Situational vs. Ideological Voting

Earlier this month, at Divided We Stand, MW again made his case for divided government. By-and-large, I agree with him; the evidence of the effectiveness of divided government is clear and compelling. But while I agree with the objective of divided government, I’m not yet convinced that systematic, universal efforts to vote for this objective, exclusive of other considerations, is the most-productive approach to healing our ailing national morale. Here’s why.

I will likely vote for the Republican nominee for president in 2008, for two reasons: (1) I’m a Republican, albeit a moderate one. (2) Like MW, I’m convinced of not only the merits of divided government, but also the dangers of single-party government. Accordingly, with the Dems poised to hold a majority in both Congressional chambers, I think this country would be best served by an opposite-party President, with check-and-balance authority.

On the other hand, if the Republican nominee is Rudy Giuliani, I may have to think twice about my vote because I fear Rudy would be just as (if not more) destructive than Bush/Rove/Cheney on foreign policy.

From all reports, Rudy suffers from an extreme inability to engage in productive give-and-take, an inability to move beyond the moments immediately after 9/11. In contrast, we need a competent international craftsman (or craftswoman), someone who can live up to the foreign-policy standards of a Nixon or Reagan, someone who can honor Teddy Roosevelt’s doctrine of speaking softly while carrying a big stick, someone who can look at the post-9/11 world and recognize that the keys to it reside in the deft de-construction of the enemy, not smash-and-burn or shock-and-awe tactics. And honestly, I think we need those traits in a President far more than we need a social moderate or opposite-party check-and-balancer.

In short, while I respect MW’s thesis on the merits of divided-government, I also believe in the old-fashioned approach of voting (regardless of party or dogma or philosophy) for the individual whom we each believe is the best (or least-bad) person for the job, considering all aspects of that job and the context of the times, the global zeitgeist, in which that job will be performed.

Cross-posted from Central Sanity.