Posted on 03/05/2006 10:23:13 AM PST by Amerigomag
We have to govern by what is possible, practical and manageable -- rather than imposing ideologies onto the living -- which is the evil in the world, that should be obvious by now.
However, that does not mean that the possible must be without values and ideas, which is often implied and explicit in many arguments for a dismal alternative. Life is not either/or as the ideologues would have us believe but is more likely to be either/and, or all of the above.
The kind of purity, ideologues speak of, are only to be found in the great purges and genocides of history -- and that is clearly what is not a viable alternative.
So rather than test for ideology, the best guide to good leaders are those who do the best job of getting all the people to feel and work together. That is what wise leadership is about. The Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, are sterling examples of those who put their ideology above the lives of actual living people.
Right On. May I include those famous words from Alexander Tyler. "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
>
When you vote for the most rightward candidate available who is viable, your principles are impeccable.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I see no impeccable principles in that.
>
That's wrong, of course. You never, ever vote FOR anything or anyone. You vote against things. This is because you will never ever have a candidate 100% supporting EVERYTHING you believe in. The principled conservative stand is to support the candidate most likely to deny the leftward most candidate office. Anything else is immoral.
If Arnold needs to make motions toward the Left for reelection so he can go back to where he was and push reforms again, it's unpleasant but may be required. It's all about getting elected or reelected right now.
The best thing we could do for a sensible rather than continued senile agenda is reform the legislature. Right now Arnold's a gatekeeper.
There is nothing even remotely moderate about the Wilsonegger gang. They are pure political expediency, tempered only occasional when their spokesman goes off an unscripted tangent to promote a liberal cause such as conferring the benefits of marriage upon homosexual partners.
Describing the gang as either liberal, moderate or conservative in their guiding ideology is about as appropriate as ascribing governance style to the candidate's gender.
Let's see how high you are. Assume Arnold is guaranteed 35% of the vote, regardless of policy issues, on name recognition alone. If he came out for a state buyout of all private schools, and a hike in corporate income tax on the level of a 50% increase, would you vote for him?
I'm not a citizen of Calif so I got no say. In the society that exists there, one has no choice but to compare that with the other viable alternative.
If he proves to be the rightward most viable alternative, you have no moral choice but to vote against the leftward most candidate. You never ever vote for anything. You always, no exceptions, vote against that which is disliked most.
At what point do you draw the line? Would you vote Trotsky over Stalin? How about Franklin Roosevelt over Henry Wallace? Wallace over Eugene V. Debs?
>>
"If he proves to be the rightward most viable alternative, you have no moral choice but to vote against the leftward most candidate. You never ever vote for anything. You always, no exceptions, vote against that which is disliked most."
At what point do you draw the line? Would you vote Trotsky over Stalin? How about Franklin Roosevelt over Henry Wallace? Wallace over Eugene V. Debs?
>>
Yes, you do.
And here's why. If you failed to get a better alternative out of the primaries then you need to stop right now and look at yourself in the mirror and recognize the reality of what is going on, namely:
It Is Your Fault.
Do not sit there and swagger and rage at how the Republicans didn't nominate someone you wanted. That's not their failure. That is YOURS. You didn't persuade the leadership to embrace who you wanted. You didn't get out and work to get enough votes for your preferred candidate. You didn't make your case to enough people. You didn't present the rightness of your position in a manner effective enough to persuade the majority.
When you fail to get who you want out of the primaries, then you are faced with what You Are Always Faced With -- even if you had gotten who you wanted. The reality doesn't change. You will never have someone you 100% agree with in the general election. You are obligated to vote to deny the least desired, viable alternative the office. To do otherwise is immoral.
Immoral? You would vote for a Trotsky, a Wallace, and call it moral, more so than voting third party? You have got to be joking.
I've made the lesser-of-two-evils calls in the general election before, but I'm not about to do that with a proven RINO--ANY proven RINO--again, because electing a RINO to office is in the long run worse for conservatives. If RINOs are elected, they kill the reputation of the conservative GOP for delivering the smaller government it promises. They lessen the chances of electing real conservatives by tarnishing the vehicle through which people elect them. That will keep the American people from voting for claimed conservatives, period.
As to swaggering, I won't 'swagger' about it at all if I do vote third party. I've only grown disappointed over the GOP's turn towards big government, and it's hard to be cocky about being let down. But as to being 'my fault,' if it is my fault, it is my responsibility to solve the problem, and the clear solution is removing my unconvincing self from hurting the party through my affiliation.
If you have never sent money to a winning GOP candidate or worked on his campaign in the general election, your disappearance costs nothing in support.
If you take action that increases the chances of the leftward most candidate who is viable to be elected, then you are working for the liberals. Period. Full stop.
Any other contorted logic is just that, contorted. This "I will help the party by taking action to create incumbents (and all their advantages) for the opposition" is either silly or convoluted-with-a-purpose.
When you take these kinds of positions, the only way to establish your bonafides is to send money to GOP candidates in vulnerable districts. Let us know when your checkbook is out.
I must establish myself--with a 'Republican' who is willing to choose between Trotsky and Stalin? Again, you must simply be joking. Tell you what, you let me know when you support a conservative candidate in a GOP primary. I'll consider your posts then. Until then, you're just providing unintentional comedy.
For a good writeup on this weekend's California Republican Assembly convention, see Steve Frank's at: www.capoliticalnews.com
I'm going to enjoy it a lot.
L
I'm not. I live here. As do lots of good people.
Your swinish attitude is one that our Founders would have been disgusted by.
You get the government you deserve. And California is going to get it good and hard.
L
No, the Founders would be sad. They were not in the habit of "laughing their asses off."
Many Californians will get the government they deserve. And many won't.
If you can't understand the difference, you are too stupid to be representing the conservative viewpoint -- are indeed an embarrassment to us -- on FReep or anywhere else.
Your vicious mean-spiritedness is a very poor example to those of us who have the courage and the character to keep fighting in California.
Ooo, I love that song and I have to use it. Thanks! BTW, my dad used to deliver newspapers to Mr. Ford.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.