We’re going to lose in November not because the other side has a better vision for America. We’re going to lose because the other side had a better grip on reality.
Okay, let me start by making everyone mad.
We’re going to lose the election in November. We’re not going to be defeated by Liberalism and their Democrat enablers. We’re going to cut our own throats and revel in the bloody mess as either a woman with the highest negatives of any candidate in U.S. electoral history, or the most vacuous, platitudinous-driven man to ever run for national office, is swept into power. And once in power, unlike the “it will get so bad the country will revolt” fantasy that drives this Conservative/Republican suicidal impulse, these guys will remain in power for another generation implementing all the programs that we, allegedly, so despise that we opted out of the electoral process in 2008 to allow them to come into existence.
In short, we’re going to lose in November not because the other side has a better vision for America. We’re going to lose because the other side had a better grip on reality. Elections are about ideas, but they are also about winning. With winning comes power, and the ability to implement your ideas. Maybe not all your ideas all at once, but some of them anyway. And over time, the small steps can add up if those advancing them hold on to the power to implement them. As a hungry man will tell you, it’s better to have the bowl of soup today than starve to death waiting for the filet mignon you’d rather be eating.
The Liberals/Democrats will win because they understand something that Conservatives/Republicans seem to have forgotten. Ideology, unaccompanied by real-world pragmatism, is irrelevant. The best ideas in the world are irrelevant unless they have the ability to be translated into policy. Boycotting an election because the “wrong candidate” used the same rules as your guy to secure your party’s nomination, or relegating your vote to practical irrelevancy by voting for a third party candidate for president, gets you the admiration of your fellow pissed-off comrades in arms. Unfortunately, in creating the U.S. Constitution, the Founders didn’t assign any electoral points to “pissed off” protest actions, so as an election strategy this tends to be a non-productive way to gain power.
And so we come to the core of this matter. For the past several years I’ve been watching Conservatives eat their young in the guise of promoting an alternative vision to Liberal policies. Just looking at what passes for political debate in The Intellectual Conservative and related websites, the discussion isn’t how to take core values of smaller government, better security, less waste and fraud, etc., and translate these into national policy. It’s been on who is or isn’t a “True Conservative” according to the reading lists each arguing individual holds dear.
Thus, we wallow in such pressing contemporary topics as “Was Lincoln a tyrant?”, “Should we return to the Articles of Confederation?”, and my personal favorite, “Did your ancestors come from the correct European countries?” Meanwhile, the Liberals and Democrats are trying to figure out a way to return to power. If it takes running some “conservative” members in strategic House races to bump off enough Republicans to put Nancy Pelosi in command of government, or rigging an election or two (remember New Jersey?) to achieve a majority in the Senate, they’ll do it. It doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t mean we should cheat to win. But what it does mean is that unlike us, the Liberals/Democrats understand that Nancy and Harry and/or Hillary or Barak can’t do diddly to implement their programs unless they win at the polls.
On the other hand, we’d much rather lose an election than settle for anything less than the full implementation of our conservative ideals. This is a potentially good strategy if (a) Conservatives are in fact unified as to what these values are, and (b) we vote as a unified block, and (c) understand that even a successful election will not allow all (and at times, many) of these goals to be implemented without a long transformative period after we actually gain power to both continue educating the public, and overcome any bureaucratic intransigence that exists.
Unfortunately, there is no monolithic “Conservatism,” regardless of what some people say. Different people will place different emphasis, and even interpret the meaning differently, of different aspects of the presumed core values. Moreover, as the current primary system shows, everyone from Ron Paul to Rudy claims to be a “conservative,” and can point to support from other self-identified conservatives who support them. There is no single Conservative candidate or philosophy. Ronald Reagan himself couldn’t pass some of the litmus tests evoked today to judge a candidate’s past actions — and therefore his “future intentions” — to allow them to wear the conservative mantle to everyone’s agreement. And finally, as the blogosphere more than amply demonstrates, winning elections is just not that important to many who lay claim to conservative beliefs if the “right philosophy” is not fully represented, or the guy espousing aspects of that philosophy is perceived to be a nasty SOB.
Despite all this, we can still be contenders in November if we have the ability to recognize the difference between hyperbolic rhetoric and actual intentions. I listened to Hillary on Super Tuesday recount all the new entitlements she would enact, the confiscatory tax policies she would promote, the babies she would help abort through her judicial nominations, the nanny-state oversight she would mandate, and the remaining litany of hyper-liberal policies she would enact once taking office. Then I thought back to comments that there is 0% difference between someone like McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and Hillary. Is McCain Reagan? No. But that doesn’t make him Hillary. Recognizing this is the difference between venting and fantasizing. Despite the legion of McCain’s shortcomings, anyone who actually, literally, believes that he and Hillary have identical policy goals and intentions is an idiot, pardon my French.
