In one of the best blog posts I've read this week, the Anchoress takes GOP voters to the woodshed. Here's an excerpt, but you really should read the whole thing:
If my email is any indication, too many “faithful GOP voters” are having a hell of a time dealing with the fact that the party has not manufactured a candidate pure enough, perfect enough and “Reaganish” enough to suit them, so they may just sit out what will arguably be the most important election of this era.
As I promised many moons ago, after I vote in the primary election I will be leaving the GOP - which I joined in support of George W. Bush - and re-categorizing myself as an unaffiliated voter. But while I’m still a “registered Republican” (and a RINO to you purists who are so eager to punt me and any like me to the door) allow me to speak my piece to a party running itself unto madness in seeking that unattainable illusion: the perfect candidate.
It seems the standard GOP voter - and apparently Rush Limbaugh - wants to disinter Ronald Reagan from his noble tomb and hoist him onto the campaign trail because he is their saint and savior, and if they can’t vote for someone exactly like him “Ronaldus Magnus” well, they’re going to sit out this all-important election.
Excuse me, but Ronald Reagan would have had no patience for the likes of you.
Unless I am mistaken - and forgive me if I am, but I was a headline-believing Democrat when Reagan was in office, so I cannot quote the Book of Reagan as completely as some - did not Reagan advise an 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not criticize other Republicans?
I don’t know if I completely agree with that commandment, by the way, but he’s your idol, not mine. I can tell you that I do agree with another of Reagan’s dicta: that we ought not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
If Ronald Reagan were alive right now, watching the GOP split into these tantrum-throwing factions (whereby “perfection” is duly defined as “pro-life, pro-gun, pro-free-market, pro-worship, pro-Bush-doctrine, pro-tax-cut, pro-ship-back-all-illegals” and then, as each less-than-perfect candidate’s failure on one or more issues is noted, each are thus deemed unworthy of the support of the pristine and uncompromising “base”) I think he’d be disgusted with the lot of you.
Ronald Reagan above all he was a pragmatist and a realist. . . . .
If I am reading my mail right - and I believe I am - every candidate running for president on the GOP side is - gasp! - flawed in some way. This guy’s too religious, this guy’s a flip-flopper, this guy’s too John McCain, this guy is a tantalizing “almost perfect” flirt who doesn’t want to put out, this guy is too soft on illegals, this guy is too hard on assault rifles, this guy is great on security but he wears a dress!
Oh, boo-hoo, people. Get a grip. The truth is the GOP had produced several reasonable candidates for the presidential nomination. None are “perfect,” but neither are you. A vote for any of them will require from you an end to the thrust-lip tantrum. You’re going to have to wipe your little eyes, haul up your drawers and - egad - do what Reagan would have done; he would have looked for the candidate who he felt was - taken all-in-all - best for the whole nation, not just for some little one-issue subgroup; he would not simply vote for his comfort zone.
In unserious times, and vacations from history, it is possible to hold oneself aloof from a process and declare, “fiddle-dee-dee, I’ll think about voting next election!”
It cannot be said enough: we are in serious times. In this election you do not have the luxury of complacently waiting for the next bus because you don’t like any of these drivers. In this election, you either get on board and take the damn uncomfortable, bumpy ride with the rest of us, or you marginalize yourself into irrelevancy on your little bench.
If you are a voter who is sitting there waiting for your perfect “pro-life” candidate, think about this while you sit: Reagan and Dubya were inarguably the most pro-life presidents of the era, and neither of them could move your agenda, because the president cannot do so; all he can do is appoint judges to the Supreme Court who might do your bidding. There are 3-4 judges in that court right now who are all but sipping formaldehyde at every meal trying to hold on until a Democrat president can replace them. Instead of heaving your bosom for the “pro-life” candidate, maybe you should sigh a little for a “pro-law” and “pro-constitution” and “pro-judge” candidate who can actually appoint constitution-loving jurists.
Guess what? You sit on that bench through the election and you’re going to see 3-4 judges appointed who will give you nightmares for the next 30 years as they re-interpret the “living, breathing document” that is our Constitution into recognizability.
Well said. The Anchoress is blazing with this one. As I said, read it all.
It's a recurring dilemma for purists of every political stripe: Do I settle for the candidate who can potentially win, or to do I reserve my vote for the candidate whose most important principles I support?
It comes down to the question of how many degrees of difference there are between you and the candidates who have chance of winning. As a general rule, though, half a loaf is better than none. You elect your candidate and secure your half a loaf today, and you work on finding the other half in another way. That's what the left does all the time. When the public doesn't support its agenda, it runs to the courts. When the courts don't work, if focuses on other tools like ballot initiatives. When that doesn't work, it tries to win state and local elections, or gains control of Congress and then tries change the rules of the game to make further advances in the agenda easier.
This presidential election won't decide everything, but it is very important, and political battle fatigue is no excuse for failing to press on.
Comments