Politics is About Direction, Not Perfection
*I give credit on this post to my friend, Jed Ipsen, who shared some good insight with me awhile back regarding voting decisions.*
I recently received an email from a conservative friend of mine explaining why she will be voting for Mike Hatch (DFL) for Governor of Minnesota. The reasoning is that, since Republicans have dropped the ball and played to liberal policies, conservatives should "teach them a lesson" by voting Democrat. Here is my response:
If you vote for Hatch you might as well vote against Kennedy (I can't spell the woman's name). Kennedy isn't extremely conservative either.Thoughts?
Strategic voting like this has never worked in history. It only makes everything worse. Remember Clinton? Yeah, he got in office because conservatives strategically voted against Bush. Do you think that helped the country? 9-11 happened partially because of our refusal to deal with international Islamic extremism (I don't blame Clinton, but had Republicans been in the White House...).
The person you vote for should represent your ideals. If you can't vote for the major candidate, vote for a minor one that supports what you believe. The message will be much better sent if you vote for a more conservative candidate.
Think about it. The Republican politicians see Minnesotans voting more liberal, so in order to get votes they all start supporting more liberal ideas. Slowly the state becomes even MORE liberal! I like what Jed Ipsen said once: politics is about direction, not perfection. Pawlenty isn't perfect by any means, but I plan to vote for him. Governor Hatch will solve nothing.
posted by Chris Hill @ 10/28/2006 11:47:00 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
Let me start by saying that I am writing this because I have no clue who emailed Christopher with this comment. So whoever you are, please dont take offense to what I am saying. This is not personal at all, just my thoughts on the post. :)
So, I dont really get that..."teach them a lesson"? How is voting Democrat doing that? I highly doubt that voting against the Republican canidate will be seen as an act of justice in the grand scheme of things. Voting that way seems self serving if anything. I guess that person may feel an internal sense of justice as a result. But what good is that if Minnesota ends up with a crappy leader?
One: if a conservative has a problem with the republican party he should take the time to get involved with it to change it from within. Every problem we see with Republicans is worse with Democrats, from a conservative perspective.
Two: punishing Pawlenty for republicans' perceived failings in general is also ridiculous because there is no significant reason to vote against him. He has been an outstanding governor. I could understand a conservative voter being personally upset with president Bush and voting against him if it were possible to do so--his spending habits have arguably been opposed to conservative ideals--Pawlenty does not have such potentially upsetting issues. What has he done wrong...let's see...a cigarette fee and allowing a new stadium to be built without a referendum...yes I oppose both of those, but if that's all the governor has done wrong that's a pretty dang good governor.
Chris-Thanks for this post. Conservatives who are thinking of voting for Democrats in this election because they're upset with Republicans need to ask themselves one question: How does voting Democrat advance my values? Answer: It doesn't! Voting Democrat will only help advance values conservatives least agree with. Even though the Republican Party is far too liberal, dysfunctional, and weak in many areas, it's still the best vehicle to advance conservative values in the political process. The Republican Party should be seen as a dam or barrier, protecting us from the harmful policies that Democrats would impose. Read Chris's last post which speaks to this. We must approach politics with a pragmatic view, rather than one that's utopian.
Jed
I personally feel that our political system is morally bakrupt. I honestly don't see the difference between Democrats and Republicans because it seems that both parties cater far too much to special interests and seem to forget that they are "of the people for the people" and instead focus on being re-elected. I know it's quite a cynical outlook, so this time around I'm looking at voting for the people that would be the best for the job, regardless of party membership.
Abe,
I think there are many major differences between the Parties, but I can certainly understand your feelings. I'm not opposed to voting 3rd Party, and have done so once or twice in probably every election I've voted in (although I've only voted major party for Governor or President). I think you have to gauge where you draw a line between ideology and practicality. No one is going to have the "perfect" candidate that they like in every way. That is one of the beauties of a democratic government - no one gets everything they want. Thus, we make sacrifices every time we vote. I think it's better to vote for someone who will win if you agree with them 90% of the time (I believe this was Reagan's "Eleventh" Commandment). But if you feel the major party candidates are so ideologically opposed to you, then voting 3rd party is certainly acceptable.
My issue is with those who would vote for the candidate they disagree with in order to "teach a lesson" to those in the party they usually are aligned with.
Jordan,
I hesitated to include the text of the email. I do not wish to make my friend look bad in any way. She has done a lot of work for the Republican Party and I know her heart and passion are in the right place. I just disagree with the reasoning.
