|
I often see this contrast between people with regard to the coming election in '08. Some view the general election as a major test for personal morality, others see it as a major test for practical morality. I imagine -both- see the primary as a test for personal morality. In other words, one group refuses to compromise closely-held values to endorse the Democrat, regardless of what another GOP presidency could mean. The other refuses to vote based on personal morality if the practical effect is to empower another horrible GOP candidate's chances for election. There's no question -at this point- that one of the two major parties will win, and there's also no question that while some Democratic candidates are too similar to the GOP candidates on too many issues, the Democratic president would promote progressive ideas to a greater extent.
Now this ignores other factors, such as whether your state is inevitably going to one candidate or another leading up to November or other cases where protest votes have less practical effect. So let's talk in the abstract, if we can, and assume each of us is voting in a close state. What is more important?
|