show.
Okay. You all knew this. So you think there’s nothing profound in having this basic fact of American politics repeated once again. But if this was really the case, why would anyone expend a moment’s energy debating whether Mitt represents your own personal political philosophy better than Huckabee, Tancredo, Rudy or Paul? That’s not the question on the table. The question is, what makes you think any one of these guys can beat Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Obama or Al Gore in a head-to-head race for the White House?
It’s at this point that I’m usually lectured about the critical importance of supporting a candidate with the correct political philosophy, ethical conduct, and previous track record that when taken together, will assure me that he/she will indeed do in office what they said they would do on the campaign circuit. And it’s at this point that I usually confound my critics by completely agreeing with what they said. My ideal candidate would be a person who thinks as I do, possesses the highest personal and professional integrity, and has demonstrated his/her ability to govern effectively. I just add one additional element to this mix. I want them to be able to win the election, so all these great things can be put into practice.
Focusing on a candidate’s electability is not the same thing as selling your soul for a political victory, despite the protests of the politically pure who insist that only their candidate represents True Conservative thought, and therefore deserves our support. Elections serve two purposes. The primaries allow individual candidates to test their ideas both within their own party structure, as well as giving the general public a taste of what to expect in the coming election. The Vegan wing of the Republican or Democrat party may put up a candidate who faithfully expresses the Vegan worldview. But if the rest of the beef-eating primary and general election voters find that philosophy difficult to swallow (pardon the pun), then Vegan-boy hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the election.
Sure, his Vegan-awareness campaign may help raise public consciousness a notch or two. In this case, fertile ground has been prepared for Vegan-boy II to run for office in 2012, and perhaps change history this way. But the future is just that. The election at hand involves the present, and this is where an actual decision must be made by Vegan-boy’s supporters. Launching a third party to give voters a “Vegan choice” won’t win the White House. At best the Vegan-voters cast irrelevant votes. At worst, they vote for someone like Perot in 1992 and Nader in 2000, and help insure that the other candidate gets into power.
This wouldn’t be so bad if the choice was between third party Vegan and mainstream party Vegetarian. The oceans might be missing a few more fish if Vegetarian-boy takes the oath of office, but Bessie the cow and other animal friends would be just as safe. But rarely is this the case when a third party run is made. To drop the now-painful analogies and speak plainly, the third party candidate is out of the mainstream, and by taking his supporters with him, not only helps insure that his former party loses, but that a completely opposite philosophy wins! The same outcome occurs when there is no third party run, but a significant number of party voters sit on their hands because “their guy” (and “their view”) isn’t fully represented by the individual who actually won the party’s nomination.
I’ve never understood the philosophy that “it’s better for the other side to win and teach our guys a lesson,” than support our party’s nominee who, though less than perfect, is vastly better than the other guy/gal. Winning is always better than losing, when winning carries with it the power to make public policy, and losing severely restricts that ability. This applies to such things as illegal immigration, foreign policy, fiscal matters and abortion politics. It’s better to control these issues with a flawed candidate, than surrender power over these issues to an even-more flawed candidate.
We don’t burn our own house down to teach it a lesson for giving us high heating bills, or let our kids run with scissors to prove we’re right when we said such things are dangerous. We don’t practice self-destructive policies in our own lives, so why would we want to follow that path in the political arena? Consider this scenario. Your daughter has been dating two men. She finally makes up her mind, and brings home the man she wants to marry. But he goes to the wrong church, is in debt more than you’d like him to be, has certain socially-liberal beliefs, and would not object to a woman aborting her child if that was her so-called “choice.” This horrifies you, so you express yourself vocally and/or refuse to speak to her again until she breaks off the engagement. She still resists, so you introduce her to the guy you’d like her to marry. But she rejects him.
However, because of your opposition she does not marry the flawed man she originally intended to. You claim a moral victory. But then reality sets in. Instead of the flawed man she originally chose, she marries her second choice. And your new son-in-law is a man who may go to the right church, but is in debt up to his eyeballs (and expects you to bail him out); supports not merely liberal, but radical social policies; and is on the board of directors of NARAL.
Yes, I know that in real life your daughter would have more than two choices in a husband, but go ahead and stick yourself on a semi-deserted island with no hope of rescue, and these two men are the only available marriage partners (except for the nerdy guy living in the lean-to down the trail). The point is, in real life we can express our beliefs, and try to persuade others to accept them as their own. But we can’t force other people to believe what we do. The choices in life that we have aren’t between perfect and flawed. More often than not they’re between flawed and more-flawed. Like it or not, both of the people running for president in 2008 will possess qualities and philosophies we dislike, or even reject. Unless you are prepared to write your own name in at election time, any candidate you support will have flaws — some of them quite serious.
So what do you do? Remain pure, and insure that an even-more hideous outcome will prevail? Just how does electing a staunch supporter of expanded abortion rights vs. a pro-choice candidate who claims he will appoint strict constructionist justices advance the anti-abortion cause? You may feel morally pure by voting for a third party candidate, or simply sitting the election out. But your moral superiority just helped kill a whole bunch more innocent children than otherwise would have been slaughtered. The same argument can be made for any other policy that you hold dear, and is not completely embraced by your party’s nominee.
Which leads back to the main question posed by this essay. In the primary, vote for the candidate you see as best fitting the country’s needs, as you envision it. But once the primary season has ended, the choice is between the Republican and Democrat nominees. If your guy lost the primary battle, take the fight up again in 2012 — and help lay the groundwork for a successful campaign in the four years preceding the next election. But in 2008, there’s a different, concrete choice on the table. Walk away and feel good about yourself, or actually participate in the political process.
The choice for president will be between the Democrat and Republican nominees. Wishing someone else was running is irrelevant. One of these two people will become president, and you must choose between the two of them. It’s a political contest, not a litmus test for True Conservatism or getting into Heaven. Ignoring that fact will help elect someone who is even more hostile to your views.
It’s not just the choice we face in 2008. It’s the only choice in 2008.
Jackson-ic@hotmail.com
http://www.scifi-jackson.com/
Read more articles by Phillip Ellis Jackson
[…] Wisdom of the EDGE wrote an interesting post today on Who’s Running for President?Here's a quick excerpt You may think you know the answer. But think again. * * * “Who’s running for President?” This may seem like a silly question after two years of endless straw polls and pre-primary campaigning, a myriad of televised debates, and with enough declared and undeclared candidates in both parties to field opposing baseball teams Posted in Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy ( 476 links from 308 sites) […]
Pingback by UK Debt Blog » Who’s Running for President? | October 12, 2007
The Founding Fathers were very good, but they were not perfect. Many of them very expressly opposed the formation of political parties, but the "winner take all" voting system they devised has inevitably devolved to a two-party system.
Better than just voting in primaries is also working to change the voting system itself - something like "instant-runoff voting" or the "Borda count" would distribute representation more fairly. (There are a lot more interesting political ideas than just what's in the Democratic or Republican platforms.) Even without that, sites like votepair.org allow people to vote a little more strategically than just for one of the two "main party" candidates.
The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils is that you're still voting for evil…
Comment by Raymond Ingles | October 12, 2007
"One of these two people will become president…"
Almost certainly true.
"… and you must choose between the two of them."
Absolutely false. The two party system is nowhere found in the Constitution. Where is it written that either the GOP or the Dems own my vote? A vote for a third party is actually a more powerful vote, because it is a vote to move in a particular direction away from Social Democrat Party A and slightly less Social Democrat Party B. It is a vote of dissatisfaction with the status quo. It is a vote that can not be misinterpreted. A vote for one of the major party candidates is an endorsement of the status quo and the current direction. A disgruntled vote counts just the same as an enthusiastic vote, and both are interpreted as an endorsement of more of the same.
Voting third party is actually one of the strongest political statements you can make.
