Posted by
Andrews on Friday, March 21, 2008 1:19:18 PM
In my last post I said I would leave the topic of McCain alone unless I saw a new argument. Well, I did, so here comes the reply.
I keep seeing the argument that McCain should not get votes "just because he is more conservative than the Democrats". In fact someone argued "if I said 10 day old dog s**t tasted better than fresh, would you eat it?" All of which must strike someone as clever, but misses a central point.
Whether or not you vote, whether or not any Republican votes, we WILL have a new president. So, unlike the fecal example, we don't have the choice of not eating. As I have more chance of being declared a descendant of King Zog and placed on the throne of Albania than a third party has of winning the presidency, we have only a choice of Democrat or Republican. So, whether anyone likes it or not, we are either going to have McCain or the eventual Democrat nominee. So, why not choose the less harmful?
This argument strikes me as foolish and self-defeating. If these people found out they had cancer, were told they would die next month, or could do chemotherapy and live five years, I picture them saying "Well, why bother, I will still die of cancer, right?"
Sometimes a decision is not about getting the perfect candidate, or even a good one, but about minimizing the harm. And, in this case, McCain will do less harm. And, in my eyes, if you have the option of saving your country from harm, that is the choice you must make.
But perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps someone can tell me why I should intentionally pick the worse candidate and increase the harm done to the US. If so, please put it in the comments. I am really interested in how a conservative, who loves his nation, can argue that we should see the US suffers as much as possible.