The Ideal Candidate

I am not one to bend like a reed in the wind. I have ideas about how best to accomplish something and ideals that I am committed to, some of which are personally non-negotiable.

With regard to the former (ideas), I seek ways and means to be more efficient in my job every day. Ideally I would do that perfectly every day (I don't usually measure up to that ideal, but it is my duty to strive to do so, especially as a government employee).

With regard to the latter (ideals), I have my own. I am pro-family, pro-traditional marriage, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-freedom, pro-religious liberty, pro-school choice, pro-self determination, etc. and anti-gay marriage, anti-socialism, anti-abortion, anti-amnesty for illegal aliens, anti-United Nations, anti-terrorist, anti-communist, anti-government schools, anti-Peoples Republic of China, etc. These are some of my ideals, expressed as things I support and things I oppose.

There are people who have ideals but no idea how to implement them in a way that satisfies the body politic (e.g. Dr. Sun Yat-sen). When it comes to a political Party's choice of say a Presidential candidate, there is a direct relation between the probability of intersection of the ideals of any subset of The Party with the Chosen One and the time remaining to the General Election (unless perhaps the candidate is a reed). The time when these ideals should be held to unwaveringly by the individual voter is before and during the Primary. Once a candidate appears to have the magic number of delegates the probability of all of your ideal positions being present in the candidate is greatly reduced. As the nomination gets nearer and nearer there is less and less that can be done about the candidate's positions vis-à-vis your ideals.

This leaves you with a dilemma. Do you compromise on your ideals and vote for the flawed candidate, or do you stand your ground and manipulate those in your sphere of influence to support another candidate who is say 90-100% your ideal, but who does not have a change in Hades of winning the election (i.e. a 3rd party candidate)? You know that your support of this candidate could very well cause the The Party's candidate to loose the election and with that loss you loose on all your ideals, not just the deficit between your ideals and the positions of The Party's candidate. That would be a very bad bet on your part. Perhaps you should consider the words of that wise sage, Kenny Rogers:

You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when youre sittin at the table.
Therell be time enough for countin when the dealins done.

Let him and her who has ears to hear heed that wise advise.

What happens when people just won't let go of perfection when it comes to their ideals. Well, there is precedent in history for those who will only settle for the ideal. They are called Utopians and some of their ideas when held up as ideals have become Dystopias (negative Utopias) causing more death, destruction, and misery than any of us in the United States can imagine. Utopian socialism and Communisim/Marxism come to mind in this regard. There are other Utopian ideals that hit closer to home: Libertarian transhumanists, libertarian socialists, and the Technocracy movement, for example. We could add to that the "CO2 is evil movement" (which is a looming Dystopias).

I think I've said enough. You get the idea. What I really wanted to do was introduce Robert Novak's July 18th speech before the AFP-Texas Defending the American Dream Summit.

One more thing, though. McCain was not my first choice (Duncan Hunter), my second (Mit Romney) or my third choice (the one I voted for) during the Primary season. But as a Republican I have no choice but to support the candidate that The Party has chosen, warts and all. I ain't no Utopian and I know when to cut my losses.

I'm done. Now, please watch this video of Bob Novak. Enjoy....