Comment by Dan Phillips | October 12, 2007
Raymond: How can we identify real "evil" if that moral judgment is always relative? :)
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 12, 2007
Dan: So nice of you to tear yourself away from the article you promised us on September 3 about “what I think we ought to do about immigration,” other than mouth lofty slogans and talk about the importance of the Articles of Confederation. When you do get around to completing the task, could you find your way to actually offering a real world policy instead of regurgitating your belief that paleoconservatism is the True Conservatism, that everyone else is acting unconstitutionally, that neocons are unprincipled, that you reject liberal baseline assumptions, and that the natural order demands only one course of action which we should all infer from the above, because you still haven’t gotten around to telling us what we should actually do? Or are we just going to be treated to another long preamble about what you believe philosophically, rather than what the nation ought to do in concrete practical terms?
I take it you actually haven’t read this essay either, otherwise you wouldn’t be making the statements you had about the impact of a 3rd part vote in the general election. But then again, I forget that for you, it’s always the theory that’s important. How things like this play out in the real world are not relevant. I’m sure the Nader people felt the same way about the principled vote they cast in Florida in 2000. It elected a man who pursued the exact opposite foreign policy that you advocate.
But then again, why let the details of what a third party vote in the general election actually does get in the way of a perfectly good political theory?
Rather than just restate your political opinions again devoid of any practical consideration, why not spend the time fulfilling your promise of September 3 to actually give us a concrete plan of action that flows from paleoconservative thought, instead of restating your beliefs yet one more time?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 12, 2007
Good grief Phil, you are like a disgruntled spouse. Always dragging up stuff from the past with each new fight. And you have a memory like an elephant. You aren’t particularly facile at manipulating all that data that is in your brain, but it’s in there alright.
And it is just like you to assume that ignorant ol’ me must not have read your article because I failed to agree with your obviously enlightened opinions. I did read your article. It was just like every other apology for rank political pragmatism that I have ever read in the age old purist vs. pragmatist debate. A debate which seems to be very common these days with the potential nomination of a flagrant lib like Rudy and brave souls like Dobson objecting. So if conservatives bolt we might end up electing Hillary? You don’t say? I’ve never heard that objection before. Except maybe a few thousand times.
Although I will give you some credit. Your argument, which was essentially a rehash of the anybody but Hillary/Kerry/Gore/Dukakis argument, was somewhat novel and proves my point. A decent God-fearing Father would insist his daughter marry a decent God-fearing man. Not perfect, but acceptable. That is the point of that old tradition that I’m sure a progressive like you scoff at of the gentleman suitor asking the father for PERMISSION to marry his daughter. Which the father is free to not grant. I know, as a conservative I am full of quaint, antiquated ideas.
The GOP coming home with Rudy is precisely analogous to your daughter coming home with the town ne’er-do-well. As a decent father you say “I don’t think so!” Well a decent conservative should do the same thing. Not only is Rudy not perfect. He is not acceptable.
But my first reply was not at all guilty of being about theory only. It was a very practical explanation for why voting third party is actually a more strategic vote than just voting for one of the designated Social Democrats.
Can we just have this argument for now? Then you can deride my immigration article once I get around to writing it.
Comment by Dan Phillips | October 12, 2007
“Good grief Phil, you are like a disgruntled spouse. Always dragging up stuff from the past with each new fight. And you have a memory like an elephant. You aren’t particularly facile at manipulating all that data that is in your brain, but it’s in there alright.”
** Nah. I just pegged you for an empty suit a long time ago. You have absolutely nothing of any substance to offer. You get out of one embarrassing situation by promising to actually offer something tangible on the subject at “a later time” (do a word search on this on all your previous comments), hoping that we’ll all just forget you had nothing to say then, and will offer nothing new in the future. And when you’re reminded of what you said, and that we’re all still waiting for you to actually offer a substantive comment instead of a political slogan, you continue to dodge the issue by talking about your nagging wife. Interesting that you would choose this phrase to describe a marital situation, given your expertise in psychiatry. Calling Dr. Freud!
My error in assuming that you didn’t actually read my article. “Comprehend” would have been a better description. Even a high school civics class student knows that from a practical standpoint — that is, actually impacting the outcome of an election, instead of just mouthing your favorite political philosophy — “a vote for a third party is actually a more powerful vote”, and “a disgruntled vote counts just the same as an enthusiastic vote” is practical political sophistry. All it does is help elect an even worse choice for president.
Of course, all I have to back up my assessment is the actual outcome of Presidential politics since the inception of our nation’s history. You have your True Conservative philosophy.
As for your “first reply [being] a very practical explanation for why voting third party is actually a more strategic vote than just voting for one of the designated Social Democrats”, you might want to look up the word “practical” in the dictionary and apply it to the 2008 Presidential race. I know that you think the Ron Paul juggernaut is transforming American politics, but I’m intensely curious to know how, from a “practical” standpoint, voting for a 3rd party will keep Hillary out of the White House in 2008?
I know that it’s an uncomfortable topic to have to actually apply your philosophy to real world politics, instead of just mouth slogans and self-label them “practical.” But we’re all waiting to understand your electoral strategy that will elect someone other than Hillary by directing votes away from the Republican nominee.
The discussion point is November 2008. Please try to keep that in mind as you philosophize about what the founders did or didn’t intend to do, what is constitutional or unconstitutional, the importance of a natural hierarchical social order, and why Aristotle had it right in the first place. Just how many electoral votes will this produce for a third party candidate thirteen months from now?
PS: Don’t worry about delaying your opus on the practical politics of immigration policy. It’s been 6 weeks since you first said you’d write it to get out of the last conversation, and by your own admission you haven’t even begun to work on it yet. No one really believed you were serious then about having anything substantive to offer, and no one does now. You’re just an empty suit who likes to tell us all the best way to live our lives – in theory – but can’t actually offer any substantive advice in practice.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 12, 2007
"You get out of one embarrassing situation by promising to actually offer something tangible on the subject at “a later time”"
"Embarrassing situation?" That’s right Phil You've nailed me. That was my motive alright. I was embarrassed by the fact that a PC grandstander had me cornered so I had to flee or else risk expressing an un-PC thought. Whatever, Phil. You flatter yourself.
You have identified the difference between you and me, very well. My chief aim has never been to keep Hillary out of office. Especially not by endorsing with my vote a lib with an R behind his name like Rudy McRomson. That clearly appears to be your aim. My aim is to restore the Constitution. Drawing a line in the sand and tanking an unfaithful GOP nominee would actually go a whole lot further toward that goal than would voting for some fraud like Rudy McRomson. If conservative constitutionalists vote for Rudy McRomson then they will demonstrate that they can be easily had. That they are totally in the pocket of the GOP based on "anybody but X" and judges. Tanking the GOP nominee will show that we can not be so easily had. Then next time maybe they will nominate someone at least marginally acceptable.
Comment by Dan Phillips | October 12, 2007
Phil,
I think Dan's point is that the difference between Clinton and Giuliani isn't big enough for him to care who wins. From that perspective, voting for an a third party candidate whom he admires makes sense.
Your argument implies that it is not worth voting for anyone who doesn't have a chance of winning. If that's the case, what do you tell people who live in overwhelmingly blue or red states? A Republican has about as much chance of winning the District of Columbia as Ron Paul has of winning the Republican nomination. Does that mean DC Republicans should stay home or vote for the Democratic candidate, just as the Ron Paul crowd should suck it up and vote Giuliani?
One related point of difference between you and Dan: You are looking at this from the perspective of how bad you would feel if you voted for a third party candidate and Rudy lost to Hillary by one vote. Dan is looking at this from the perspective of whom he would like to see as President. I don't think either perspective is more respectable than the other. I'd vote for Rudy, but only because I think he's significantly less bad than Hillary. But if I thought that they were equally terrible, or that Rudy was only barely less bad than Hillary, I could very easily, and with a clean conscience, vote for a third party candidate, or not vote at all.
I also don't think it's fair to call someone "an empty suit" because he prefers political philosophy to pragmatic politics. Dan is not beyond the bounds of reason in valuing philosophical correctness over electoral votes. You shouldn't be so hard on "theory." I forget who said that although "a theory without a fact" is bad, "a fact without a theory" isn't much better.
Comment by Katzen | October 13, 2007
My follow-up comment appears to be hung up in the filter.
Comment by Dan Phillips | October 14, 2007
"My follow-up comment appears to be hung up in the filter".
