I need to start this post with a caveat and an apology. I may very well offend some of my readers with what I have to say and if I do, I am sorry. This is something that has been on my mind for a few days and it’s time to put the words on paper, in a manner of speaking. Please know this, I mean no disrespect to any one person or the particular issue they deem to be important.
Do you consider yourself a one issue voter? Do you look at any one issue and base your choice of candidate on how he or she stands on that issue? In 2008, I knew several of these kinds of voters and their one issue was abortion. They absolutely refused to consider a a candidate who was pro choice, even if that choice was based on a decision to save the life of the mother of the unborn child. Their reasoning was this. Life is the most important issue and if a candidate does not take a hard stand against the taking of life, especially in the case of innocent children, then they are not worthy of the voter’s confidence.
There are some voters who believe so strongly in the 2nd Amendment that any candidate who gives even an inkling of the possibility that they would be for more gun control is dead in the water. Even if the candidate is trying to use a common sense approach to the issue, those of us who think of ourselves as 2nd Amendment advocates would have a very difficult time supporting that candidate. We believe the 2nd Amendment is important enough to warrant such scrutiny.
Let’s move on to the issue of immigration, which was brought up in the discussion on my post about Rick Perry. Some of you raised valid concerns about his position on immigration. He seems to be an open border advocate and as Bunkerville pointed out, he would like to open up a cross-continent highway from Mexico to Canada, opening up our roads to Mexican truck drivers. Personally, I think Governor Perry may be trying to use a bit of common sense on his approach to immigration, but I do have a problem with this highway. Giving heavy vehicles from Mexico access to our roads is not a smart idea, in my opinion.
Another issue that seems to raise the ire of many people is homosexual marriage. Show me a candidate who is the perfect candidate in every way, except for their stance on marriage, and I will show you a candidate who has virtually no chance of winning the Republican primary. Some voters simply refuse to consider a candidate who differs from them on same sex marriage. Right or wrong, that’s the way it is.
During last night’s debate, another issue came up that is a hot-button issue for a lot of people. Ron Paul raised some hackles with his forceful position on Iran. The man clearly believes we should in no way interfere with another country, as long as said country is not in a position to harm the United States. Since he is of the opinion that Iran falls into that category, he has no problem with them developing a nuclear weapon and he stated as much during the debate. Because of that position, there are people who will in no way cast their vote for the Representative from Texas. It doesn’t matter how right he is on so many other issues, his stance on foreign policy precludes him from gaining support from certain people.
Can you see where I am going with this?
Let me ask a question. Do you believe it is possible to find the perfect candidate? A candidate who is going to be the perfect conservative, with the right stance on every single issue? I think we will find that no matter who the candidate is, some of us are going to have a problem with their position on one issue or the other. The real question is this. Is any one single issue important enough for us to pull our support from a candidate who has the chance to defeat Barack Obama in 2012? If Dr. Paul happens to win the nomination, could we put aside our differences with his foreign policy and help win the election? What about Rick Perry and his issue on immigration? What about Governor Jon Huntsman and his position on homosexual marriage?
Hopefully, this post will provide the breeding ground for a thoughtful discussion. As always, consider the floor open.
Related Posts
Saturday, January 12, 2013 -- Joe Biden Claims Gun Control Is A Moral Issue
Friday, August 24, 2012 -- Abortion – We Are Winning The Fight
Monday, October 29, 2012 -- Who To Thank If Obama Wins A Second Term?
Saturday, November 3, 2012 -- Mitt Romney and Barack Obama – Closing Arguments
Thursday, September 6, 2012 -- How Did We Survive Before Barack Obama?
Wednesday, September 19, 2012 -- Mitt Romney and Barack Obama – A Choice of Two Futures
You’ve posed a really good question, Larry, and I’m jealous that you thought of it first =)
The short answer to “is there ever a perfect candidate,” is simple: no.
Now for the long answer. The nature of politics is such that you’re never going to get everything you want. There’s always going to be groups of people whose interests and desires run completely contrary to yours, and you have to be able to deal with that. What is politics but the meeting of conflicting interests that must compromise in order to secure the common good?
There are some people who consider their candidate to be “perfect,” but I think for most people it’s always going to be something of an exercise in pragmatism. In a country of 311 million people it would be unfeasible to have a candidate that represents all the combinations of political beliefs that people have.
I know many of you don’t like the “lesser evil” argument, but that’s life. In an imperfect world with imperfect institutions and societies, created and operated by imperfect human beings, it’s only logical that we’re going to be faced with situations where we have to make imperfect choices.
If you’re a single issue voter you have to ask yourself two questions: is this issue something that is paramount to the safety, prosperity, and very existence of this nation? Second: will my stance on this issue save the nation from destruction in the long run? That requires you to conduct some heavy introspection, and the second question requires you to be realistic about one’s own contributions to society.
Do you really think you’ve got the answer? And if so, does voting for a particular person based on that answer accomplish anything anyway?
Jack I agree!
In the past few months, I have come to understand just how right you are, Jack. In politics, one will never get 100% of what they want. That may not be what we want to hear or believe, but it is the simple fact of the matter and it is something we should consider carefully.