This wouldn’t be an issue if all I thought what was happening was the expenditure of a lot of hot air denouncing any Republican candidate who wasn’t a “True Conservative” (or, a “True Conservative” as defined by the individual making that judgment based on his personal appreciation of non-Liberal values). But I’m convinced that many holding these views will in fact act on this fantasy, and in so doing secure the election to power of a truly reprehensible political philosophy. And once in power, to further fantasize that we should all endure four years of this injurious philosophy so the country will collapse enough to sweep “our philosophy” back in power makes even less sense. Not only is “our philosophy” fragmented as I discussed above, there is absolutely no guarantee this will happen. People who hold this view aren’t thinking strategically. They’re wishing. And wishing doesn’t win elections.
All of this leads to my final point. For those of you dismissing what I’ve said out of hand because I’ve injected pragmatism into a discussion of ideology, I want you to think about the following. Just looking at the “True Conservative” debates here in the pages of The Intellectual Conservative, we’ve been treated to hundreds of thousands of words defining this philosophy. Forget about the fact for the moment that after all this verbiage, there is still disagreement about what (if anything) constitutes a 100% pure, certified “True Conservative.” Focus instead on this fact instead.
For all this hot air, where are the policy prescriptions that will actually advance this “True Conservatism?” “Get out of Iraq” now is a slogan. As a policy we need to discuss things like “when?” Tomorrow? In six months? In six years? In 60+ years like the occupation of Germany? What does “get out” mean? Every American soldier and civilian tomorrow, in 6 months, six years, etc.? Do some people stay behind? Who, and how many? What about the Iraqis who supported us? Do we leave them to die? Believe they won’t die and leave them anyway? Take some/all of them with us and give them asylum? And when we leave, do we run, walk, or sneak away to send a signal to our enemies that we’re sorry, determined, or contrite for being there in the first place? And will any or all of this convince our enemies — whether they are pre- or post-Iraq invasion bad guys — not kill any more U.S. citizens, or do we need to do other things in conjunction with “get out?” What are the actual implications of any of these choices?
The same for immigration. “Secure the borders” and return to a kith and kin-based “natural hierarchical social order” is a slogan. What does this mean? End all immigration, period. Build a fence and continue to allow legal immigration from all countries? Limit immigration to only Western European countries? Make the “wrong people” who legally emigrated to the U.S. return to their native countries? And do any/all of this over what timeline, and with what implications (positive or negative) for our economy?
Pick any “Conservative” principle and ask similar questions. In the past, when I’ve asked for practical guidance from those espousing the “True Conservative” ideology, I’ve been given things like this: “If you do not accept the baseline liberal assumptions, as traditional/paleo/classical conservative don’t, then you are not faced with that dilemma. Those prohibitions reflect the ‘natural order.’” I’ve asked if fries come with my burger, and I’m told that China is debasing the dollar and we need to return to the gold standard. All that may be true, but I still want to know if fries come with my burger. If the pimply-faced kid behind the counter can’t answer “yes” or “no,” then it’s time to patronize a different establishment.
The point is, simply mouthing ideology without considering the practical aspects of implementation is meaningless. The practical will tell you what can be accomplished when, and in what timeframe, within the present political structure. And it will tell you what about that structure needs to be changed to implement the rest. But implementation and change can’t come without acquiring the power to do so, and in the United States we do this through elections. Sloganeering, fantasizing, and wishing your goals to come true won’t make anything happen. At least not for you. However, it will pave the way for those willing to pursue their goals in concert with reality to achieve some success.
Those of you who feel soiled by focusing on what the world is today, and operating within it to reach an objective, will eschew this advice. To these people, it’s more important to get the ideology down pat in all its permutations and modifications, then find a candidate who embodies the totality of that philosophy, and then achieve power. Meanwhile, the counter-philosophy will be doing everything it can to solidify grip on the power you seek, so that when the ideology is correct and your white knight arrives, the exercise will be pointless.
Believing that people may “want conservatism” deep in their hearts, and thus the right candidate can give them that expression, is pure fantasy. Like any ideology that doesn’t involve a naked appeal to one’s personal self-interests, but rather appeals to a higher purpose in life, it must be taught. But it isn’t taught by osmosis, and it isn’t taught by ignoring the pragmatic to focus only on the ideological.