Here is the bulk of her email, which details the reasons to vote against Pawlenty:
----------
First, and most important is the issue of our wolf-in-sheep's-clothing republican governor Pawlenty. Like Representative Dennis Ozment, he is a Republican in Name Only (RhINO). Working against Pawlenty just a few years ago on the Sulivan campaign I had a sneaking suspicion of Pawlenty. But now the truth is out in the open. Let me highlight a few pointers: Pawlenty is NOT pro-family, and actually is PRO-HOMOSEXUAL. He voted for adding sexual orientation into the Human Rights Act before being governor (as a Representative). So naively many of us thought something would change when he's governor. Well, when the repealer came up right after he was elected governor, he blocked the bill and it never got a hearing.
Furthermore, he says he is for the marriage amendment but has been a major stumbling block. (A block not only to specific issues, but also stood in the way of our beloved christian reps like Michelle Bauchman.) Pawlenty has done nothing to help get the marriage amendment on the ballot. Yet, he as gotten everything else he wanted like a Twins' Stadium. Further more, he just came out in favor of using embryos for stem cell research. So much for being pro-life! :( He also lied and broke his promise about not raising taxes. And to add insult to injury, the tax on cigarrettes he called, "health impact fee." As if we are THAT dumb!
The man needs to be held accountable and we would be worst off if he is re-elected. Think about it, he could be running for another 14 years, bringing Minnesota right where the Liberals want it. Therefore, in order to vote against him, I am, with a number of other republican groups, am voting for democrat Mike Hatch. There is no difference between him and Pawlenty on the issues and at least Hatch is honest about his stands. Maybe after Hatch is governor for one term, Republicans can regroup and get a real conservative to run and take office. We need some honest men to represent us and the republican platform. I urge you to consider this and vote for Hatch as well. If Hatch doesnt win, at least this will send a message to Pawlenty that his lack of integrity to the platform as governor is being noticed. Maybe that will shape him up with a good scare if comes to be a landslide election.
----------
Well, our enemies certainly believe there's a difference between America's two political parties. This is why they've greatly stepped up their attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq during the last couple of months in the hope that they can influence the election. A forced American withdrawl from Iraq, which is far more likely with Democrats in power, will be a great victory for those we are fighting, and result in far more death and destruction, both in Iraq and most likely here as well. But I'm just fear mongering. There is no difference!
Jed
Chris-
I knew what you had issue with, I just felt like venting. :-)
In any event, ever since I became eligible to vote, I never found a party that actually matched my views. I am not pro-tax by any means, but the fact of the matter is if you don't take the money from people no one would volunteer it to pay for roads, schools, etc. I am not anti-war at all, but I also don't support anyone that would go to war for questionable reasons (and I don't support spineless bastards who vote for said wars and then turn around when things go poorly and say "I told you that was a bad idea.") So long rant longer, I am far too much of a moderate for either party to really keep me happy, and until something like instant run-off voting is more widespread, it feels like I'm throwing away my vote if I vote for one of them... BAH, too much agitation for a sunday morning, I should be getting ready for church anyway. Have a good day, hope your weekend went well.
Abe,
You're probably in the majority, at least in regards to being frustrated with politicians. I have no affinity towards them whatsoever. I supported Sullivan over Pawlenty (2002 Republican primaries) and Keyes over Bush (2000). Even though I voted for Bush twice, I fought against his nomination in the first primary because I thought he was too much of a politician. I think he's done a good job, and all, but the whole politician mindset bothers me.
Anyway, I guess I've come to conclude that I should vote for the major candidate who supports most of what I believe in, even if there are a few things I don't like, because they have a chance of getting elected. Everyone just has to decide where that line is, though. Like I said, there are some major candidates I just won't vote for, and voting on principle is never a bad thing.
Oh, and I actually do support taxes that pay for roads and local (which is the key) taxes that pay for schools. The military and law enforcement also need a few tax dollars too. It's all the other stuff I don't like.
You know it amazes me that we "talk" more through your blog now than we ever did back in college. Oh, and it's good to see you're not like those ultra-cons who seem convinced that all taxes are bad, regardless of what they go towards. Ought to be an interesting election, that much is certain.
I don't know too many people that believe in private funding of roads or schools. I wouldn't call them "ultra-cons" but just libertarians. I think some of their arguments are good, and although I used to be more libertarian in beliefs (I still am to some extent), I think those areas are justifiably controlled by the government. My major disagreement nowadays regarding those things is, one, the government in MN (especially the Met. Counsil and Twin Cities roads) doesn't build enough roads, and two, schools should be controlled locally and funded locally (i.e., no federal funds or control, and perhaps no state funds or control either). That way, schools are accountable to those who are most affected: the community that each one is in.
I agree and appreciate the post-post-secondary cordial discussion. Even though we’re not in college together anymore, perhaps we should drink beer and discuss on my blog. It will be kind of like going out for a beer, but more... uh... loserish. On second thought, maybe we should just wait and go out for a real beer someday.
Uh... that's "Counsel". I'me ae badde spellur.
Post a Comment
<< Home