How Pure Does a Politician Have to Be to Earn Your Vote?

Great Debates
1

By “Pure,” I don’t mean celibate, or faithful to his/her spouse. This isn’t one of THOSE boards!

I mean, regardless of your ideology (I want to hear from the left AND the right on this one) how far can a political candidate stray from what you believe without forfeiting your vote?

All voters know that it’s not a perfect world, and we’re rarely going to get candidates who agree with us on everything. The question is, in YOUR mind, when does “settling for half a loaf” cross into “picking the lesser of two evils,” and what’s the point at which you’re inclined to say, “Forget it, I can’t vote for ANY of these guys.”

Examples:

  1. Do you believe, on general principle, that the Democrats are “the people’s party,” and so superior to the Republicans that you’d vote for an EXTREMELY conservative Democrat over a very liberal Republican, figuring that (despite this guy’s flaws) a Democratic majority in Congress is worth it in the long run? Or, if you’re a committed right-to-life Republican, would you vote for a pro-abortion Republican (like, say Pennsylvania’s Senator Specter) over a pro-life Democrat (like, say Pennsylvania’s Governor Casey) on the grounds that a Republican majority in Congress benefits your cause in the long run?

  2. To liberals: if a Democratic candidate is reliably liberal on all the economic issues (supports national health care, redistribution of the wealth) but is extremely conservative on social issues (anti-abortion, against gay marriage), do you hold your nose and vote for him? Or do you vote for his “moderate” Republican opponent (pro-abortion, but favors tax cuts and massive spending cuts)?

  3. To conservatives: reverse the situation, and ask yourself the same question.

How willing are you to split the difference? What are the issues on which you absolutely CAN’T and WON’T accept any compromise, ever?

Would it make a difference where you were living? Hey, if you’re a leftists living in Berkeley or GReenwich VIllage, there’s no need to compromise; if you’re a die-hard conservative in West Texas, there’s no need for you to compromise, either. You KNOW the local politicians are going to tell you exactly what you want to hear. Anywhere else, you’ll have to make some hard choices.

Even a principled liberal Democrat running for Congress in Mississippi has to face the fact that gun control ain’t gonna fly in his district. If he decides to run a pro-gun campaign, while remaining solidly on the other issues, should liberal Democrats embrace him, or scorn him as a coward?

Even a principled free-market conservative running for COngress is going to find that his constituents expect a COngressman to bring home lots of pork barrel (and if he doesn’t, they’ll replace him with someone who will). If this otherwise conservative Congressman starts playing the pork barrel game, should conservatives embrace him- or scorn him as a hypocrite?

PERHAPS this is mere rationalization, but even the most principled politician realizes that he can’t accomplish ANY good unless he gets elected, and in order to get elected, he may have to sacrifice a principle or two.

Most of us understand that, too- I merely ask each of you, HOW FAR you would be willing to let a politician go in abandoning his principles? ANd which issues are you most prepared to ignore? Do you forgive lapses on the social issues, so long as he’s good on the fiscal side? Do you ignore his foreign policy views, so long as he votes your way on the social issues? Explain.

2

“HOW FAR you would be willing to let a politician go in abandoning his principles?”

I have yet to see a politician WITH any principles.

A while ago, where I live, a housewife won a big upset election for the state legislature over the incumbent, an established politico of large means and even larger “spare tire”. She tapped into an undercurrent of resentment and the next thing we know, she’s being sworn in as state rep, dewy-eyed with fervent wonder, swearing to do the best she can for “the people”. Two years later she was running for re-election just like one of the Big Boys, having somewhere along the way abandoned all the high ideals. She discovered the basic truth of politics–you have to go along to get along. She learned to wheel and deal with the best of them, some voters were offended, but she kept getting re-elected, moved slowly but surely up the power structure, and when she passed away from breast cancer a few years ago she was basically nominated for sainthood.

I have yet to see a politician with principles who was able to keep those principles intact, no matter what. Politics doesn’t work like that. And I think it would be unrealistic and unfair of me to expect so much of my elected representatives. I guess I’m an awful cynic.

3

I tend to go with basically equal parts of issue base and candidate trust, with a little bit more weight thrown behind issue base. This almost always leads me to vote Republican, but it is not an absolute. Heck, I’ll vote for a left leaning liberal that has honesty over a Republican that I think is not cut out to be in office.

But, if I think a candidate will represent my views and do so with at least a modicum of common sense, decency, and forthrightness, that candidate will get my vote. Of course, how many candidates actually meet those criteria? That is usually why I end up being forced into an issues based vote. But, with every candidate seemingly striving to be seen as the centrist candidate while painting an opponent as an extreme left/right wing nutball, there isn’t much of a difference anymore.

4

I really like the idea of having the opportunity to vote for someone who is liberal on social issues but conservative on economic issues. In all honesty, ::cringing, realizing what I’m about to say:: a certain Bill Clinton has done a pretty good job of that. Toss me one who can stand for what he believes in just a little bit, and who can keep the Presidential pants zipped or at least show some taste when choosing dalliances (we would’ve applauded Benazir Bhutto, you know we would!)…anyway…

I’d like to see it from a Republican. I hate for the Democrats to count on my vote automatically! (I was watching Jeanne Kirkpatrick for a little while there but she never sought a nomination.) Has to be pro-choice, though, that’s more or less a litmus test. Even an Everett Koop version of pro-choice would do, though, i.e., the candidate can hate abortions and seek other means of making them scarce without jeopardizing my vote.