Your philosophy will not be seen as a credible alternative to the status quo when its advocates withdraw from the political process, and allow the opposing philosophy free access to power.
yonkel:
“The will of the people” is not a given. It changes as politicians, the press, opinion leaders and even individuals talking around the water cooler discuss life.
Without ideology to guide it, the expression of this will becomes nothing more than simple wants and needs. So, where you and I differ is that I think that ideology is critical. The Left and Right should both make equally strong cases so the issues can be fully vetted and the country can decide which way to go at the ballot box.
But I also recognize that in making these cases, both sides can overstate/understate problems, mis-lead and mis-direct people, which is why discussions like these of what conservatism is philosophically and practically is so important. It not only helps define who we are, it helps define the other side to showcase these distortions. Moreover, it marginalizes the extremists in our own ranks who think their view, and their view only, constitutes “True Conservatism”.
However, while this discussion is an important step, this entire exercise must then be played out in the political arena whose rules are 100% pragmatic (not ideological) so power can be acquired and used to promote policies that flow from this ideology.
Again, please don’t take any of this personally, since you had some thoughtful comments. But I’ve always found that people who gravitate toward the middle are usually those wishing to avoid conflict, rather than pursue a particular policy goal. In a system where both sides act in a crazy irrational way, the center may be the only safe ground. But that’s a fallback position. If we conservatives get our collective acts together, and advocate ideologically-based programs that reflect the reality of acquiring power, then we can move public opinion our way, and help shape the “will of the people”.
Patrick: In addition to what I’ve just posted above, remember that the President’s powers are not absolute. There are certain things he can do such as nominate supreme court judges, act as Commander in Chief, etc. But he can’t pass his own legislation.
I’d rather have McCain in the White House making decisions for Congress to approve than Hillary or Obama. It’s not even a close issue in my mind. If McCain goes off the deep end on immigration like Bush, we can use our access to our individual representatives to block him like we did with Bush. It’s not 100% fool proof, but as a practical matter I’d rather try to block some of what McCain might do that ALL of what Hillary/Obama WILL do.
To paraphrase the Apollo 13 mission, “Withdrawal is not an option”. I will not simply surrender the White House to the far left because my candidate is not 100% conservative.
Raymond: The problem with relying on the belief that “usually after a strong showing by a minor party, at least one of the major parties shifts its position, adopting the third party’s rhetoric if not the core of its programs,” is this:
In presidential politics, “strong showings” are rare. Perot is the best recent example. The hallmark of his campaign was anti-NAFTA. So what was the result of his strong showing? Clinton and the Republicans passed NAFTA.
Yes, Perot also spoke about waste and reform. But this is boilerplate unless a specific program is attached to it. Every politician, every year, runs against waste and is for reform.
This “shift” you noted is, at best, gradual and occurs over a long time. The immediate practical effects of a 3rd party presidential run is Nader giving the Florida vote to Bush 43; Perot helping Clinton defeat Bush 41, etc,
Third parties are built around personalities, not ideologies, and do not last. Where is the John Anderson party today? Where is the Reform Party today? Where is the La Follette party today? Where are the Dixicrats today? These were flash-in-the-pan rhetorical rebellions that quickly faded, and their supporters gravitated to one of the two major parties — the only place where true political power resides.
Mickey G: I don’t like McCain either. But in November 2008, my choice is between the Democrat or Republican nominees. If McCain win the nomination then my choice is between McCain or Hillary/Obama.
These are the cards we’re dealt. These are the cards we must play, or fold. Deliberately losing to win is not a viable political strategy. We won’t always be so lucky as to have a Jimmy Carter to run against. Put the Dems in the White House in 2008, and they could be there for a generation.
Note to everyone:
This has been a great exchange of ideas, one of the best I’ve participated in. I appreciate your willingness to engage in a thoughtful and thought-provoking dialogue. We’re all trying to get to the same place, even though we may disagree about the best ways to do it. Reacting to each other’s thoughts is the best way to clarify the issues involved.
Phil
yonkel,
You mentioned head-to-head match-ups (ie, McCain vs Hillary or Obama), but couldn’t find the poll numbers. Well, RealClearPolitics http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ is poll central. Their poll numbers are the best for 2 reasons: (1) They average the results of individual polls; and (2) They exclude outlier polls from their averages.
