In politics, there is an age-old question: Do we vote for the perfect candidate? Do we have a “moral duty” to ignore the less-than-perfect candidate to “teach THEM a lesson”?
That question will be answered, for the umpteenth time, in Pennsylvania’s upcoming Senatorial election. Senator Santorum is shunned by the purest conservatives for having supported liberal Spector in the Primary. Even worse, Santorum’s support of liberal Spector kept conservative Toomey from winning the primary.
Toomey supporters were outraged. Toomey is not. Toomey says “support Santorum”.
Most of the “pure” conservatives have never run for office. Mostly, their stock in trade is that they are “pure”.
Conservative Purists have counterparts on the left. Stalinists were truly “pure”. Trotskyites, were, of course “purer”.
Such purists rarely join monasteries or convents. They are happy by being “pure” in politics. They know best. “I could support so and so if he just hadn’t ____. That mistake was just too much for me.”
Santorum will vote “conservative” 90% of the time. His opponent, Casey, will vote for higher taxes and more regulations 90% of the time. Conservative purists say: “I’m just not going to vote. No one who cares about purity could vote for Santorum. I hope he loses. We’ve got to teach THEM a lesson. We’ll show THEM.”
“THEM” loves “Purists”. THEM would like for there to be more Purists. “THEM” encourages Purists to “follow their conscience” right down to the very end of the primrose path. Some Purists can’t tell when they’re being used by THEM.
No matter. All Purists refuse to admit that they, personally, might be being used. When confronted with that thought, they shake their heads with astonished wonderment: “No one could be using me. I’m too pure.”