No Democrat gets my vote without showing a commitment to paring down the national debt and preventing any future budget deficits. I want to see businesses thrive and unemployment continue to slink along at low levels and inflation remain low. That’s an unusual economy and I think it depends on continuing to pay off our fiscal debts as a nation.

Heck, no Republican gets my vote without such a commitment either!

5

Hm. Lately, it seems like I’ve been voting not so much FOR any particular candidate, but AGAINST the other one. So the answer is: not all that pure. He just has to be less of a whacko than the other guy.

Sigh. Looks like another chance to vote AGAINST somebody in November.

6

I’d be happy if they just stopped lying.

7

I tend to vote for whomever I think would be best for our country.

I ignore any of his opinions that his desired political position has no power to change… abortion comes to mind… no president is ever going to be able to outlaw it (it’d be a choice of the individual states), nor guarantee it’s continued practice (if enough people want to end abortion, no president will be able to stop this from happening). Also, if a candidate continually spouts his or her own opinions as facts that everyone should abide by, this tends to turn me off.

Mostly, there are two things that I insist on… I like more military and I like guns.

However, I hate the notion of outlawing abortion, or making gay marriage illegal. Guess this qualifies me for the Libertarian party, huh?

If a candidate is blatantly hypocritical, I don’t like that. However, if he smoked pot or snorted cocaine twenty years ago, and is now saying it’s bad… I don’t see that as hypocrisy, I see that as learning from past mistakes.

I can go on, but then I’d get repetitive and turn this into a different kind of political debate. I’m out, y’all!

8

Politicians earn votes?
Politicians earn votes??
Politicians earn votes???

Huh. I always thought they either bought them or were given them. shrug

9

My main litmus test is that a politician be consistent. I am a conservative Republican, but the Republicans in Congress have for the most part abandoned their will to fight for the conservative principles on which they were elected.

Specifically, I am talking about term-limits and tax reform. Oh, sure, we got a lot of talk when stumping for votes. But they didn’t have the balls to fight. Are you trying to tell me that majorities in Congress against a scandal-ridden (and impeached!) President can’t get substantial legislation passed? Other issues that have died include getting rid of the NEA and the Departments of Commerce/Education.

Now, I realize that most on this board would not agree with my politics, and are happy that this stuff never came to pass. But that is not the point of the OP. I’m sick of Republicans cowering in corners once they get elected! Give me someone with some fight in them. And don’t tell me Republicans have fought the good fight on tax reform. Their heart has not been in it since 1996.

Too many times a politician has to take a poll to see which way to vote or how to come out on an issue. Unacceptable in many cases (I realize a certain amount of this is necessary to get the pulse of a district; but not when one is taking a moral stand on an issue).

Personally, I can accept some philisophical difference when looking at Republican candidates when it comes to fiscal issues (but be true to your word!). However, I could never in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate, as usually defined. I take a hard look at the abortion-issue ‘wiggle-room’ a candidate tries to stake out in order to get votes. I have a clear line in mind over which a candidate could not cross and still get my support.

10

So, basically, politicians are pussies?

Yup.

There’s a balance that has to be met for them… that being the actions necessary to stay in office vs. the positions that can be taken while in office. If a politician just goes after his own issues, without seeing how it affects the people, chances are, he’ll only reach HIGH favor with a small amount of people. The goal for a politician is to get an Okay amount of favor with as many people as possible. Nowadays, the easiest way to do this isn’t for a politician to make himself seem better, but to make all his opponents seem worse.

“I may smoke dope, but HE is a dope-dealer! Vote for me!”

11

look at jesse ventura… he actually stated his beliefs even though he knew theyd hurt his votes

12

I’m basically a libertarian, and I rarely find a candidate that agrees with me on more than half the issues–except for candidates of the Libertarian Party, who have no chance of being elected. I’m not impressed with True Believers on either the Left or Right, so ideological or party purity isn’t an issue with me–indeed, it’s a drawback. There’s almost always a certain amount of holding my nose and voting for the lesser evil, as far as I’m concerned.

13

I’m torn in this election.

Gore is a considerably lesser evil than Bush, in my opinion, but still quite an evil. The two basically agree on most of the issues I care about (death penalty, health care, globalization, etc.), and both are committed to maintaining the status quo for monied interests. Even so, I find Gore to be a bit less repulsive, for a variety of reasons.

I am a big fan of Ralph Nader, and he is the only one of the bunch that I could honestly support. He has no chance of winning, but a good showing could be good for the Green Party and could put some of those populist issues on the table.

However, my vote for Nader is one less vote for Gore, which is one less vote against Bush.

So do I 1.)vote for the candidate with a chance of winning that I consider the least evil, or 2.)vote for the candidate with no chance who supports my views, making a statement and supporting grassroots politics, even though it might amount to support for the more evil of the viable candidates?

I know it’s largely theoretical, and it doesn’t really make a damn bit of difference which way I vote, but it’s an ideological dilemma.

Dr. J

14

I totally agree with you DrJ…I am also a big Nader fan, and going through some of the same soul-searching. Bush is Satan’s own chosen son, that is clear. But Gore is not exactly a breath of fresh air…still he has a good record on my most important issue…environment.

Despite being generally liberal (though I side with the conservatives on some things…pro-life for instance)…I liked John McCain, as he seemed more sincere than most politians. So that can be important too…I would have voted for him over Bush, but as he in conservative I probably still would have voted against him…though I then would have been more likely to vote for Nader and not worry so much if Gore lost.