In 2004, for example, their averages were closer to the final numbers than any individual pollster. I know. I did an in-depth analysis of their methodology:
http://www.livefreediefree.com/2004Election_Polls.htm
The only state RealClearPolitics got wrong was Wisconsin, far better than any individual pollster did. Plus, their final poll numbers differed from the election actuals by only 1.6%, again far better than any individual pollster.
We conservatives know the MSM is biased. We suspect that some pollsters are, too. Well, my overarching intent was to try to quantify that bias, and to rate the pollsters on that bias. Along the way, I decided to also rate the pollsters on the accuracy of their predictions in 2 ways: (1) The difference between their final numbers and election actuals; and (2) The number of states they got wrong.
Based upon these 3 criteria, I created a composite ranking for the 10 major 2004 election-polling firms. You know who was the worst in all 3 categories? CNN/USA Today/Gallup. Aha! We conservatives know CNN is Progressive Central. My rock-solid, quantified analysis proves it. Alas, the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics polls were almost as bad.
Trust RealClearPolitics. Their methodology is very sound.
In any case, in their head-to-head averages, RealClearPolitics has McCain +1.8 vs Hillary, and -0.7 vs Obama.
Don’t believe those numbers, though. The Democratic base is much more energized than we are. We’re dispirited. Mort Kondracke, in an article linked by RealClearPolitics, tallied the total primary votes to date: 25 million Democrats, but only 12.5 Republicans.
I believe your analysis of McCain’s chances is wishful thinking. Man up to the bar. We’re going to lose in 2008. In another article linked from RealClearPolitics, a Brit, David Frum, paints an especially bleak picture:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f02a3216-d4e4-11dc-9af1-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
Read it. Absorb it. Accept it. Live with it. We’re toast.
“The will of the people” is not automatically virtuous. A majority vote does not make something lawful, constitutional, or moral. The reason we have a representative republic and not a democracy is because democracy always degenerates into tyranny.
Our elected representatives are charged with defending the constitution, so they are supposed to be the bullwark, sometimes even in opposition to the majority. Of course, this does not happen because elective office is now a career choice, and bucking the majority can be political suicide.
Phil,
Don’t take it personally, but you do repeat yourself. Your inured inflexibility is reason enough to reject your arguments.
Again, be cool when I summarize your arguments: I know; you don’t.
So, if 10 or 20 million of us withhold our votes out of protest against a party that’s abandoned us, Republicans won’t care? Is that your contention? If it is, it belies common sense.
The Republican Party is gravitating towards the left. I don’t doubt that. You might for tactical reasons.
How are we going to stop and then reverse this leftwards drift? How can we give Republicans back their spines? How can we coax those wusses either out of their bunkers, or off the Progressive bandwagon they’ve jumped on?
Your article answers none of those questions. What it does in the main is criticize the non-voting or non-involvement strategy. When you try to posit the affirmative, all you offer are vague allusions to bromides, summarized thus: “Become an activist!”
We must confront reality. McCain will lose. There is a Progressive tide sweeping the country. Demographics, a 25-year economic expansion that’s had only 2 minor hiccups, & the effects of Globalism have made the electorate forget the perils of big gov’t. Then, too, we conservatives are victims of our own success. In the past 25 years, we’ve won most of our battles.
I lived in Alaska. My wife and I visited Denali Park, and took the slow, 60-mile bus ride into the depths of the park. Near the terminus, what with the jarring of the bus and all, we all needed a pit stop. The bus thankfully stopped at such a way station. In hindsight, I should have recognized that the head was built on top of a 6-foot-high rocky promontory whose sides coincided exactly with the sides of the head, and that the pit holes themselves were on the side that faced Mount McKinley. Now, Mount McKinley is the highest mountain in the world as measured from base to top. Thus, strong winds blowing from the top to bottom accelerate for some 15 thousand feet. Well, as I was pissing, a particularly strong wind came rushing through the crack between the head and the rocky promontory, and my urine stream did a curving, upwards 180 and struck me dead center in the nose.
Voting for McCain is pissing in that wind. Voting for him would be a senseless, useless, & purely symbolic gesture.
Ah, but not voting for McCain has value. If McCain does not lose in a landslide, the Republican Party will conduct business as usual. No. Business as usual is not an option. However, if McCain is landslided as McGovern and Mondale were, then the effect of tens of millions of us not voting for McCain would be galvanizing.
Don’t take it personally, Phil, but your proscriptions emanate from tracks & grooves in your brain that are too deep. Your call to arms is so yesterday.
I’ve been a political junkie since the 1960 election. Something’s different this year. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but 2008 will be a watershed, sea changing, & veil of tears election. 2008 will have some parallels to 1964, but those parallels can be overstated. History might not be much of a guide here. What we conservatives need to do to recover from the upcoming wipeout is not clear. What is clear, though, is that your core advice appeals neither to the heart nor the head.
Live Free:
I never take it personally. But regretably I do find it necessary to repeat things that people ignore when telling me what they wish was true, or strongly believe is true, instead of answering the specific challenges I raise to their points.
This essay and the comments related thereto reminds me of a funny anecdote I read several years ago in a book by either George Marsden or Huston Smith (can’t recall which). The anecdote is set in America, the late 1800’s – probably around 1890 or earlier. Most of our major universities and colleges in those days were originally founded and managed by religious organizations, chapel attendance was mandatory and religion was in control of the students, in control of the curriculum, professors were mostly ordained clerics, etc. – the whole 9 yards as they say.
A young student goes to the university’s chancellor, an ordained Protestant minister and educator, and tells the chancellor that he has lost his religious faith and doesn’t know if he can regain it. The Chancellor thunders back at the student: “You will regain your faith by tomorrow morning or leave this institution”. I think Phil is essentially telling conservatives the same thing in a slightly different context. But, a religious person doesn’t just wake up in the morning and feel around for his faith only to find it missing. For you non-religious folks, imagine waking up one morning and finding you have grave doubts about the theory of evolution. Losing faith is a gradual process and sometimes never regained.
Losing our faith in the Republican Party is a theme all over the conservative websites like flies on garbage, not only today but for the past few months. Commentators see a trend building of apathetic conservative voters meandering without direction or enthusiasm toward the November elections. They secretly fear an election debacle with Hillary or Obama pulling off a stunning, nationwide victory. And, it seems to go deeper than just a problem with McCain’s, Romney’s or Huckabee’s personality – heck, Bush never won anyone over with his vibrant personality either.
Phil is dead right in his political pragmatism and, like the aforementioned university chancellor, has little patience with angst ridden conservatives and their silly doubts. However, we wonder if the student in this anecdote really did regain his faith or just went through the motions to please the chancellor and stay in school. And, conservatives are painfully aware that the universities gradually ditched their religious foundations and became enthusiastically secular as the country changed over the ensuing decades.
So, I guess the question is do we change with the times, take what power we can when we can get it, shrug off the sour grapes, etc. – or, like the religious universities slowly fade into insignificance until we can no longer detect any trace of their original glory? Mandatory chapel attendance – imagine proposing that idea in today’s Harvard or Yale (both founded by religious denominations) – the idea would be absurd if not completely hilarious. Is it possible that conservative ideals and principles are becoming just as irrelevant and absurd in our country today? Are there more of “them” than “us” and are our traditional ideals and principles becoming just as outdated in today’s pluralistic society?
Phil,
In your response post to my post, you repeated your arguments, framed, of course, in contrast to what I wrote, but repetitive, nonetheless.
It appears we end up agreeing to disagree. That’s cool.
Live Free —
Debate is often more about clarity than consensus. We agree to disagree. Take care, Phil
“Patrick: In addition to what I’ve just posted above, remember that the President’s powers are not absolute. There are certain things he can do such as nominate supreme court judges, act as Commander in Chief, etc. But he can’t pass his own legislation.
I’d rather have McCain in the White House making decisions for Congress to approve than Hillary or Obama. It’s not even a close issue in my mind. If McCain goes off the deep end on immigration like Bush, we can use our access to our individual representatives to block him like we did with Bush. It’s not 100% fool proof, but as a practical matter I’d rather try to block some of what McCain might do that ALL of what Hillary/Obama WILL do.
To paraphrase the Apollo 13 mission, “Withdrawal is not an option”. I will not simply surrender the White House to the far left because my candidate is not 100% conservative.”
I understand what you’re saying, Phil. From a 100% pragmatic standpoint, you’re right. Of course, the future is uncertain though. Democrats are projected to increase their majorities in both houses of congress, and I don’t see McCain ferociously wielding the veto pen against a Democratic congress with which he is in agreement on many (most) major issues. If we lose enough seats, our power to keep McCain and the Democrats in check will be lost entirely (it is close today as it is). And like I pointed out before, even in a best-case scenario, what are our prospects for 2012 when we have to run the same guy, who we all seem to despise to one degree or another, all over again? Whether McCain wins or loses in 2008 is only going to determine if a Democrat gets into office now or later, in practical terms.
