« SCHIP: A Former Welfare Mother Asks Questions: Why Aren’t the Other Five Critical Parties’ Voices Louder on the Issue of Health Care for Children? Part 1 of 3
Larry Sabato’s on Diane Rehm Show Today »



Situational vs. Ideological Voting

October 18th, 2007
By PETE ABEL, Managing Editor

Print Print

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.



This entry was posted on Thursday, October 18th, 2007 at 4:48 am and is filed under 2008 Elections, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« SCHIP: A Former Welfare Mother Asks Questions: Why Aren’t the Other Five Critical Parties’ Voices Louder on the Issue of Health Care for Children? Part 1 of 3
Larry Sabato’s on Diane Rehm Show Today »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.