Opinion Forum: Purist or Pragmatist?

Something I want to start doing on this blog periodically is opening topics of discussion that will (hopefully) invite reader participation. With all the recent and upcoming primary races, one topic that has been on my mind recently has been the issue of purism vs. pragmatism in voting. I would define a purist as someone who refuses to settle for the lesser of two evils, while a pragmatist is willing to settle for an imperfect candidate in order to keep a worse candidate from getting elected. While I think most of us fall somewhere in the middle on the continuum between 100% political purism and 100% political pragmatism, many of us are much closer to one end or the other.

For conservatives, this issue often comes into play in a general election in which the Republican candidate is deemed insufficiently conservative. For example, I have conservative friends who were unhappy with John McCain during the 2008 presidential race and chose to either vote for a third-party candidate (such as the Constitution Party candidate) or to sit out the election altogether. Others, such as myself, chose to settle for McCain because we considered him far, far better than the alternative. (In my opinion, subsequent events have demonstrated just how bad the alternative to McCain truly was!)

This issue also can be significant in deciding which primary candidate to support. Several weeks ago, I was talking politics with a friend from Pennsylvania in advance of his state's U.S. Senate primary. On the GOP side, the race was between Pat Toomey, a well-known former congressman with the entire GOP establishment behind him and a campaign warchest of $5 million, and Peg Luksik, a little-known, poorly-funded pro-life activist with past Constitution Party associations. As a matter of fact, I did not even know Luksik was in the race and assumed Toomey was unopposed. I was surprised when my friend told me that he felt Luksik was the only candidate in the race whose conservative credentials were beyond question and that he was voting for her out of principle. Although Toomey had waffled on the abortion issue back when he was first elected to Congress a decade ago, he compiled a strongly pro-life voting record in Congress, challenged liberal Republican Arlen Specter from the right during the 2004 Senate race, and was a strong advocate for the free market economy and limited government during his tenure as president of the Club for Growth. In my mind, Toomey was clearly conservative and also the only electable candidate in the race, so he was the logical choice. But in my friend's mind, the primary is the place to vote for the absolute best candidate, not to "settle."

Another example of the debate between purism and pragmatism can be found in the upcoming GOP gubernatorial primary in my home state of Maryland. Maryland is a heavily Democratic state that has only elected a Republican ONCE to a top statewide office in my lifetime -- when GOP congressman Bob Ehrlich won an upset victory in the 2002 governor's race. Ehrlich had a reasonably high job approval rating when he ran for re-election in 2006, but was swept out of office due to the anti-Bush Democratic wave that year. Now, he is running again and early polls suggest he is running neck-and-neck in his rematch with liberal Democratic governor Martin O'Malley. However, Ehrlich is a fairly moderate pro-choice Republican, and he is facing a tough, if little-known, conservative challenge in the primary from Brian Murphy. There is little doubt that Murphy's views are more in line with my own than Ehrlich's are, especially on the issue of the sanctity of life, and I have heard he is quite articulate as well. Other conservatives I have talked to (including family members) are enthusiastic about voting for him. While I too like Murphy, I have nagging doubts about whether it would be better to vote for Ehrlich, the only Republican candidate who has been able to win in Maryland in decades and possibly the only Republican with a chance of winning in the general election. While Ehrlich is pro-choice, he has supported certain restrictions on abortion like banning partial-birth abortion and parental notification for minors, which would make him far preferable to his Democratic opponent even on this issue. Ehrlich is not perfect, but he would serve as a much-needed check to our state's radically left-wing legislature. I still haven't decided who to vote for yet in the primary (although Ehrlich would certainly get my vote in the general election if he wins).

These are but two examples of an issue that most of us, as conservatives, face nearly every election year in our two-party political system: do we settle for imperfect candidates or do we choose to give our vote only to those candidates who are in complete or near-complete agreement with our values? In my opinion, there is no hard-and-fast rule, and decisions of this type must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Let me first say that, for those of us who are Christians, our voting must be done as an act of worship and obedience to Jesus Christ. We are under obligation to use our voting privilege in a way that honors God and does not violate our conscience. For example, it would be hard for me to justify voting for a Republican simply because of his party affiliation if he had a history of corruption, had proven to be blatantly dishonest and untrustworthy, or had demonstrated complete disregard for Constitutional principles, even if his opponent were just as bad or worse. Our highest loyalty must be to principle rather than political party. (For the same reason, I believe we have an obligation to educate ourselves about the candidates and their beliefs before voting. We cannot glorify God if we are uninformed or ignorant.) But of course, the Bible doesn't come with a filled-out voter card attached. We still have to use our minds and think through these issues to determine what voting decisions are most glorifying to God.

