Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 10:26:36 AM
Thomas Sowell today writes about a phenomenon that is part of the problem
that has troubled me for some time, conservatives so upset at McCain that they are willing to hand the nation over to a dyed in the wool far left liberal extremist rather than support a moderate conservative. Admittedly, his specific topic, conservatives actually supporting Obama, is new, but the principle has been around ever since McCain secured the nomination.
What is wrong with conservatives?
Yes, there is a problem with McCain, he has hardly been the most loyally conservative Republican, but do his deviations from "conservative orthodoxy" mean we should hand our nation over to someone worse? Yes, McCain has even been dismissive of conservative concerns. But the idea that we can hand our country to Obama is outright suicide. Even if he now is mouthing platitudes about staying the course in Iraq, why should we believe him? That same mouth was saying the opposite, and just as sincerely a few days ago. And it even has changed course since. If we can't believe his words, then why should we imagine this man, whose short time in the senate still gave him one of the most liberal records in that body, will adopt an even vaguely conservative approach?
I have written on this so much, I hesitate to go through it all again. I addressed most of the points at great length in my essay entitled "
At Last", and would refer anyone interested in my arguments there. However, I will make one final statement.
Yes, McCain may be more liberal than many are willing to accept, but Obama is even more liberal, and on every issue of substance. One every issue period. If you are unwilling to vote in McCain as he is too liberal, how can anyone possibly explain voting for Obama? Or voting third party, which amounts to the same thing?
And for those who say "I just can't vote for a RINO" or "McCain has insulted real conservatives", I quote from the end of my essay "
Single Issue Voting":
I am sure that some reply will tell me they cannot ethically support
someone who allows abortion. And on a liberal site I am sure someone
would say they cannot ethically support anyone who wants to continue
fighting in Iraq. To both I would respond that their position is not
truly ethical.
Let us look at both and see why.
Suppose you believe abortion is murder and so you cannot support anyone
who allows abortion. However, if you have a choice between a pro-choice
candidate who allows exceptions and one who does not, by allowing the
candidate who allows no exceptions to win you are allowing more
murders. Is it not more ethical to support the candidate who causes
less harm than to sit it out and allow even more murders? Or is your
own personal ethical purity more important than those lives?
Likewise, for the anti-war protest voter who would not support a
candidate who supports the war, is there no difference between a
candidate who would draw down the troops and one who would not? One who
would leave in a year and one who supports endless deployment? Again,
to say you can't vote for one is to put your own ethical purity above
the better outcome, form your perspective.
I know that these people mean well when they say these things, but in
many ways they are not acting to stop wrong because they feel it would
somehow sully them. Is it not better to take on some ethical taint to
do real good?
Well, that is my perspective on it. I am sure many disagree, but I just
can't see it. If you can minimize the harm you should act to do so,
even if it risks giving legitimacy to a position with which you
disagree. You can later fight to make things better. But if the present
choice is between bad and worse, letting worse win so you don't
"endorse" bad is just idiocy.
The same logic applies to the McCain campaign. Unless you truly believe he will be every bit as liberal as Obama, nominate justices just as liberal for the Supreme Court and the federal bench, and will not pursue the war any more aggressively than Obama, then how can you possibly justify voting for Obama? Or even sitting out the election?
The future of our nation is too important to make symbolic votes or to allow in a liberal to "show those RINOs". You wouldn't harm your health to spite a doctor you disliked, or crash your car to show your dislike of Ford. So why trash the country even more because you dislike McCain?
POSTSCRIPT
For those who argue that voting for McCain will destroy the Republican party, or hand the party over to the RINOs, I would refer them to an earlier essay, "
An Alternate Take on McCain". I am convinced that, though Republicans see it as a loss, the average voter, and, more importantly, the Democrats, will see their third straight loss running left-leaning candidates as a sign that the left does not win presidential elections. Rather than a victory for RINOs, the public will see it as defeat of liberalism. That will move the Democrats right, which, in time, will also move the Republicans right.
In other words, the conservative take, skewed through conservative concerns within the party, is missing the much bigger, and much brighter, picture.