*** Unless you plan on telling us how many electoral votes your "practical" third-party vote option will produce in 2008 to defeat the Democrat nominee, then once again all we'll be treated to is your political sloganeering.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 14, 2007
Dr. Jackson, I hope that I'm just misreading the tone of your comment, since I put quite a bit of effort into explaining why the kinds of moral judgement that we discussed a while back - which aren't directly relevant to voting strategies - aren't relative. Any comments on what I actually discussed here? :)
Comment by Raymond Ingles | October 14, 2007
“My chief aim has never been to keep Hillary out of office.”
*** Of course it hasn’t! To you, the November 2008 election has nothing to do with voting into office a person who will exercise tremendous political authority — nationally and internationally — over the next 4 years. It’s just an opportunity to use the electoral system to promote your pet political beliefs. Why would you care if a corrupt, pro-abortion socialist takes the White House when you have a chance to cast a vote for a fringe candidate that means nothing electorially, except to help insure that the corrupt pro-abortion socialist takes power?
Nothing you’ve ever written is designed to give any concrete, practical guidance to address present day problems. This is because, like the Far Left I wrote about a few essays ago, the political philosophy you espouse has absolutely nothing to do with present-day reality. It’s just a bunch of feel-good, empty-rhetoric sloganeering about the importance of “kith and kin”, and a “natural hierarchical social order”, and other such tripe.
Heaven forbid that anything you say should have anything to do with the actual issues and choices our nation confronts. And heaven forbid that I should believe anything you say about actually offering a concrete, Paleo-inspired policy to deal with immigration, as you said you would 6 weeks ago. In the south, where you and I both live, a man’s word is his bond. Now we know by your own admission that you’ll say anything you need to in one of these comment sections just to end a debate that you voluntarily entered. And when you are called upon to live up to your word and actually produce something of substance, you’ll just slander the person reminding you of YOUR OWN WORDS and walk away, saying that you never intended to do anything of the sort. Why should anyone ever believe anything you say from this point on?
Dan, you can’t offer anything of substance because it’s painfully obvious that you have nothing of substance to offer. All you have is your rhetoric and labels for people who disagree with your pet philosophy. You are a texbook example of “How [not] to Fix a Problem”, going back to my essay where you made your fingers-crossed-behind-your-back non-commitment commitment to rise to the occasion for once and tell us all what to do, in practical terms, in a way that actually relate to the choices we have, and the real-world consequences that flow from those choices.
The fact that you think that voting 3rd party in November 2008, regardless of the impact it has on the electoral vote, is an example of a “practical” way to influence the 2008 elections (the subject of this present essay which you claim to have read), speaks volumes about why I refer to your conclusions as an empty suit.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 14, 2007
Raymond — It was a lighthearted reference to our past debate. Sorry if I implied anything not intended. You and I had a good honest exchange, and I appreciate that. Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 14, 2007
“I think Dan’s point is that the difference between Clinton and Giuliani isn’t big enough for him to care who wins. From that perspective, voting for an a third party candidate whom he admires makes sense.”
*** Katzen. I don’t believe for a second that this is what Dan suggested. His exact words were: “A vote for a third party is actually a more powerful vote, because it is a vote to move in a particular direction away from Social Democrat Party A and slightly less Social Democrat Party B. It is a vote of dissatisfaction with the status quo. It is a vote that can not be misinterpreted. A vote for one of the major party candidates is an endorsement of the status quo and the current direction. A disgruntled vote counts just the same as an enthusiastic vote, and both are interpreted as an endorsement of more of the same. Voting third party is actually one of the strongest political statements you can make.”
Dan’s comment was about the need to vote 3rd party, not about the need to vote 3rd party if, and only if, Rudy is nominated. If Ron Paul ran again as a 3rd party candidate, does anything Dan said above suggest that he would support Mitt, or McCain, or any other top-tier Republican nominee? No. It isn’t just Rudy. Dan views all non-paleo/libertarian candidates as indistinguishable (which is why he is unconcerned whether Hillary gets elected or not.) Hillary or Rudy, Hillary or McCain, Hillary or Mitt — there’s not one meaningful iota of difference to Dan. This is patently absurd, and pure ideological bilge. Or, to put it in other terms, the thinking of an empty suit.
“Your argument implies that it is not worth voting for anyone who doesn’t have a chance of winning. If that’s the case, what do you tell people who live in overwhelmingly blue or red states?”
*** Presidential coattails have an impact on congressional, state, and local elections, even in an all red or blue state. These elections ultimately affect things like congressional redistricting, which further impact policy. The place to exercise your ideological choice for President is in the primaries, as I detailed in my essay. Ron Paul, Tom Tancrado, Brownback, etc are running for the Republican nomination. If Ron Paul can’t get the nomination, then that philosophy has been rejected by the party members/voters. It makes no more sense for them to go 3rd party than it would for Mitt, McCain, etc. to run as independents if Rudy wins. Use the next 4 years to do a better job of convincing the country that your philosophy is the best one, and make another run in 2012 as I also suggested in my essay. This is how power is acquired in the real world, and wishing it was different is not a practical option.
“You are looking at this from the perspective of how bad you would feel if you voted for a third party candidate and Rudy lost to Hillary by one vote. Dan is looking at this from the perspective of whom he would like to see as President. I don’t think either perspective is more respectable than the other.”
*** I’m saying that a 3rd party vote in November 2008 is a complete and utter waste, from an electoral standpoint — the only standpoint that matters in a presidential election. The only possible good it will do is help elect an even worse president for those who think their party’s candidate is bad. And history is on my side on this.
Dan’s philosophy of voting for the candidate you can best philosophically support makes sense in the primary process, which I stated in my essay. Refusing to acknowledge the practical consequences of going 3rd party after your guy lost the primary isn’t just a different point of view. It’s a boneheaded strategy that refuses to acknowledge the practical electoral consequences of that action.
“I also don’t think it’s fair to call someone “an empty suit” because he prefers political philosophy to pragmatic politics.”
*** Philosophers who keep their discussions on a philosophical level are not empty suits. Philosophers who construct abstract theories that bear no relationship to the nuts and bolts way that real world issues are presently addressed, and then contend that their abstract theories are practical guides to present-day action, are empty suits.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 14, 2007
A general comment to all —
I want to expand on a few things I said to Katzen, and also place this whole issue in perspective.
Reality is the thing that always gets in way of the political philosopher. Ask someone living life how to get to the corner store, and he’ll say something like “go three block, turn left at the stop sign, then go two more blocks and it’s on the left.” Ask a politcal philosopher the same question, and he’ll tell you that the bond program used to build the road was unconstitutional, that the road itself is too wide or two narrow, and that we need to vote in a new City Council. All of this may or may not be true, but the main point is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the practical matter at hand: how do I get to the store in the next 5 minutes?
Whether the two party system is found in the Constitution or not is not relevant to the choice we will have to make in November 2008. To cite this as first reason why we should go the 3rd party route in 2008 [comment 3] is nonsensical. Constitionally-sanctioned or not, the present day presidential political system is a two party race between the Democrats and Republicans. Wishing it was otherwise is not the basis for forming a “practical” action plan for 2008.
Now, if anyone is really interested in breaking up the current two party system, instead of telling us what Aristotle thought about 21st century American political practices, they should take a cue from the actual way that American politics functions. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and a bunch of others have tried to create a top-down three party system. Not only did they fail and subsequently vanish from the scene, their only “practical” impact was to help the other team win!
A genuine third party is built from the ground up, starting with local, municipal and state elections, and through this work its way into the big leagues. Only this provides the long-term foundation necessary to achieve sustained national electoral success. But such an approach requires years of hard work and, dare I say, “practical” effort. Political philosophers have no patience for getting their hands dirty on a grass-roots level (unless you count the ink stains on their fingernails from writing their polemics). They have no interest in dealing with the minutiae of every-day life (which is what real elections involve); unless, of course, it’s to provide another polemical platform to educate us on why Lincoln was a tyrant, why we need to return to the Articles of Confederation, and how the natural hierarchical social order is supposed to function.
Philosophers will tell you that addressing these questions will lead to the correct answers about tax policy, immigration policy, foreign policy, etc. And perhaps they may … at some distant future point when the “practical” foundation has been laid to elect people to office to implement these views. But until that time comes, it’s just a lot of hot air like so many others with differing (and equally strongly-held) political opinions.
