Generally in presidential elections, voters really aren’t ecstatic over either candidate A or B (yes, even if there were a C and a mythical third party, people still could care less). Instead, they cast their vote based on who will likely not screw it up the most.
This election is no different - if Clinton and Giuliani win out, we will see republicans likely tossing out more than half of their major ideals to vote for a guy who, relative to the emblematic republicans of old - looks like Chairman Mao.
Why in the world do they do this?
The answer is pragmatism. Republicans see Clinton as a rabid, feminist, socialistic… well, Clinton. So even though they are actually voting for an anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-taxer, big spending, illegal immigration supporting, big-government politician - it’s ok because the pragmatic alternative is supporting Hillary. Forget the fact that, for all intents and purposes, they are voting for a democrat in everything but name.
Ironically, these people openly talk about why they are sorely disappointed with George W. Bush’s big-government legacy, as though they totally forgot that Bush openly ran as a big-government conservative. His immigration stance, spending-philosophy, government health care and big-government education program were all out in the open in both 2000 and 2004 - but republicans were terrified of Al Gore and John Kerry. Again, pragmatism.
Where Strategic Thinking Goes to Die
This is the ultimate danger of such a voting philosophy - pragmatism is only good for one battle - one moment in the thousands of moments of A versus B. When we elect a president, for example, we aren’t picking a winner and then everyone goes home. They stay in office for at least four years - and they do all the irresponsible things that we ignorantly hoped they wouldn’t do, but blatantly indicated they would.
As it has been said before - the lesser of two evils is still evil. And pragmatism is not a strategy -it’s suicide. Death by hanging or by jumping off a cliff?
Genuine strategy, the kind that is above base pragmatism, takes into account total wins and losses in each battle, and attempts to gain victory in the end. In other words - it’s not the end of the world if one battle is lost!
The candidate that a voter actually likes may be in tenth place, or in some obscure party which has no chance of winning. Of course, the battle will certainly be lost and the candidate will be soundly defeated - but that is one less person choosing not to play the game when the rules are stacked against them. It’s one more kid picking up their ball, and going home. Eventually, the only ones left are the bullies and thugs, and their threats and lies are exposed for the world to see.
That is the moral victory - and yes, even in amoral politics there are moral victories - the size of both A and B’s electorate and donation base just got smaller. Eventually, and maybe it takes twenty years, the politicians realize that a good number of people are actually voting on principles and not pragmatism and adjust accordingly. Now that would be real change!
The Motivation for Pragmatism is Fear
Are pragmatists afraid? Yes. They get caught up in every election - which is built up by both A and B - that this is the defining battle between the two sides. They and their pundits will say that compromise is essential, because there is just too much at stake. If you don’t vote for A, B will raise your taxes, socialize your health care and make you use lightbulbs that cost $400 a piece. But if you don’t vote for B, A will instate a draft, round up the Muslims and start arresting you for jaywalking.
It’s fear people. The heart of pragmatism exposed.
How to Break the Cycle
In choosing pragmatism, the only safeguard built into the plurality system is neutered: idealism. When democrats, for example, who overwhelmingly oppose the war, pick Clinton who has no qualms about keeping troops in Iraq another five years - they are saying that they don’t really care about ending the war. In the next congressional election, democratic candidates are going to be more moderate on that issue because they know they can win without being an ideologue. Eventually, ending the war gradually fades from the platform.
However, if Giuliani gets elected, then the democrats in the congressional elections react strongly against the war - and win - because that’s what the democratic electorate really wants. In other words, even though it’s only in baby steps, the parties are gradually shaped back into what people actually want them to be, and not what they are willing to settle for to prevent that other crazy party from getting power.
Is all of this even realistic? Probably not. People will go on, voting for their own destruction, until the whole thing breaks (if it isn’t there already). But the vision should be held, because even when this country finally breaks beyond repair, a new one is going to have to be built from scratch.
Recent Comments
Atanamis, Darius T, Jew, MadAsHell, econobiker [...]
bob, Atanamis, bob, Atanamis, bob [...]
Darius T, Colin, Jew
Chris A, thainamu, Chris A, Colin, Chris A [...]
Jew, Pete, Stringman, Danielle, Kenneth Martens (Jew) [...]
bob, Colin, bob
gurr8, Tamara, bob, Ron Moss, Chris A
Paineskeeper, Chris A, bob, Chris Austere, bob [...]