Great comment. Maybe I should have asked you to write this post.
I believe the time to focus on one issue or hold one issue above the others is during the primary election. After the candidate is picked then our main focus should be voting Obama out of office. There is no perfect candidate. There is no perfect person. Anyone of the GOP candidates would be better than President Obama. Instead of focusing on the flaws of our candidate I think we need to highlight their accomplishments and policies we agree with. When we focus on the flaws we are just playing into the liberal media’s hands IMO.
Well said, Teresa. That is one of the important functions of the primary season, to weigh each candidate carefully and with consideration. After that has been done, then we can turn our attention to the general election.
Idem to Teresa’s position.
Larry,
I agree with you 100%. When I was leading our local chapter of Right to Life nearly 30 years ago, I came face to face with that choice. I had to decide “was I going to be a “one issue” voter? The answer was “no”. I didn’t make many friends within my group at the time to be sure. Fast-forward 30 years and I find myself on FB interacting with Conservatives of many stripes…I have had lively debates with secular Conservatives as well as Christian or religious Conservatives. One thing I have come to realize (and at times I scratch my head at it) is that NO Conservative will agree with me or my opinion or vice versa 100% of the time, for a whole range of logical reasons. I like Ronald Reagan’s quote which I will paraphrase a bit..”Bad-mouth no fellow Conservative” A friend on FB just revealed he had had a “break-up” with a fellow Conservative and the fellow Conservative “chose to make people pick sides.” I accept that Conservatives are well-informed, thinkers who care about our country and understand the importance of keeping our Constitution strong and vibrant. I beleive people don’t come to be a Conservative lightly, it is NOT an easy road to walk in America today. We will NOT agree on everything (as was in evidence at last nights debate). Unless a “Conservative” shows hard evidence of progressivism I will give Conservative candidates latitude. I will give my fellow Conservative certain latitude because we tend to hold each other accountable. We tend to question our leaders (and each other) with boldness not idolize them. Do I agree with Rush Limbaugh all the time? No. Hannity, Levin, Beck or any other radio or print Conservative commentator…no. Why? Because we are INDIVIDUALS, we are not part of a leftists collective that walks lock-step linked armed. Does that cause us a more than a little trouble & consternation? Its one of the things I LOVE about our particular (peculiar?) group of people. You betcha! We are by and large common sense people. The Founders & Framers did NOT agree on everything. They got down right cantankerous with each other; but they knew how to come to a consensus that was BEST for the American people. We still have that ability within the Conservative movement, that cannot be said for the leftists/progressives. Thank you for the thought provoking piece!
Kadie,
First of all, thanks for your comment on Political Realities. I appreciate you taking the time to do so.
For sure, conservatives will not agree on everything. (I actually believe 100% agreement would make for a very boring group, but that would be the subject for another day.) We should be able to put those differences aside and work for the common good, but that is sometimes very difficult to do. That was very evident before, during, and after the 2008 primary season. The supporters of Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, of which I was one, found it nearly impossible to patch things up. Neither man won the nomination and many of their supporters blamed the other man for that. I wasn’t one of those, but I did learn that Ronald Reagan was very wise when he said we needed to refrain from speaking evil of a fellow Republican. I think we would all do well to remember that.
There is no perfect candidate. Never has been, never will be. Everyone has their flaws. Teresa makes a good point. The primaries are where you hash it all out. Whoever wins the nomination gets my vote.
Elections are multiple choice questions, where there are no perfect options, so you have to pick the best of the choices presented.
I am afraid we all are guilty of forgetting that fact, Kurt. I know I am, for sure.
Do we really get a chance to review our candidates? We hear nothing about our little know folks, and it is a self fullfilling event. Not traction, no appeal. Yet a steady drumbeat for Perry,, everyone just waiting.
I couldn’t agree more, Bunkerville. Time after time, I have witnessed good candidates, solid candidates, minimized by the media and therefore, the general public never learned just how good a candidate they really were. That’s one reason I so enjoyed Newt Gingrich’s take down of Chris Wallace last night. There is an enormous amount of truth in what he had to say.
Great topic, Larry. I had a professor in college that had a reputation for failing a large percentage of his students every year. He gave the same multiple choice tests every year without fail. Everyone had a copy of the tests beforehand and he new it. The trick was that all multiple choice answers were correct. Our job was to pick the best right answer and the best right answer depended on which he decided to emphasise in his lectures each year. I see selecting our candidate in a similar fashion. We need to choose the best right candidate.
Great analogy, Jim. We need to consider our choices carefully, indeed.
Being mere humans, no candidate is perfect. But some represent my philosophy of government better than others. It’s a politicians overall view of the role of government in society that matters to me.
Right now, however, I have no problem being considered a “one issue voter.” That issue is, of course, economics. You can tell me your opinion on “gay marriage,” but it won’t matter when we’re dead broke. You can tell me how vital our crusade to “spread democracy” around the globe is, but again, it won’t matter when we’re dead broke.You can tell me “anybody” is better than Obama, but what does it matter whether it’s a left boot or right boot that fuels the collapse?