Some might argue that voting according to our conscience means we can only vote for candidates that are fully in agreement with our principles and beliefs. I disagree. In certain European countries, for example, where there are a large number of political parties with differing ideologies, it might be much more feasible to vote for a candidate whose beliefs are in nearly complete agreement with our own. But in a two-party system like the U.S., the vast majority of the time we are stuck with a choice between a Democrat and a Republican. For a conservative like myself, the Republican candidate is frequently disappointing and the Democratic candidate is almost always unacceptable for ideological reasons. But the only other options are to vote for a third-party candidate who cannot win or to refuse to vote at all, both of which are in effect forfeiting our right to impact the choice of our elected officials. Sitting out an election or voting for a third-party candidate (essentially the same thing) are only acceptable decisions if both major-party candidates are so truly awful that voting for either of them would be a betrayal of conscience -- and I think this is quite rare. (There are some very rare exceptions when strong third-party candidates emerge with a genuine chance of winning. The 2009 NY-23 special election is an example, but it was caused by the fact that the Republican nominee was so left-wing that she was unacceptable to many Republican voters who flocked en masse to the Conservative nominee. This is an example when voting for a third-party candidate is not a throw-away vote and is also the only real option if we want to stay true to our principles.)

Something important to keep in mind about our two-party system is that legislation can only come up for consideration in Congress -- not to mention become law! -- when it receives support and approval from the leaders of one of the two political parties. The Constitution Party has some great ideas, I readily concede, but it has no influence whatsoever on any real legislation because there are no Constitution Party members of Congress. If we as conservatives want to see our Constitutional vision of justice and morality triumph in the halls of Congress, we have to be willing to work through at least one of the two major political parties. And it seems pretty obvious to me that there is only one political party whose leadership is even the slightest bit open to constitutional conservative ideas.

Let's take the pro-life cause as an example (although it is only one of many that could be used). Suppose you are a pro-life conservative like me and live in a state or district that is liberal and that features a race between a moderately pro-choice Republican and strongly pro-abortion Democrat. Your first impulse might be to say, "Who cares? Politicians are all the same. Neither of the candidates is going to stand up to protect innocent human life, so why should I bother to vote?" But if you dig a little deeper, you will notice first that there is usually a significant difference between pro-choice Republicans and pro-choice Democrats in liberal districts. The overwhelming majority of pro-choice Republicans still support a ban on partial-birth abortion, support parental notification for minors, and oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. The overwhelming majority of pro-choice Democrats are against any regulation or restriction on abortion whatsoever. For example, I believe that every single Republican in the House, including a number of pro-choice ones, voted in favor of the amendment to ban taxpayer funding of abortion in the recent health care bill. A huge majority of Democrats voted against this amendment.

Another thing you will notice is that the pro-choice Republican you elect will cast his/her very first vote to elect the Republican leader to be Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader. They will vote to select other leading Republicans as committee chairmen. The overwhelming majority of these Republican leaders are pro-life and will use their influence to permit pro-life legislation to be voted on and to support its passage. By contrast, the very first vote the pro-abortion Democrat will cast will be to make the Democratic leader Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader, and they will subsequently support other leading Democrats as committee chairmen. The overwhelming majority of these Democratic leaders are radically pro-abortion and will use their influence to keep pro-life legislation on the shelf, as they have done very effectively in the current session of Congress. You could be doing a lot to protect the lives of the unborn by voting for that pro-choice Republican over that pro-choice Democrat!

Now, what about primary fights? Isn't that the time to vote solely for the candidate you like best and forget about pragmatism? Most of the time I believe that is true. Certainly if you are living in a conservative or swing state or district and you have a choice between a staunch conservative and a squishy moderate, I think it is a no-brainer that you go with the conservative. For example, I strongly supported Pat Toomey over Arlen Specter in the 2004 PA Senate primary, and was very disappointed that President Bush and Senator Rick Santorum chose to do otherwise. However, I think pragmatism may come into play in two types of primary situations. One is when two candidates have generally similar views on the issues, but one is clearly much more electable than the other. The PA primary race between Toomey and Luksik (discussed in paragraph 3) is an example of this. Yes, Luksik is probably a bit more in line with my views and certainly more outspoken about them than Toomey. But they are both clearly conservative, and my guess is that they would vote the same 95% of the time -- so it makes sense to vote for the candidate with the better chance of winning in a Democratic-leaning state to avoid the catastrophe of electing a left-wing activist like Democrat Joe Sestak.

The other primary situation where I think pragmatism may come into play is in a strongly Democratic or liberal state or district, where an outspoken conservative may find it next to impossible to get elected. An example of this situation is this year's gubernatorial primary in Maryland (discussed in paragraph 4). Yes, Murphy is more conservative, but Ehrlich is reasonably acceptable (certainly not in the Arlen Specter/Lincoln Chafee category IMO) and is the ONLY Republican that has won statewide in my lifetime. I'm not saying I will definitely vote for Ehrlich, but I am saying it is a situation when I will at least consider a more pragmatic choice. I would have a hard time voting for a staunchly liberal Republican like Specter or Chafee in the primary in any state, and possibly in the general election too.

The bottom line is that voting decisions are deeply personal, and even people who share the same commitment to conservative values will often vote in very different ways. I have presented my perspective on purism vs. pragmatism in this (much longer than intended) post. I would be curious to know what you think, so please feel free to weigh in with your opinion. I would like to get some dissenting opinions, because I know there are conservatives out there who think I'm too pragmatic!