Tuesday, September 07, 2010

Prof. Bainbridge Takes On So-Called "Holier-Than-Thou Right"

Really, Professor?
The holier than thou crowd on the right continues to excoriate Delaware US Senate candidate Mike Castle as being insufficiently conservative...

[...]

By letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, Riehl and his ilk are ensuring themselves of a pure minority. I guess it makes for good talk radio and blog posts, but it's a lousy electoral strategy.
But what if I live in Delaware [obviously, I don't] and don't want to vote for Mike Castle? What if Mike Castle is so far out of touch with my own values that I find the very thought of wasting one of my most precious rights - the right to vote as I see fit - on voting for Mike Castle repugnant in the extreme?

This commenter at Prof. Bainbridge's site, put it well:
And yet, this too easily becomes another kind of "holier than thou" argument. I wonder if the equivalent political calculation in 1980 would have given us nominee Reagan. Perhaps the "holier than thou" right should just vote in the Republican primaries for the available candidate whose views most closely align with their own and then do the same in the general election? You know, just like everyone else gets to do?
Exactly. It's a primary. Vote your conscience.

Or are social conservatives not allowed to do that? Only neo-cons and fiscal-cons, etc., have that luxury, right?

Let's pose a hypothetical question.

Assume that I'm exactly the same person, except that I live in Delaware. I'm not a Republican, so I feel no compulsion to vote out of fealty to the GOP. The issues I'm most concerned about are the issues social conservatives are most concerned about. In addition, I feel very strongly that Cap & Tax is not only economically harmful but is also anti-family in its effects (and perhaps even in intent). I am also opposed to the sorts of gun control measures for which Castle has voted over the years.

In addition, I just don't like nor trust Mike Castle, not only because his values - as evidenced by his votes over the years - do not match up with my own, but because the 70+ year old Castle, who has spent most of his adult life in politics, seems to me to be the textbook example of what is wrong with the GOP establishment, as well as the entire political system.

On the other hand, the challenger is VERY close to me in terms of her values. She represents my own set of political priorities.

Finally, my entire 5-and-a-half-year blogging career has been devoted to "voting your values".

For whom should I vote in the Delaware GOP Primary?

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)

Labels: , , , , ,

7 Comments:

At 9/07/2010 1:50 PM, Blogger Dad29 said...

Is Bainbridge trying to tell us that the REAL entitlement is owed to, or owned by, (R) folks like McConnell?

 
At 9/07/2010 3:24 PM, Blogger James H said...

My main problem is I think she might be nuts

 
At 9/07/2010 4:01 PM, Blogger Jay Anderson said...

You might be right, JH.

But, while that's a knock against her, it doesn't - at least not in my book - make a compelling argument for someone in my shoes to want to vote for Castle.

 
At 9/07/2010 4:06 PM, Blogger DP said...

I certainly can endorse opposition to Castle--100% NARAL is putrid beyond words. I don't know the man's temperament, but Snarlin' Arlen Redux has no appeal whatsoever.

But I also can't see myself voting for Christine O'Donnell, who seems to be a bit paranoid and willing to engage in smearing-by-proxy.

Thank God I don't have to vote in Delaware.

 
At 9/07/2010 6:50 PM, Blogger Paul Zummo said...

First of all, there is nothing more annoying than typing out a long comment only to have the blog gremlins erase it. Let me try this again.

I have mixed feelings about this one. While she's probably not a nut, O'Donnell is a pretty bad candidate and almost completely unelectable in Delaware. I think a strong conservative candidate could win there or anywhere, but sadly she's not that strong. Castle is a moderate at best and pitiful on life issues, but he's preferable to the Dem he'd be facing in the general.

On the other hand, if I lived in Delaware I'd probably end up voting for O'Donnell.

I am tiring of the silly in-fighting. Guys like Jim geraghty and John hawkins have issued strong arguments as to why Castle is the better option, and Mark Levin and the guys at American Spectator have done the same for O'Donnell. But there's just a lot of noise as well. Dan Riehl, who I normally like, has been just obnoxious on this issue, and then of course on the other side you have guys like Bainbridge.

It would be nice if for once conservatives could have internal disagreements without everyone involved declaring anathema sits against everyone else.

 
At 9/08/2010 1:47 PM, Blogger Dad29 said...

My main problem is I think she might be nuts

That happens to be Qualification ONE for running for any office.

 
At 9/09/2010 7:25 PM, Blogger Paul Zummo said...

That happens to be Qualification ONE for running for any office.

Then you would love thus guy.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

hit counter for blogger