It is a rare thing, but a comment on an article gives the perfect example of what I have been saying:

The GOP hacks and propagandists running around these forums will tell you that it is political suicide.

Perhaps we need a few willing to be martyrs for conservative principles to once again take hold in America. Perhaps we NEED a few socialist terms for people to REALLY understand the difference.

Nah, that's just too reasonable.

First, let me say that what the earlier poster suggested, violating campaign finance laws to get a test case, actually does make sense, and doesn't really make one a "martyr", it is simply the way test cases are created. So I am not objecting to the idea of generating  a test case, it is the rest of the comment which disturbs me.

Listen to the wording, and it sounds almost identical to every college student who calls out for a communist revolution. Except for being written from the opposite end of the spectrum  it could be the tirade of anyone throwing trashcans at a WTO riot. We need to live through an oppressive government so the REAL revolution will come! Isn't that the childish sort of argument we conservatives are supposed to be above? When did we become just as immature as the left?

As I have said before, those who would withdraw from politics to show their displeasure, or those who would join the Ron Paul third party movement which I am sure will arise when he loses, as well as those who will vote for the other side, are all acting like immature children.* They are not making a principled stand, they are simply having a tantrum because their party did not agree with them completely and they are too impatient to convince others.

I have said it before, but it bears repeating, allowing the other side to win does too much damage to the nation, and my loyalty is to the nation first, and the party second, so I cannot embrace that choice. I know some will say McCain will be "just as bad as the Democrats", but I cannot agree. He is quite liberal, but on defense he is definitely a better choice. That alone makes the choice simple, but it is not all. I cannot see him appointing the outright liberal Supreme Court justices that Hillary or Obama would. Nor will either Hillary or Obama have any reason to listen to the conservative wing of the Republican Party, while, no matter how grudgingly, McCain will have to do so if he hopes for a second term. So, no matter how liberal he may be, McCain will have to have a more conservative, and thus less harmful, presidency than either Hillary or Obama would.

Even looking at it from a party perspective, refusing to vote is a bad choice. It alienates one from the party and eliminates any chance of working within the party to move it right. Instead, by having a tantrum, these self-described "real conservatives" have shown the party they are unreliable, and their concerns can be safely ignored as their votes are not worth pursuing.

A lot of this "I won't vote" cheerleading comes from the motives of impatience and narcissism. People are unwilling to take the time to fix what ails the party, they want it all fixed in one great "revolutionary" blow, and by playing with visions of grand revolutions and drastic changes in the party, they make themselves feel good, as they are now the vanguard of the revolution. In a way it is akin to the appeal of Ron Paul. For decades socialist students got to be "cool" revolutionaries, now thanks to Ron Paul, the right can finally be hip "freedom fighters" too. And I think some of that Ron Paul immaturity has rubbed off on those shouting about sitting out the election. They don't want to do the boring, ugly, unrecognized work of slowly reforming, instead they want to "fight for change" and fix everything all at once.

In general, I hate shattering such treasured childhood beliefs, but since most of those holding this childish belief are adults, I think it is time they were told the truth. So I will say this one more time:

In the real world, almost all change for the better is slow and lacks drama. Doing good is hard, dirty, slow work and usually passes unnoticed. Get used to it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

* I know some pundits have come out and said they would vote for Hillary or Obama, but I have a feeling that those statements are made more for rhetorical effect than sincere declarations. However, if they are sincere, it wouldn't surprise me either. Just because one is a pundit it does not guarantee one does not have immature impulses. To think pundits are perfect, or represent all conservatives, or are the essence of conservative philosophy is a s silly as listening to actors for political advice or musicians for spiritual guidance. They are simply people whose opinions struck a chord with enough readers to earn them a syndication contract, that does not make them infallible.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADDENDUM

I am sure someone will think he has found a great refutation of my argument and bring up the American Revolution as an example of good change coming swiftly and through aggressive action. However, my hypothetical critic would be quite wrong.

I know the history books tend to focus on the Revolution and largely ignore all the events preceding it (excepting the king's abuses, of course), but the colonies tried again and again to peacefully resolve their disputes with the crown. Yes there were some firebrands who wanted revolution from the start, but most of the founders were mature men who did not relish the thought of armed insurrection. They knew that the drama of revolution was not glamorous, and would bring great hardships and suffering. They were looking, at first, for nothing more than some incremental reforms from the king, and became convinced of the need for revolution only when the king refused to reform any of the abuses about which they had complained.

So, yes, at times there may be a real need for violent revolution as a last resort, but we have hardly reached that point. Despite the rhetoric from the Paul worshipers, the NAU/CFR conspiracy theorists, and a few other extremists, we are in no need of revolt. The mechanisms for peaceful change are still there, the laws can still be changed back to conform to the intent of the constitution's authors, liberty can be restored to the degree the founders envisioned, there is nothing we lack to restore a liberal state, in the 19th century meaning of "liberal".

The fact that our fellow citizens continue to vote in authoritarian, big government types is not a reason for revolution. Instead, it points to a need to convince our fellow citizens. Just because change is coming "too slowly" for some, or because we may be moving in the wrong direction, does not mean it is time for violent change. It simply means we need to work harder to convince others of the truth of what we have been saying all along.

And, to return to my original point, the fact that our fellow party members have chosen a candidate with whom we are displeased does not mean it is time to abandon the party either. At this time, the Republican Party is the only viable conservative party. A third party may eventually arise which better suits conservatives, but that will take decades. For now, the Republicans are the only group which, however imperfectly, represents the right. So, rather than leaving the party and surrendering it to the moderates and liberals, we need to stay, remain loyal party members, and make every effort to convince the rest of the party that moving to the right is best for both the party and the nation. To do otherwise, to sit out elections and abandon the Republicans, is to push the Republican Party into the hands of the moderates and leave the US without a real conservative party. Yes, at the moment, the Republicans may have a far too liberal candidate, but that does not guarantee the next candidate will also be a liberal. There is every opportunity to nominate a real conservative in the Republican party, unless the real conservatives abandon the party. If that should happen, then their overheated rhetoric will become reality, and we will be left with two liberal parties.

 UPDATED 02/21/2008

I do not wish to give the impression that I think all those opposed to McCain are immature, self-absorbed, or grandstanding. Many have completely laudable reasons for refusing to vote, most because they believe that it will push the party back to the right. I do not call such people immature, though I think they will end up with the opposite result they intended, but I cannot fault them on their motives.

On the other hand, there are also a number of people who refuse to vote based on much less legitimate motives, and it about those individuals I was writing in the essay above.