Something Or Nothing?
(A new post from the blogger formerly know as paulag1955. I’ve changed my name to be consistent with my Twitter ID.)
Since I posted this piece at It’s Only Words about financially supporting conservative candidates and Erick Erickson posted a similar piece here the same day, I’ve seen a few comments based on the idea that if only candidates were “conservative enough” people would support them.
Didn’t your mother ever ask you, “What’s better, something or nothing?” When you’re talking about cookies, the answer seems fairly obvious but apparently it gets fuzzy when you’re talking about candidates. It would be nice to have “perfect” conservative candidates in every race at every level (and don’t even get me started on how we’d define “perfect”), but last time I checked, Jesus wasn’t even remotely interested in running for office. Meanwhile, we have to make do with actual humans. Humans whose views may not coincide exactly with our own on every issue.
Get over it.
I can understand the appeal of allocating your dollars based on principle, but in a two-party system, the time for that is in the primaries. (Although here in Washington, with our misguided top-two primary system, standing on principle even in the primaries may be a luxury we can no longer afford.) Now that the primaries are over, we need to identify the candidates who are most closely aligned with our beliefs and rally around them, where “rally around” means supporting them with our time and our wallets – even if those candidates aren’t really as conservative as we might like, because in the majority of cases, the alternative is far worse.
Cross posted at It’s Only Words.