Video Meliora, proboque; Deteriora sequor

On Voting

Liked this Bill Luse muse:

I bumped into a colleague out at school...who asked me if I was prepared to vote for Rudy, apparently on the assumption that he will be the Republican nominee. I said no. He accused me of being a "purist" and further announced that I would be personally responsible for electing Hillary and the havoc she was sure to wreak on the Republic. I said that, no, Rudy would be responsible, and told him how I'd come to this conclusion. Some days ago Paul Cella sent me a link to a magazine article in another Leading Conservative Voice, the American Spectator, in which the author's thesis is that Roe v. Wade is still law today because, in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, Anthony Kennedy was there to cast the deciding vote and Robert Bork was not; and that Bork was not there because of a 1986 election in which a number of Republican congressmen and senators did not get re-elected; and that they did not get re-elected because certain conservatives among us did not turn out in sufficient numbers, the relevance of it all being that if we behave similarly in this coming election - as James Dobson has threatened to do if someone like Giuliani is nominated - we will be responsible for cementing Roe into American law unto perpetuity. As the author puts it: "An amazing thought, no? Roe v. Wade: the conservative legacy."

So I wrote a letter to the editor:

It's interesting that Mr. Lord would require a certain brand of conservative voter to shoulder the blame for the persistence of Roe v. Wade in law. His counsel is that it is not wise to be too "pure". We must sacrifice a principle here and there for the greater good.

And then I wondered: why must it be this way? Why can't (just for example) Rudy Giuliani sacrifice his principles. Why can't he chuck his pro-choice stance and claim conversion to the pro-life cause? Others have done it before him and gotten away with it. Why can't he let go of his pro-gay marriage position and get behind the Federal Marriage Amendment? Well, because it would be too obviously opportunistic, and voters value honesty above all in their candidates. (But, apparently, not in themselves.) Better that the voter be a hypocrite, so that his candidate need not be.

Another implication of Mr. Lord's argument is that what we are really voting for when we enter the polling place is not a candidate, but a judge, someone who doesn't even hold elective office. If we must lie to our conscience to vote for a candidate who will then appoint a judge who will then rule over us as Mr. Lord sees fit, something's badly wrong. Constitutionally, you might say.
Sincerely, etc.

Steven Riddle has some good thoughts here. My voting weltanschauung (that's for Bill White) is thus far this:

In primary:

Scenerio 1: There is already a candidate with big lead in polls:
Vote "with purity", for the "Alan Keyes" candidate if you will, named in honor for that wonderfully Quixotic candidate.

Scenerio 2: There is a battle in the primary.
Vote for purest available among the viable in the general election.

In general election:

Scenerio 1: Difference between candidates not significant enough to matter or both candidates too deeply flawed
Write in your Alan Keyes candidate

Scenerio 1: Not a close election:
Write in your Alan Keyes candidate

Scenerio 2: Close election in which you can live with the flaws of lesser of two evils:
Vote for the purest of the two.

In practical terms:

Republican primary:

Assuming there is a battle, which it looks at this point there will be, I'll vote for the purest of the viable candidates, which at this point is either McCain or Romney or possibly Huckabee.

General election:

Will vote for the Republican candidate unless it's Giulliani.