As a comment to my most recent post accused me of "losing [my] sense of right and wrong" because I am willing to vote for a liberal Republican, I feel the need to make a few comments on the difference between maintaining one's principles and being unrealistic.

Now, in general, it is best to do no harm. It is even better to do actual good. I think we can all agree on that. The problems come when we try to apply it to actual situations.

In this particular context, it relates to choosing whether or not to vote for a liberal Republican, provided one believes in conservative principles.

My critic seems to be saying that, if one is a true conservative, he should never vote for a liberal, and would be better off refraining from voting altogether rather than support any candidate who is "too liberal".

I beg to differ.

By not voting, or writing in a sure loser, or voting for some long shot third party candidate, my critic and others like him may be "making a statement" and "sending a message", but I think in reality they are just engaging in narcissism. They feel good about "doing the right thing", but they have effectively removed themselves from the political process. The current politicians know they are not their constituents, and will not listen, and, even worse, the candidates of the future will know that "hardline conservatives" do not vote regularly, so they will no longer pay much attention to trying to get conservative votes. So, by sitting this out, my critic and his ilk may feel good, but they are helping to portray the conservative voters as more trouble than they are worth, and will encourage future candidate to ignore conservative issues.

In my mind, the Republican party is the only viable tool for enacting a conservative agenda in the foreseeable future. It is far from ideal, but it is all we have. So, by supporting the party, I feel I am maintaining my voice in party issues, and give myself the ability to try in my own small way to move the party to the right. In addition, as I vote and I am a constituent of those elected, I also have a small bit of influence over them, unlike those who sat out the election. In other words, they may be doing no harm, but I am actually able to do some good, by maintaining my ties to the party and by being loyal, despite my disagreements. And, as I said above, doing good is better in my eyes than just not doing harm.

I have noticed four motives driving those who argue so vehemently against "compromise voting".

First is a very juvenile "all or nothing" attitude I find most often among twenty-somethings who discovered Ayn Rand for the first time.As I wrote elsewhere, these libertarian/objectivist types seem to see the world in extremes of black and white and refuse even modest compromises as "selling out". It is an unrealistic view that usually vanishes with age, as they realize that asking for all or nothing always results in getting nothing. Much as it offends those like my critic who refuse to "compromise on principles" life requires that some accommodations be made for those with whom we disagree, and nothing is ever accomplished with which anyone is completely satisfied. That is simply the reality of social life.Unless everyone you know agrees with you completely, you are an absolute dictator, or you live as a hermit, you will inevitably have to compromise. (Marriage is often the first harsh lesson in this reality.)

Second, some refuse to compromise in the misguided view that they will manage to move the party to the right. But as I argued in an earlier comment, I think it far more likely withholding one's vote will simply serve to move the party in the other direction.

Third, there are those who are just impatient. The reality is that moving something as huge and ungainly as a political party or a government takes a lot of time, a lot of work, and a willingness to accept setbacks. A lot of people just don't have that kind of patience, and rail about the injustice of it all. I think most of those who threaten to "pick up their ball and go home" by not voting are actually in this category.

Last, there are the narcissists who feel good because they stuck to their principles and feel better when they look down upon those who "sold out" and supported a heretic like McCain.

Of course, I am not saying my critic falls into any particular category. Perhaps he has a different reason altogether for taking me to task. I do not know. I simply thought it might help if I explained why I believe as I do, and what I see as the reasoning behind those on the other side.

UPDATED 02/18/2008

I thought of another example of this process from the other side, which may help make my case.

Obviously, if they were going to vote for one of the two main parties, the socialists and communists would vote for the Democrats. However, they have some very definite beliefs and tend to sit out elections unless a candidate is willing to embrace a very hard line communist agenda. In other words, unless the Democrats are willing to run an outright communist on their ticket, the socialist and communists take their ball and go home.

How does this work out for the far left of the political spectrum? About as well as I predict the same policy will work for conservatives.

Because they are "all or nothing" voters, and because appeasing them would require moving so far to the left that it would alienate a lot of voters, the Democrats largely ignore the potential pool of socialist and communist votes. By remaining ideologically "pure" the far left puts themselves outside the political process and pushes the Democrats slightly to the right.

And that is what I predict will happen to conservatives if the sit out the 2008 elections. They will end up pushing Republicans tot he left and making their voice irrelevant in future political debates.