Regarding my ongoing disagreement with Dan and some of the other paleos who occasionally enter these discussions, my dispute with Dan is not personal, though it has become personalized because of the things I pointed out in Comments #5 and 13. There’s just so much empty rhetoric I can suffer in the guise of offering a “practical” guide to present-day politics. Katzen and I disagree on such things as the nature of the Constitution and the beginning of human life, yet neither of us disrespect the other. Why? Because unlike the political sloganeers I detest, Katzen, Mountain Man, Steve Sabin and others with whom I’ve disagreed publicly at times are at least prepared to enter into an honest debate about the issues being discussed. Some of them have strong philosophical convictions equal to or greater than Dan’s (i.e. a fundamental belief in the Bible as a basis for guiding human behavior). Yet when discussing contemporary politics, we don’t get the equivalent of “Jesus said it, so that’s all there is to say about it.”
To summarize the last paragraphs of the essay I wrote, the question on the table is which candidate — Democrat or Republican — will be elected in 2008, and how/why voting for a 3rd party in 2008 will affect that election. I’m still waiting to hear about how many electoral votes a third party candidate will garner in November 2008, since “a vote for a third party is actually a more powerful vote”, and “a disgruntled vote counts just the same as an enthusiastic vote.”
The answer, by the way, is “Zero” for the third party candidate, and enough to help the Democrat candidate win in 2008.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 14, 2007
Phillip,
Let me preface an honest question I have with this: In all the polls, Rudy beats Hillary–anyone who would sit that vote out because of Rudy's social liberalism is complicit in betraying our brave soldiers into the hands of a woman who will stab them in the back and sell the blood off the knife to our enemies. Her husband was no different.
But my question springs from this scenario: Rudy wins. He appoints two justices of Scalia's judicial temper. They overturn Roe v. Wade. Legislation passes both Houses banning abortion except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Would Rudy veto it?
I would still vote for him even if the answer were "yes" because I believe the salient issue of our time is national defense, and while Hillary may screech tough, she is blood in the water to the Islamic sharks. I believe that Rudy scares them and will prosecute the war on terror with even more tenacity than Bush has.
I'm curious about the abortion scenario though. What do you think?
Jim
Comment by Jim | October 15, 2007
That's why I asked, Dr. Jackson - it's far too easy to mistake tone when you're just reading words instead of hearing someone's voice. Glad to know I'd misread it.
In any case, you're correct that the current two-party situation won't just fade away - it'll take work over quite a while. I think techniques like the vote-pairing I mentioned will help to expose voter differences that are currently concealed by the status quo. Once there's more awareness of existing voter discontent with the available choices, the work you discussed - grassroots organizing and so forth - will be much easier and more productive.
(Vote-pairing, BTW, involves people in swing states 'trading' their votes with people in more solidly-set states. E.g. someone in Ohio voting for a Republican to help ensure a Republican victory there, though ideally they'd prefer a Libertarian candidate. In exchange, a Republican in, say, Maine (where there's little chance of a Republican victory anyway) will vote for a Libertarian candidate. Both voters get what they are looking for.)
There are already issues with the current parties. The Republican party has long had trouble holding together the various threads of conservatives; tension between fiscal and social conservatives is well-known. A split along more laissez-faire versus socially interventionist lines wouldn't be that surprising a few election cycles from now. Such splits have happened to parties in the past.
A large amount of vote-pairing would be noticed by the major parties, and would noticeably influence their actions. They'd be interested in preventing such splits and preserving the impression that they are the only possible options. This would be an effective way for third parties to influence (I didn't say dominate, of course) policy through the 2008 election.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | October 15, 2007
Thanks Katzen. That was a good summary. BTW, I am not sure that Phil has anything against political theory per se. He is guided by an underlying theory (or world view or assumptions or however you want to describe it) the same as we all are. He just doesn't like my theory because he thinks it leads to un-PC results. Never mind that it is the theory that has been guiding successful civilizations for centuries. It violates his Enlightenment inspired ideas, and he can't stand it.
Phil, you really need to step back and take a deep breath. I posted one comment and immediately you go into diatribe mode. You end up not being able to see past your emotions. My discussion on why voting third party makes sense was all about practical politics. Very little theory involved. But since I didn't come to your conclusion that the highest good is defeating Hillary, you immediately declare that I have my head in the clouds.
Do you really want to define a movement by a negative? Where the highest good is mitigating the bad? Where the chief aim is defeating the other guy? What kind of a vision is that?
“A genuine third party is built from the ground up, starting with local, municipal and state elections, and through this work its way into the big leagues.”
As someone who is an expert in political science you should know better than that. That is actually not at all true. Historically reasonably successful third party campaigns (meaning getting Electoral College votes and/or getting a decent percentage of the total vote) for president have focused around particular leaders and particular issues. TR’s Bull Moose Party. Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrats. George Wallace’s independent campaign. Ross Perot’s independent /Reformed Party campaign. Because they were built around personalities and/or galvanizing issues they did not endure. The prototypical third party, the Republicans, essentially replaced the Whig Party in a matter of two election cycles.
Remember that George Wallace had a decent shot of getting the Democratic nomination in ‘72 before he was shot, and had Ross Perot not flaked out, he easily could have won in ’92. Before he quit the campaign he was leading the three way race.
In fact, I am not sure I can think of any successful third party that started at the grassroots local level and trudging it out over the years and repeated election cycles became a force. I guess it depends on how you define success. There are third parties such as the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party that are enduring. They have been around a while and can be reliably counted on to be on the ballot in a lot of states, but our winner take all system does not reward minor parties. Success for a third party is really to replace one of the two parties, as the Republican Party replaced the Whigs. Or third parties and their ideas get incorporated into one of the major parties. As the Dems incorporated the populists and Socialists. The GOP incorporated the Wallace voters (over a few election cycles) and arguably the GOP incorporated the Perot voters in ‘94.
Since you are a fair minded man, I am sure I can count on your support for removing ballot access barriers to third parties, since those are obvious and blatant attempts to suppress dissent and enshrine the current two parties.
BTW, Phil I don’t recall putting a time frame on my immigration article. I also owe an article on what a non-interventionist foreign policy would look like. I am a busy man. I have a job, a bunch of kids, and a wife who doesn’t want me hanging around on the computer all the time. I have my own blog and other sites where I post comments. Just hold you horses. You’ll get your immigration article.
Comment by Dan Phillips | October 15, 2007
What Phil is saying is that it's okay to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, as long as the candidate is a Republican. God will understand the midigating circumstances. Remember what Jesus said…it's party loyality first, morality second..and the ends justify the means.
And all this time you thought that truth was absolute…
GreginNY
Comment by GreginNY | October 15, 2007
GreginNY, maybe you can help me out. I have been looking for that Bible verse that says the ends justifies the means, and I just can't find it. Do you know where that verse is? Although I don’t think Phil allows his universal moral code to be based on the Bible. That would be too particularistic and exclusionary.
"In all the polls, Rudy beats Hillary–anyone who would sit that vote out because of Rudy’s social liberalism is complicit in betraying our brave soldiers into the hands of a woman who will stab them in the back and sell the blood off the knife to our enemies."
Jim, what are you talking about? First, I am not suggesting "sitting out" the election. That does no one any good. I am suggesting that if the nominee is unacceptable then people should vote third party. Second, how is Hillary going to "stab our soldiers in the back?" (Using your reckoning of stabbing in the back.) Hillary is a globalist, interventionist CFR type. She is doing her best to appear as hawkish as possible without totally ticking off the anti-war Democrats. Rudy's foreign policy is more neocon than Bush. Norman Podhoretz is his foreign policy adviser. And David "End of Evil" Frum has just signed on as an adviser. Did you see Giuliani's ghostwritten article in Foreign Affairs? Talk about not reality based. Rudy's foreign policy scares me.
It would be stabbing our soldiers in the back to send them on more crusades to stamp out evil that keyboard warriors like Frum and N Pod dream up. Non-intervention is the only conservative foreign policy.
Comment by Dan Phillips | October 16, 2007
“I’m curious about the abortion scenario though. What do you think?”
Jim: I wrote about this issue previously in “Should we nominate a pro-choice Republican” (it’s in the IC archives).
Rudy says he will nominate strict constructionist judges. We assumed the same thing from Reagan, and got Sandra Day O’Conner. So even with a staunch conservative like Reagan, you can still end up with someone who goes off the reservation despite your intentions.
The issue isn’t between who Hillary will nominate to SCOTUS or who Ron Paul will (unless Paul gets the Republican nomination and wins the election). It’s between who Hillary, the presumptive Democrat nominee will appoint, and which one of the top tier Republican candidates gets the nod.
While Rudy — once elected — may end up in a situation like Reagan, or in fact goes ahead and nominates a non-strict constructionist in the first place, the fact remains that whoever he nominates will be far less than the flaming Liberal Hillary nominates. This is the political reality we face as I wrote in this essay. The actual choice we have isn't between perfect and flawed, but flawed and less flawed.
Dan sees absolutely no difference between “Rudy McRomson” and Hillary Clinton (Comment 8). Only an ideologue would believe that McCain would do exactly the same things in office as Hillary, or Mitt and Hillary, or Rudy and Hillary, etc. This is why ideologues have precious little of substance to offer about practical politics. Like it or not, if you want to exercise political power in the current American political system, you have to play within the present political framework, not wish there was a parliamentary system in place. This means that the desire to influence abortion policies must be tackled through the actual abilities of each branch of government to impact those policies. And it also means weighing a variety of other factors in the mix (like you and I both have regarding your security and terrorism comments) as we actually go about the process of choosing a president.
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 16, 2007
I don't know why a happy face appeared in my last response. It was written as Comment eight.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 16, 2007
“That’s why I asked, Dr. Jackson - it’s far too easy to mistake tone when you’re just reading words instead of hearing someone’s voice. Glad to know I’d misread it.”
*** Raymond: I’m not a happy-face kind of guy when I normally write. I’ll try to leave less subtle clues when I write in the future!
Regarding vote pairing and other techniques like this, I helped re-write the Charter for the city of Dallas several years ago. Things that look great on paper are almost-universally rejected by the voters if they seem too odd or manipulative. There is a tremendous amount of political education required — spanning generations — that would be necessary to overcome the belief that “one man one vote” means a vote for one man in one place at one time, period. Add to this that the Constitution itself would have to be amended, and the practical obstacles are overwhelming.
I’ve often lamented that it would be easier given our political system if we had Conservative-Liberal parties rather than Republican-Democrat. But in reality this wouldn’t work either. Dan and I would both gravitate to the Conservative side of the spectrum, but soon he’d be off forming the True Conservative party while telling everyone that I had transformed the original Conservative party into the neocon PC Marxist wing of the new Social Democrat party yada yada. So, there will always be dissatisfaction among the fringe elements on both sides, regardless of what you call yourself.
The main problem I see with these third party analyses is that they presume that the US system operates like a parliamentary system. We don’t, by design. Our present-day system took decades/centuries to evolve. Changing it will require hard work at a grass roots level which is something the ideologues don’t care to do. Their solutions are fantasies that allow them to vent their protest votes, but don’t actually accomplish anything of substance (except to help elect the other guy). It’s because despite their constant refrain that they actually care about influencing policy, when the opportunity arises to work within the existing structure to exercise real influence, they opt to cast a protest vote instead. They do this because they know their opinions are fringe beliefs, and they lack the ability or perseverance to affect real change. If they stay within the two party system they will suffer the indignity of being regarded as kooks, so they create their own party (the way disgruntled preachers create their own church) so they can magnify (in their own minds) their sense of importance.
They accomplish nothing of any real substance, but since this was never a serious goal of theirs in the first place, it doesn’t matter to them. The only way they can make people “listen” to them is to hurt their former party by helping to throw the election to the opposite party. This “punishment” is a rather sad commentary for people who profess to be motivated by values and core beliefs, but in actual practice don’t care if someone like Hillary becomes president because their guy didn’t get the Republican party nomination.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 16, 2007
Dan,
Hillary would use the military exactly as her focus-groups want her to. The incident in Mogadishu under her husband's incompetence will be a taste of things to come. Also, I doubt that military personnel consider liberating over 50 million people, backstabbing. Non-intervention didn't stop the Nazis, Russian Communists, and it will only encourage global jihadism.
Did voting for Ross Perot help conservatism? A vote for a third party is a vote for Hillary, pure and simple.
Comment by Jim | October 16, 2007
“Thanks Katzen. That was a good summary.”
*** It actually was Dan, but not for the reasons you think. Katzen said “I think Dan’s point is that the difference between Clinton and Giuliani isn’t big enough for him to care who wins.” I chose to answer the question the way he phrased it. But in actual fact you didn’t say “Giuliani”. You said “Rudy McRomson”.
You dislike everybody at the top tier of the Republican party. Your issue isn’t with “Social Democrats”, it’s with anyone who isn’t a Ron Paul/Tom Tancrado fringe candidate. All of which goes to the point I’ve been making that for you, the electoral process isn’t about who will actually get to exercise enormous political power (Hillary or Mitt, Hillary or Rudy, etc.), but whether your own personal philosophy is represented in the choice for president. If it isn’t, you’ll go third party or withhold your vote, regardless of the actual impact it has on the electoral outcome.
“[Phil]” just doesn’t like my theory because he thinks it leads to un-PC results.
*** I’m sure everyone can honestly conclude that my only point in writing this article, my article on nominating a pro-choice Republican candidate, on having a new Constitutional Convention (see the IC archives), and everything I said in this comment section, is that I want a “PC” president elected to office. This is why no one takes what you say seriously Dan. When presented with an opportunity to seriously debate an issue, you can’t.
“My discussion on why voting third party makes sense was all about practical politics. Very little theory involved.”
*** Very little thought, yes. But “practical”? You define practical as advancing a theory, not as actually influencing who will or will not be elected president in 2008. You have a very peculiar idea of what the term “practical” means.
“But since I didn’t come to your conclusion that the highest good is defeating Hillary, you immediately declare that I have my head in the clouds.”
*** I’d have chosen "up a particular body part", but this is just semantics.
“’[Phil said] A genuine third party is built from the ground up, starting with local, municipal and state elections, and through this work its way into the big leagues.’ [Dan says] As someone who is an expert in political science you should know better than that. That is actually not at all true. Historically reasonably successful third party campaigns (meaning getting Electoral College votes and/or getting a decent percentage of the total vote) for president have focused around particular leaders and particular issues. TR’s Bull Moose Party. Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrats. George Wallace’s independent campaign. Ross Perot’s independent /Reformed Party campaign.”
*** Let’s see. You’ve named a former president (TR) who won running as Republican and LOST as an independent; two old-time Southeners (Thurmond and Wallace) who LOST their elections, and one billionaire (Perot) who LOST the election. Yep, the third party route is a sure guide to electoral success!
By the way, who’s running for President in 2008 on the Bull Moose party ticket, or the Dixicrat ticket? Could it be that these prime examples you cited of reasons why we don’t need to build a grassroots-up party NO LONGER EXIST! They were one-time shots at inserting a pet political philosophy into a presidential race that quickly died out. Even the Ross Perot “Reform Party” is politically meaningless today. Having won one governership in Minnesota, it collapsed of its own weight.
These great examples you cited are political movements built around personalities. Some had alleged philosophical components to it (Dixicrats and Wallace). But after the third party route failed predictably, these people returned to the major parties where their vote could have actual influence.
Again, I’m not surprised that you continue to define success by pointing to failures. Your focus is not on actually doing the things necessary to implement your policies; only endlessly promoting them. You don’t really care about the outcome. You only care about making a statement.
“The prototypical third party, the Republicans, essentially replaced the Whig Party in a matter of two election cycles.”
*** Yes. It was a grassroots movement in the face of the collapse of the Whigs. Rather than a “third party”, the Republicans became a replacement for the dismantled Whigs. At the end of the day we still have a two party system, period. Third party efforts do not work in the US because of our political structure.
“Remember that George Wallace had a decent shot of getting the Democratic nomination in ‘72 before he was shot, and had Ross Perot not flaked out, he easily could have won in ’92. Before he quit the campaign he was leading the three way race.”
*** Amazing. Though history shows that actual top-down third party efforts always fail to elect their guy president, we should support a 3rd party effort because by God, it COULD HAVE HAPPENED if it didn’t. This is pure sophistry.
“I guess it depends on how you define success.”
*** Let’s choose something simple like, entering the race for president and winning the election. I’d call that a success. If you define ”success” as simply entering the race to espouse your philosophy, then each presidential election produces a whole bunch of victors! In fact, by this logic Ron Paul has won several times.
“There are third parties such as the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party that are enduring.”
*** And unsuccessful at electing people to national office. That’s why existing is not the same thing as winning. You can’t hope to win the presidential election without a grassroots organization. But just having one doesn’t insure your victory. You have to get more people to believe in your vision and vote for your candidates than the other families in the nearby bunkers.
“… our winner take all system does not reward minor parties. Success for a third party is really to replace one of the two parties, as the Republican Party replaced the Whigs. Or third parties and their ideas get incorporated into one of the major parties. As the Dems incorporated the populists and Socialists. The GOP incorporated the Wallace voters (over a few election cycles) and arguably the GOP incorporated the Perot voters in ‘94.”
*** Finally! This is exactly what I have been saying. “Our winner take all system does not reward minor parties.” If you want to actually win a presidential election, run in the primaries and get the Republican or Democrat nomination. If you don’t, work for the next 4 years to prepare the way for your ideas. A third party does not win elections.
Your confusion arises because you think that the “GOP incorporated Wallace voters …” i.e., that without Wallace running as a third party candidate, these people would never have left the Democrat party. Wallace cost Humphrey the 68 election. That was his “impact”. Then the Wallace movement (with the help of an assassination attempt) faded into history. If it was a philosophically-based movement, another individual would have stepped in and the philosophical juggernaut would have continued.
I won’t deny that third parties can be a magnet for like-minded people. This is common sense. But the point is, they are not necessary to promote a policy. If Wallace had run as a Democrat in 1968, he’d have gotten all the Wallace-Democrat votes he got as a 3rd party candidate. He wouldn’t have gotten the Republican-Wallace votes. They would have gone to the Republican who had a similar philosophy. If both groups together constituted a large enough voting block, then in 1972 you’d have this factored into the primaries again. This is how parties incorporate new grassroots ideas into their candidate selection process.
By the way, Nixon was elected in 1972 — a “Social Democrat” by Dan’s classification system. So what exactly did the Wallace uprising accomplish in practical terms in 1972? Very little. It’s full impact was felt over the next two decades as the Republican candidates who were nominated (like Reagan) espoused some of these conservative core beliefs, attracted those voters, and were elected to office.
Electoral politics are a process, not a single point in history. Failing to understand how the process actually works leads to great confusion over what terms like “practical” and “success” mean. All this presumes that your interest is in actually winning something to implement your ideas, instead of just getting on a soapbox to promote your pet philosophy regardless of how it impacts the actual
“Phil I don’t recall putting a time frame on my immigration article. I also owe an article on what a non-interventionist foreign policy would look like. I am a busy man. I have a job, a bunch of kids, and a wife who doesn’t want me hanging around on the computer all the time.”
*** Of course you didn’t. That would actually pin you down. It’s the same reason why Ted Danson stopped predicting that the oceans will die in 25 years. Now he just says they will die … sometime. This way he can’t be held accountable.
6 weeks (now going on 7) is not an unreasonable length of time to wait for a promised “practical” answer to immigration issues. You seem to have time to write in your blog, and participate in this comment section. But you just can’t find the time to actually give us a practical application of paleoconservative thought on a real issue of your own choosing.
Others of us also have wives, families and jobs. I’m a partner in 4 businesses — now the managing partner of a technology company we acquired 4 weeks ago. I haven’t been able to write any new 30,000 word articles lately, but I can still find the time to write about substantive issues like the ones we’re discussing here.
You’ve had 6 weeks+ to do what you said you would do. It shouldn’t be that difficult a task since your philosophy has already given you all the practical guidance and answers you need. It’s only a daunting effort if you realize that you don’t have anything of substance to really say, other than to spout some more slogans and call them “practical solutions”.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 16, 2007
Jim:
One other thing I left out in my previous answer to you. If SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade, the issue will be returned to the states for their individual action. Any subsequent legislation in Congress addressing abortion would be unconstitution (since SCOTUS overturned the right-to-privacy fiction that allowed federal action). What a president did or didn't do regarding this legislation is a non-issue then, because constitutionally it is no longer a federal matter.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 16, 2007
Dr. Jackson,
Thank you! That's what I needed to know, and that's how it should be in the first place. I think overturning that horrible decision is a long shot, but one should never underestimate the power of prayer!
Comment by Jim | October 16, 2007
Jim:
Prayer … and enough votes to secure an actual electoral victory to start the process in motion!
In all seriousness though, overturning Roe v. Wade will not end abortion. It will return it to the appropriate venue (the 50 states) and the appropriate determining body (state legislatures, not Congress or the courts). Then the battle will begin anew.
In all likelihood some of the 50 states will allow abortion on demand. Over a long time, with proper education about the beginning of human life, this may change and this dispicable practice will end. But like anything in the real world, particularly the political world, time and effort (not wishes and theory) are what is required to actually achieve change by acquiring political power through the ballot box, instead of just making an electorially-meaningless protest vote.
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 16, 2007
Someone has to tell me why we must throw away our principles to RINO's when all they have done is destroyed the conservative movement. Liberal light is not the plan of action. Like El Rushbo says, "Conservatism works every time its tried."
An interesting comment from above, "Did Perot help conservatism?" Absolutely. Without Perot, the republican revolution of 1994 never occurs. He represented fiscal responsiblity which was his primary message and garnered him the most votes by a 3rd party candidate ever. He spoke to the blue collar democrat and got them to listen to the importance of fiscal responsiblity in Washington. Republicans used his message (minus NAFTA) to gain control in 1994.
Comment by Honker | October 17, 2007
Honker — Speaking of El Rushbo, the interesting thing about Perot voters in 1992 was that they answered the question Rush posed in 1992 “why are you voting for Perot” with variations of “he can’t be any worse than the other two guys.” Everyone inserted their own personal philosophies — a lot of it contradictory — to substitute for the lack of any coherent Perot program. They weren’t voting for Perot to achieve X as much as they were just voting in protest for a variety of different reasons. Newt, by contrast, gave voters a detailed point-by-point plan to support in 1994, and they did.
If you had to name a concrete Perot program, the real thing Perot hung his hat on was to caution against that “giant sucking sound” NAFTA would produce. And yet, NAFTA was embraced by both Clinton and the Republicans after the 1992 election. It seems to me that if the Perot Revolution was the foundation of the Contract with America, there would have been a strong repeal-NAFTA plank in it.
Perot was a singular personality around which everyone who disliked the present system — regardless of their own personal reasons — could rally. When Perot left the scene, the “movement” collapsed. The only real electoral success the Reform Party movement had was in electing Jesse Ventura governor. However, this was largely the result of the state’s new motor-voter/same-day election registration system as any philosophy Jesse espoused. In fact, an election post-mortem showed that a Jesse won because a lot of young, previous non-voters liked his last minute “action figure” commercial where he said that if elected, he would rappelle down from a helicopter on election day to take the oath of office
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 17, 2007
Honker,
If you weigh the costs of Clinton/Gore/Clinton alongside the accomplishments of the so-called Republican Revolution, it is clear that whatever accomplishments Newt and Company achieved are washed away with the flood of negatives from the two Clinton presidencies.
We know th
Comment by Jim | October 17, 2007
Sorry, I got cut off. We know that Perot helped Clinton and Nader helped Bush. It is illogical to cast a vote for a person who will ultimately help achieve the opposite of what that person stands for.