Patrick: I understand the logic of your analysis, but it depends on the absolute certainty that McCain will actively promote key liberal causes and/or not use any of his power to stop liberal excesses, and that it’s inevitable that the Republicans will continue to lose seats. Historically the latter is true — but not in 2002, for example. And, the political terrain will be very different post-2008 if President Hillary/Obama don’t veto the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine like McCain would, or do other things to make an opposition victory more difficult in the future.
I wouldn’t bet against the fact that you’re right about the belief that Republicans are in for difficult times ahead even with a McCain victory. But I do know that simply allowing the Dems back into the White House without a fight will make it both (b) easier for them to make it more difficult for us, and (b) turns a possible, perhaps even probable outcome into an absolute certainty.
Your chances at winning big at the craps table in Las Vegas are small. Yet few people just hand over their money to the casino and walk away. They roll the dice — even with poor odds — because even 1% still is better than 0%.
Good conversation.
Defining McCain as a liberal shows a profound misunderstanding of the word as it is used in the United States and as he votes in the Senate. Yes, the activists in the Republican Party have become more conservative as the traditional NE moderates who were a major part of the party become more rare, but McCain has never been as moderate as the NE Republicans or Richard Nixon were. Even when Democrats are running everything, the US has been much more conservative than other developed nations. That is not likely to change.
I do not like McCain. I did not vote for McCain. When the initial lineup of Republican contenders threw their hats into the ring, McCain was at the absolute bottom of my list, somewhere next to Rudy Giuliani. The vast majority of talk radio, posters to IC, posters to TownHall.com, and virtually every other registered Republican I have talked to feels likewise. I could have gotten excited about Thompson, had he been able to show some excitement for himself. I got the impression the presidency was something to be endured rather than sought with him. What a disappointment.
But although I greatly admire James Dobson, I cannot bring myself to essentially cast a vote for Clinton or Obama by either doing a write-in or not voting in the general election.
My principles showed themselves at the primary stage…and I am not abandoning them at the general election stage. I am simply making the best choice available to me between two rather abysmal choices.
If McCain wants to win in November, he is going to have to work extremely hard to court the constiuency that he has thumbed his nose at. Otherwise, he will win the battle and lose the war. It is as simple as that. If nothing changes between now and then, he will lose. The ONLY rallying point that he inspires at this juncture is “anybody but Obama/Hillary.” It feels like a football game in which the goal isn’t to score, but simply to prevent the other team from scoring. It doesn’t insprire much passion.
I’m reminded of the old saying “the enemy of your enemy is your friend”. That is how I feel about McCain. I may not like his track record, but there is some modicum of hope that the man can be swayed by his Party or blunted by Congress. With Obama or Hillary, I know exactly what I am going to get and there is little hope that they can be swayed. They have a vision for this country, and it is largely to behave like a member of the EU. With either of them in the White House, it will be an eight-year march down the field towards universal health care, unrestricted abortion, embrionic stem cell research, open borders, the redefinition of marriage, the curtailment of free speech under the guise of hate crimes, steadily increasing taxes, and the continued redefinition of tolerance and multiculturalism to defy the rules of logic whereby mutually exclusive ideologies are to be simultaneously embraced.
Come to think of it, that sounds a lot like McCain, doesn’t it?
It helps me to think of the upcoming election as one in which I will have to choose between two democrats because I have no other choices. I can choose a moderate democrat by the name of McCain who happens to call himself a republican, or I can choose an ultra-liberal democrat who is as yet unnamed.
My only option is to choose the least worst. Regardless, ideologies that have historically been associated with liberalism and democratic party platforms will occupy the White House to a greater or lesser extent.
Steve: To your point, I posted this in the RINO article —
I think we need to introduce a new concept into the political mix: the WINOs (Wish It Never Occurred).
When their candidate or ideology fails to secure their party’s nomination for President, WINOs withdraw from the electoral process rather than choose the best candidate among the two running for office. At this point, rather than not voting, some WINOs decide to cast their votes for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning, thus becoming WIMPS (Waste It Making Protest Statements).
Whether WINO’s or WIMPS, it’s a losing electoral strategy. But there is one up-side. President Hillary Clinton or President Barak Obama thank you for your principled stand, because when they set about ruining the country with their anti-conservative agenda, you’ll be able to hold your head high and say “At least I kept John McCain from becoming president!”