|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Confessions of a
Right Wing Nut: Markers
As someone who considers himself strongly Pro Life, I find it
disheartening when I am forced to choose between ideological
purity and "electability". Candidate X (Alan Keyes, for
example) strongly mirrors my own deeply held beliefs about
abortion, yet stands no chance at all of being elected to any
Federal office. Candidate Y (Liddy Dole, for example) seems
remarkably squishy on abortion, yet seems eminently electable.
What is a right wing nut to do?
Although tempted to come down on the side of electability (better to get most of what you want than none of it) I find myself more and more often choosing ideological purity, at least on the abortion issue. The reason is not that I am a zealot, or that all other issues take a back seat to abortion. It is that I have found a candidate's osition on abortion to be an excellent "marker".
What, pray tell, is a marker? It is an issue that tells you far more about a candidate for office than would seem apparent on the surface. With abortion, a candidate requires guts in order to stand tall and proud before the intensely prochoice media spotlight and declare himself to be Pro Life. Such a candidate is not likely to fold like a cheap pup tent on other issues of substance. It is not unreasonable to conclude that such a person's convictions are likely to inform and shape his actions more than popular approval. A Republican/Conservative candidate who is nominally prolife but doesn't have the guts to stick to his guns on abortion is likely to back down in the face of other perceived "unpopular" issues. Since popularity at the Federal level is almost always a function of how much government money is given away, this would seem to render the candidate unlikely to achieve conservative goals in the face of a hostile culture.
A "Moderate" Republican who is (what a cliche!) sound on economic policy but moderate on social issues will turn out to be not sound on anything. I haven't quite figured out why this is, but one's position on abortion seems to reflect deep values and beliefs about the relationship of the government and the governed. I also believe that anyone willing to accept the logic of Roe vs. Wade is by defnition an enemy of limited government. (Ever notice that there is nobody who is prochoice who publicly disagrees with Roe vs. Wade? I find that remarkably odd, for regardless of what one thinks about the efficacy of abortion, it is clearly the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever made.) It may be that these two things are somehow connected. Whatever the cause, it always seems to hold true that the Pro Choice Republican also turns out to be soft on taxes, and soft on regulation, and soft on criminals, and generally not much different than a liberal.
Another, and very different, marker issue is Big Tobacco. I have concluded that any politician or public figure who supported the war against the tobacco industry is not to be trusted on any issue. This is not just because I am a smoker. There are two grounds on which support of the tobbacco jihad ought to be utterly disqualifying. First is the blatant use of tyranny in the service of unalloyed greed. The facts of the tobacco situation so clearly contradict the governments' cases that one must conclude it has been a true conspiracy, a combined effort by state and federal governments, the public health establishment and trial lawyers to shake down an entire (legal) industry. Any politican willing to take part in such a blatant abuse of power can not to be trusted on any issue. Too bad, John McCain. I kinda liked you.
Second is a willing blindness as to the real life consequences of the settlement(s). Any six year old could have predicted the results of a successful tobacco industry shakedown. The costs were not absorbed by the industry, they were passed along to the consumers. Tobacco prices have skyrocketed, and the increases are being paid overwhelmingly by poor and working class smokers. Any politican willing to levy such a huge regressive tax for the chance to grandstand about how much he "cares" is a cad. Period.
Those are my two active markers. Violate them and I write you off. I realize that this means I will be voting for unelectable candidates more often than not. But I am tired of electing squishy weenies. It's time to change the formula.