I listened to Rudy and his wife last night on Hannity and Colmes, and he will stand for most of what I, as a conservative, want from a candidate: 1) a strong defense 2) constructionist justices 3) fair and low taxes 4) the ability to beat Hillary
Voting for a no-name conservative Christian, like me, who can't beat Hillary will only bring about the opposite of 1, 2, and 3
Comment by Jim | October 17, 2007
I am a big sports fan; so I am going to use a football anology to make my point. Rino's are conservative's version of the prevent defense. You continually give up ground in a more time consuming manner to prevent the big play. In the end you still lose. The only thing the prevent defense prevents is winning; especially when time is not an issue. I have been sick of it since GWB decided to "take away the issues from the democrats." Every time we give in to the RINO's to win elections we advance the agenda of the liberals. If I was a liberal I WOULD VOTE FOR RUDY. Think about this for a second; we will have went from a anti- abortion, pro-gun, pro-family leader of the party in Reagan to a cross-dressing, abortion advocating, thrice married, 2nd amendment violater in only 20 years. Take away the tragedies of 911 and we are not even having this conversation. Conservatives have in their hearts that Rudy will protect them. Well, if that is the only issue why isn't McCain their man? Most educated people realize that McCain would be an outstanding Commander in Chief. He isn't getting support because his RINO stances have been spelled out for 6 years. Who is more left leaning, McCain or Rudy? Why are we "settling?" I believe a real conservative can beat Hillary. I believe in conservatism. I do not believe that we should scrap the platform of conservatism.
This talk of a third party should develop, but not as it is currently. Rudy should be the third party candidate. He has osmosized foundations of both parties to represent himself, that is fine for him to do. I just wish he wouldn't do it under the guise of conservatism. I wish as conservatives we would show him the door. Let him start his 3rd party of right leaning democrats and RINO's- I want the Republican party back.
Comment by Honker | October 17, 2007
Honker: Your sports analogy is a good one. While a prevent defense may be a poor substitute for an aggressive offense, taking 2 or 3 of the 11 member offense away to form their own team makes even less sense. Even a fully committed, offensively-oriented 9 man team will have difficulty beating a mediocre 11 man team.
You talk about Republican “settling” for a lesser candidate. The philosophy you support appears to be represented in at least 2, maybe 3 candidates (Paul, Tancrado, Brownback). However, that thinking is not gaining any traction in 2008. This is the problem: those who embrace that philosophy have not done a good enough grass-roots job of preparing the way, or encouraging a more-credible candidate to champion it. Thompson is trying to pick up that banner, and we’ll see. But he’s no Gingrich, and Gingrich chose not to run.
I’m not really sure who else out there has the stature in 2008 to champion these ideas.
While having conservative ideals is critical, an individual messenger can have too much baggage to carry the philosophy forward. Mainstream Republican voters support aggressive action in the Middle East (they may differ with the Bush strategy, but they don’t favor unilateral withdrawal). This has killed Paul’s chances. McCain would act aggressively in the ME, but he ended his chances by supporting amnesty for illegal aliens.
Like it or not, the foreign policy stand Rudy espouses hits more resonance with Republican voters than the Ron Paul position, and these issues are seen as among the most important today. This is why your Rudy/third party comments fall short. The only reason to leave a party is because your ideas are rejected, and further, you believe that no one will ever accept your ideas regardless of how well you advocate them. Then you pick up your marbles and leave because you no longer care about winning election. Since a third party can't possibly win the presidency, your only motive is to promote your ideas by punishing your old party at the ballot box.
Reagan proved that over time, with the right spokesman, Conservative ideals will prevail. He didn’t form a 3rd party in 1976 when he lost the nomination to Ford. Instead, he worked within the system to achieve electoral success. This is the real lesson of practical politics. It can lead to the outcome you desire if people work hard to achieve it, rather than withdrawing from the current political process to prove their ideological purity.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 17, 2007
Your "ideological purity" argument loses value when one considers the future of the party. I believe the election of Rudy would bring to a close the social conservative movement in the United States. The heart and soul of the republican party is at risk; not one nomination in one election. Nominating Rudy paves the way for entrenching abortion in our society even further at a time when we are incredibly close to returning this decision to the states where it belongs. It paves the way to reducing our 2nd Amendment rights. It paves the way to allow same sex marriage. Whoever the next POTUS is; a democratic congress and senate is likely. We will have at least 2, probably 3 Supreme Court Justices in the next 5 years. I hate to think of Hillary nominating and the democratic committees passing through some liberal nut to read whatever he/she wants out of the constitution. My question is do you really expect Rudy to nominate a constitionalist when he himself doesn't believe in it? Where does Rudy stand on strict constitutional issues like abortion and gun control? I know even the great Ronald Reagan made mistakes with the Supreme Court- but haven't we learned anything from our past mistakes? It seems to me that we care more about the democracy we wish to create in the ME than our own. Rudy is the perfect example of that attitude.
Regardless of how this discussion is left one thing is very apparent. Both sides of the RINO/Conservative debate feel the other must be willing to "give in" to win the election. I only look at 2006 as evidence as what will happen when true conservatives are not on the ballot. Liberals did not go out and win anything, RINO's got destroyed. Voter dependability and loyalty has always been a GOP asset; until now. If Rudy manages to win the nomination- the GOP will have to rely on the anti- Hillary movement (which is very strong) to win. I believe Rudy has a shot at Hillary without the support of core conservatives. I believe a true conservative will beat her. Paul, McCain, Thompson, Romney, Brownback; I agree no rock stars here. Maybe that fact proves my point more than anything; if we can't even find a true conservative to nominate how are we expecting to grow as a political movement? How can the goals of conservatism be meant through RINO's?
side note to Phillip- your reply to my "prevent defense" anology goes both ways. Many would be voters will not be voting Republican without Rudy as a nominee. The South Park Republicans for example will probably split their vote between Hillary and whoever; as well as New York as a whole. Rudy obviously brings voters that the GOP would never get without his social stances. That is why we have different platforms in the parties. What Rudy will do is change our platform. One should not expect to gain the social liberals without losing the social conservatives; as well as vice versa. Social Conservative Republicans have a history of success. Do the current RINO's have a track record of success?
Comment by Honker | October 17, 2007
Honker:
I understand the dilemma you see, but you’re leaving out of your equation the fact that there is a primary battle going on right now. Bush isn’t appointing anybody to succeed him; the Republican rank and file are selecting a nominee. Ron Paul, Tancrado, etc. are being rejected by the Republican voters overwhelmingly. These voters are “the heart and soul of the Republican party”. If they nominate the candidate they prefer, then the party’s heart and soul can’t be “at risk”.
What is at risk are certain conservative values. But even here, it’s unclear whether the risk is fundamental or tactical. I contend that in 2008 security and terrorism will trump all other issues. This doesn’t mean that abortion, fiscal responsibility, etc. aren’t important. The candidates representing these values (Paul, Tancrado, etc.) have serious flaws concerning the main issues driving this election. You’re drawing philosophical conclusions about what may be a tactical situation.
Your comments are more on the mark when you say “if we can’t even find a true conservative to nominate how are we expecting to grow as a political movement? How can the goals of conservatism be meant through RINO’s?” The answer is, it can’t grow with a RINO leading the charge. But it will NEVER grow if the “True Conservative” who advocates these principles is seen as a fringe player because of some of the other baggage he carries. So where’s the fault? Is Rudy to be punished for capturing the nomination to beat Hillary because Paul/Tancrado failed miserably to sell their message? Or do we look in November and choose between whoever gets the Republican nomination and whoever gets the Democrat nomination?
Reagan’s conservatism lost to Ford’s moderate philosophy in 1976. Reagan used the next 4 years to win over the party. He didn’t bolt because he lost the nomination in 1976, or because Nixon replaced Goldwater in 1968. He stayed, kept fighting, and eventually won.
You’re frustrated that the likely Republican candidate is not a philosophical conservative. That’s a legitimate reason to work hard in the next 4 years to elect people at all levels (state, local, national) who share your view. It’s not a reason to walk away and hand the presidency to Hillary/Obama/Edwards.
The Democrats won’t commit political suicide by walking away from a flawed candidate. Code Pink, etc., will still support Hillary. If Republicans desert their nominee because he doesn’t pass their philosophical litmus test, then you won’t have to wonder if the next president will or won’t appoint strict constructionist judges. She won’t, and the issues you hold dear will be further eroded as those who sat out the election, or formed a 3rd party, embark on a generational quest to build a new political movement.