Romney hired another Keynesian, Perry is more of the same. Quite frankly, Ron Paul is the only guy in Washington who sounded the economic alarm bells, can explain why it happened, and knows what to do about our economic malaise. I’m a retired stockbroker and ex-banker. I read Man, Economy, and State for fun. Paul knows what he’s talking about. He’s right. We continue to ignore him at our own peril.
Every Republican during my lifetime as expanded the size, scope, cost, and debt of government. Just like Democrats, every Republican has pushed Keynesian monetary nonsense that led to wild cycles, bubbles, bailouts and market crashes. The GWB administration governed to the left of LBJ. By comparison, Clinton was a virtual anarchist. Facts and figures betray the idea that any Republican is better than a Democrat. Hard facts tell me they’re two of the same.
The “lesser evil” is none the less still evil. I cannot cast a vote in favor of evil. If Paul doesn’t get the nomination I probably won’t vote at all. And with respect to the idea: “Bad-mouth no fellow Conservative” … Freemen aren’t cheerleaders, freemen hold their politicians feet to the fire. Not bad-mouthing so-called “conservatives” is exactly what got us into this mess.
“The lesser evil is none the less still evil.”
Sometimes we can only be as good as the world allows us to be. Sometimes, the only options you have are the evil ones.
I am afraid I will have to disagree, CL. I sympathize with your dislike of voting for the lesser of two evils, but it is a necessary evil, at times. I know you have no love for the Republican Party and I am not far behind you with that lack of love, but not all of them are bad. Concerning Rick Perry, I am not yet convinced that he will be “more of the same”, as you suggest.
Look, I happen to agree with Ron Paul on many issues, especially on the economic side of things, but there are many on which I disagree with him. I could possibly look past that disagreement, if he were to win the nomination, but I seriously suspect you need to get ready to stay away from the polls in November 2012. He hasn’t a chance to win the nomination, in my opinion. I mean no disrespect to the man when I say that, but it is the reality I see.
I don’t believe evil is ever necessary. It exists, but is not required.
Strictly speaking of “voting for the lesser evil,” we can’t escape the fact that this theory has led our country to where it is now. What was that Einstein said about the definition of insanity?
“We the People” have to change as individuals before anything significant changes regarding the trajectory of the country. We, as individuals, have to be the leaders. We have to change prior to, not after everyone else catches on. I’ve changed. That’s where I’m at.
Winning the nomination is a step to becoming president, not a qualification. So, can one be honest with himself if they cast their vote for someone who simply won the nomination?
I don’t know much, but I do know we’ve gone dangerously far in the wrong direction, and somethings gotta change. Fast.
There is no perfect candidate, a person must look at the whole candidate and not simpy one issue and then decide if they can support this candidate based on all the issues. Personally I would have more trouble voting for a person who didn’t support the second amendment rather than a candidate who didnt hold the same social views I hold because the second amendment is a constitutional guarentee wheresas the other issues should be left up to the states. But that one issue would not stop me for voting for him as long as I felt he wasn’t going to go too far in implementing gun control laws.
I found it funny last night that Romney declared he believed in the 10th amendment when it came to healthcare because healthcare wasnt one of the enumerated powers and therefor was an issue left to the states, but when asked about gay marraige he said he supported federal legislation–this is contradictory in my opinion because the constitution does not enumerate marriage either. He was trying to have it both ways.
Great post Larry!
You make a good point about the difference between the 2nd Amendment and the social issues. It is surely something to consider.
For me, the criteria is: “Do I trust him or her?” All decisions are made based upon this question. If I do not trust them I can look elsewhere. If I DO trust them, then depending upon how great my differences are on some of the issues you discussed I may still vote for them.
I did not trust George W. Bush (or his father) so I did not vote for them. I did not trust Bill Clinton so I didn’t vote for him. I did not trust Barack Obama so I didn’t vote for him.
Maybe one day there will be a presidential candidate whom I trust AND who wins.
Maybe.
Trust can be an elusive quality, especially when one doesn’t have the chance to know the candidate personally. One has to use one’s own best judgement.
If you have a good nose you can smell the BS from far away.
True enough.
The problem with politicians is that one of them will always win.
Excellent post Larry. I think you made a number of excellent points as did the respondents. There always seems to be a single issue that dominates the debate at a given time. For a while it was immigration, and prior to that it was Iraq and Afghanisan — now its the economy. But you need to vote for a candidate who best fits your view of the world because there will indeed be no “perfect” candidate. But I also think the corollary to your comments is the ability to work with the opposition because the only way we can govern these days is to find compromise that will allow the bending but not breaking of underlying principles. The budget “compromise” was a disaster that resulted in unsatisfactory results for everyone and a credit downgrade. Why? Because neither side would compromise its sacred cows. Without that we will get nowhere.
Points well taken.
There is no perfect candidate — ever.
Now, sometimes I find that one issue tips me to vote one way or the other. But basing one’s vote strictly on one issue is self-defeating. So often, once a candidate gets elected, that candidate reverses himself on several issues.
The above said, I must also point out that any candidate’s stand on our present economic debacle is critically important. Without economic recovery, most other issues will be moot.
Trackbacks: