The John Adams
Society
John
J. Pope
Marianne Stebbins
G. Larry Colson
David Schilling
November
2007
“Always
vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest
reflection that your vote is never lost.”
- John Quincy
A
vote is a terrible thing to waste. Conservatives frequently bemoan their
options of voting for the lesser of two evils and that, as a result, the
government continues to grow and our lives become further regulated. Yet in the primary when we do have a
choice between lesser evil and non-evil candidates, otherwise right-minded
voters still choose ideologically flawed candidates over superior candidates
with solid records, citing “electibility.”
How do we reach our conservative goals when we are still voting for
evil? Those who advocate voting for
a flawed candidate strictly to win are themselves the problem. They go on to complain about the slide
toward socialism and a growing, central government, often loudly over the
airwaves, when they themselves are promoting bigger government through their
advocacy of such candidates. They
conveniently ignore a candidate’s voting record during the time when it most
matters - the primary season. Even
when the choices are between principled candidates and flawed candidates, they
lose their spine for fear of being ostracized by the
establishment.
The chance to frame the
debate in conservative terms is lost on those who wish only to win
elections. Those who advocate
bigger and more intrusive government have been successful by continually making
incremental moves toward socialism and over-regulation by taking extreme
positions until they are perceived to be mainstream. Only then do they accept a lesser
version of their program, knowing that the opposition will go along with a
lesser evil, saving the next push for the next election. The conservative establishment always
succumbs by accepting and even endorsing these programs after the fact. Is anyone advocating eliminating the
Department of Education as Reagan did?
Instead, conservatives endorse bigger federal education programs, as long
as they are “conservative” programs.
We are no longer against the Clean Water Act; we are merely against the
expansion of the Clean Water Act, which we will also accept and endorse in years
to come to stave off the next nationalization of property initiative. We have accepted national healthcare and
a manipulative tax code, preferring to implement further tax code tinkering with
health care credits and mandates instead of framing the debate for an entirely
free market. And, despite our
protests, we continue to nominate and endorse candidates taking us down the
gentler path to our demise.
On
the other hand,
what would
one accomplish by voting on principle if the election is then lost to the worst
possible candidate? Are we not
better off if our demise is at least slowed by nominating a moderate candidate
as opposed to a principled candidate who cannot get elected and thus hand
control to a victor who will plunge our nation into a socialistic nightmare
without even tapping the brakes?
True, this won’t eliminate the Department of Education, but we can push
for conservative federal policies in education. We can push for a flat tax, perhaps
succeeding in shaving off a percentage point temporarily for lower- and
middle-income Americans. Better
something than nothing! In fact,
the one thing that matters more than pushing conservative policy is the Supreme
Court and the appointments thereto.
A lesser evil at least promises strict constructionist appointments, ones
who will vote more conservatively than the candidate himself. If this promise doesn’t trump
conscience, we are all surely damned to ever vote quixotically, and to lose the
little grasp we have left.
The
Chairman,
plagued by a devil and an angel on either shoulder, has called for a debate to
settle the question:
Resolved: Vote
Your Conscience!
The Debate will be held
on