Elections are about winning with flawed candidates. To ignore this fact is to guarantee victory for the opposite party.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 17, 2007
Honker,
You said "Nominating Rudy paves the way for entrenching abortion in our society even further at a time when we are incredibly close to returning this decision to the states where it belongs."
Yet, as mayor, abortion rates fell dramatically in NYC. In his own words, he looks forward to the day when all abortions end, and more importantly, has effectively attacked some of the root causes: prostitution and pornography.
Yes, he is pro-choice, but his policies and goals (appointing constructionist justices) will do way more to end abortion than would any of the Democrats' far-left agendas.
As far as returning conservatism to the Republican platform, Rudy is conservative on taxes and national defense. I cannot conceive how following a course that leads to Shrillary's election would be any better toward this end than electing a moderate. Rudy wouldn't persecute conservatism through the Fairness Doctrine, the IRS, the FBI, ATF, the Supreme Court, Federal Judges, the U.N., etc.
Some arguments make it sound as if we need to shoot ourselves in the foot in order to make us run better. Rudy has his weapons aimed directly at the Democratic big toes, and unlike the true conservatives who share my ideology, his guns will work when they need to.
I share your desire to have another Reagan or Goldwater, but that is just not reality at this point. I'm hoping that it will be Vice President Condoleeza Rice running in 2016!!
Comment by Jim | October 18, 2007
Um, just to clarify, vote-pairing has been expressly ruled legal. No changes to the Constitution required. Selling or buying votes is illegal, but trading vote-for-vote is not. Other vote-counting systems would require changing the Constitution, but that's what things like vote-pairing are meant to help enable, eventually.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | October 19, 2007
Raymond: Vote-pairing for President would require a constitutional amendement, since the Constitution prescribes how a president is elected. Vote paring in local elections may or may not be legal; I have no idea. My focus has only been on presidential politics. My invoking of a local charter issue was only to discuss how voters perceive change, which makes the constitutional amendment process all that more difficult. If the electoral college system wasn't changed after 2000, there's little likelihood any other changes will be made. Vote pairing would give advantages to some states and disadvantages to others; and those disadvantaged states would block it (just like they ended all the discussion about changing the electoral vote system after 2000). Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 19, 2007
To clarify further: the current electoral college does not serve the function that the framers of the constitution intended. They intended to have a semi-independent group of people, respected in their local communities, who would gather and select a president. What we have now is a buffer between the popular vote and the presidency which serves essentially to 'discretize' the popular votes in each state - turning them from a (practically) continuous value to an all-or-nothing value. Thus the (relatively common in recent years) result where the winner of the popular vote is not the winner in the electoral college. It has the effect of smoothing out 'noise' in the 'signal' the electorate sends; elected officials need only concern themselves with the two strongest parties, and other alternatives can barely be 'heard'.
Vote-pairing happens in the popular vote, not the electoral college. It is a response to this 'winner-take-all' setup. While the electoral vote is the one that 'really counts', politicians are still sensitive to the popular vote, but the dynamics of the electoral college act to minimize the visibility of voters disaffected with the main parties. Because of the way the electoral college works, people don't vote as they'd really like, they just vote against the worst available option, obscuring their actual sentiments.
Vote-pairing allows voters to avoid the worst outcome while still registering their presence and their wishes. It doesn't change the outcome of the electoral college vote, but it does expose voter preferences to politicians that would otherwise be obscured, and affords savvy politicians the information they need to craft policies to appeal to disaffected voters.
In a more reasonable voting system like instant-runoff or the Borda count, vote-pairing would not be necessary. It's a strategy to work around the current system, not a permanent replacement for it.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | October 22, 2007
I’m always wary of statements that assert emphatically what the framers of the Constitution did/didn’t intend. Even with the help of the Federalist papers there’s significant disagreement on a wide range of “fundamental” issues/intentions.
The “popular vote” for president matters not in the grand total, but rather in determining the electoral vote of a given state. It’s a plurality of votes within a state. Moreover, these electoral votes are tied to congressional districts, whose construction is supervised by the Courts. You simply can’t fool with the one man one vote one place one time formula when it comes to electing a president. If you got “creative”, the courts would strike it down. The only real “creativity” I’ve seen is the non-winner take all division of the electoral vote in Colorado, I believe. But here, the popular vote still matters within each congressional district from which the electors are essentially chosen.
Vote pairing, vote trading, etc. simply will not pass constitutional muster for a presidential election. It isn’t even arguable. It may or may not be legal in other venues, but again as I remarked earlier, the American people have little stomach for “creative” voting schemes. This is why ideas like this are vigorously debated in academic and intellectual circles, but rarely see any real-world application.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 23, 2007
Raymond — just to further clarify, and to avoid having a parallel conversation on this matter, if your vote pairing/vote swapping scheme remains voluntarily (i.e. a third party candidate's supporters vote for someone they might not otherwise select), that's perfectly legal — as long as there are no inducements to do so that could be construed as bribery or vote-buying, etc. However, as a purely voluntary exercise you'd need tremendous coordination and discipline to make this happen. This is highly unlikely, as US history has demonstrated repeatedly. To insure that discipline and coordination chances are someone would do/say something to trigger the Courts getting involved per my warning above.
Here are some salient points made by Wikipedia:
Through the 2000 election, the concept was known in the US as "vote swapping," while "vote pairing" originally had a somewhat different meaning–where people of opposing parties would agree to together vote for a third-party candidate instead of for their own candidates. (For example, a disaffected Democrat and a disaffected Republican both agreeing to vote for a third party candidate instead of for the candidates of their own parties.) However, by the 2004 presidential election "vote swapping" had become "vote pairing," and the various people who had created vote swapping sites for the 2000 election had banded together as VotePair.org.
The concern often gets raised on whether vote pairing can be used by opposing parties to manipulate an election or sabotage a candidate. However, in practice, such ideas of manipulation turn out to be impractical and self defeating.
For an example, suppose that in the 2004 election the former Republican Pat Buchanan had again run for President under the Reform Party (as he did in the 2000 election). Suppose that supporters of the 2004 Republican candidate, George W. Bush, had set up vote pairing web sites so that Buchanan supporters from swing states in the US (such as Ohio, where the Democrats and Republicans were in a close race) would get matched with Bush supporters in solidly Democrat states (such as Massachusetts). This was not actually done of course (since Buchanan did not run in 2004), but suppose that Republican supporters of George W. Bush had gotten concerned that Democratic supporters of John Kerry would try to sabotage these web sites or manipulate the election by posing as either Bush or Buchanan supporters. However, if such Democrats had done so, all they could do is pose as George W. Bush supporters in solidly Democratic states or as Buchanan supporters in swing states. In the former situation (Democrats posing as Bush supporters in solidly Democrat states such as Massachusetts), all they could do is trick Buchanan supporters in swing states to cast their vote for Bush–which would only hurt the Democratic candidate, John Kerry. Similarly, in the latter situation (Democrats posing as Buchanan supporters in swing states), all they could do is trick Bush supporters in solidly Democrat states to vote for Buchanan–which wouldn't change the election since the Democrat candidate, John Kerry, would very likely carry those states anyway.
Ultimately the only real way to manipulate vote pairing, and its effect on an election outcome, is to prevent people from learning about it, not to pose as a different kind of voter. Arguably, this kind of manipulation–preventing people from learning about vote pairing–is what happened in the 2000 presidential election.
In the United States (and perhaps elsewhere), the legality of vote pairing in public elections has been questioned. Opponents claim that it is illegal to give or accept anything that has pecuniary value in exchange for a vote. (Indeed efforts to buy or sell votes are illegal, and in the 2000 presidential election, there was even a web site for buying and selling votes, vote-auction.com, which was shut down by an Illinois judge.)
Phil’s comment again — The 9th Circuit (the most overturned appeals court in the US) has ruled that vote pairing is legal, but as the rest of the Wikipedia article details, the actual legality and practicality of the issue is still quite dubious for the reasons mentioned above.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | October 23, 2007