A friend of mine, Emily, wrote a blog post on her personal blog that got me thinking.

Emily is an intelligent woman and accomplished in her professional field. She and her husband are great friends from our time in Charlottesville. She's also a committed conservative politically, and related but distinct, she is a committed evangelical Christian. You will see that her evangelical faith is related but distinct from her conservative political principles in her post.

You can read Emily's post, "Nothing to Fear" (here).

Emily writes to conservatives in her post and tells them to do their part by:
a. nominating an electable candidate.
b. actually going to the polls and voting for this electable candidate.
c. under no circumstances nominate or support a 3rd party candidate to run on a "Christian values" platform

She then makes the case for Rudy Giuliani to be the GOP nominee.

At first blush, probably many liberal and conservative readers would read this a but one, legit, fairly typical articulation of a political philosophy. The readers may not necessarily share Emily's views, but this would be one acceptable view in a civil public square where a diversity of viewpoints are represented.

While I do think Emily's perspective is welcome in a civil public square, I disagree with her at a second level. Read her words under "b".

She writes, "actually going to the polls and voting for this electable candidate. I don't want to hear (or read!) any of you say, "I just don't agree with any of these candidates. I'm just not going to vote." Whether you like it or not, you vote either way. If you--a Christian, Libertarian or otherwise conservative voter--stay home, you vote for other side. So please, PLEASE vote against the candidate LEAST like you if that makes you feel better, but by all means VOTE. The Christian right is a powerful force in elections and we need US now more than ever!

I have a few objections.
First, logic. It simply is not true that not voting is a vote. If there are 100 citizens in a republic, and 2 candidates, and 20 vote for Candidate A and 70 vote for Candidate B, it is not actually true that the 10 who did not vote actually voted for one or the other candidates. The 10 who did not vote...did not vote. Not voting cannot be voting.

Second, I object to the underlying premise in Emily's a, b, and c points that the only way (or maybe she means the only legitimate way) to think about one's participation in the politics of the United States is to accept the limitations of the two-party system. It's fine that many citizens like and others merely accept the two-party system, but there is no moral, logical or political OBLIGATION to embrace the limitations of the two-party system. A citizen of a republic has civic duties, but I categorically reject the notion that one of my duties as a citizen is to vote for someone I don't want to be the President.

It's fine for Emily to argue (as she does implicitly in her post) that conservatives must accept the two-party system, but as a citizen I say that whom I vote for has much to do with the character of the individual, his/her competence, and his/her vision. Just because millions of Americans are invested, willingly or resignedly, in the two-party system does not create an insurmountable argument for other citizens to vote accordingly.

Electability is a legitimate variable for a voter to consider, but there is zero moral argument to make electabilty paramount. Asking citizens to hold their noses and vote for the lesser of two evils is a legitimate perspectve, but there is no moral argument that makes that a compelling perspective. Asking citizens to refrain from supporting a third-party (or whatever number-- there are actually multitudes of small parties in the United States already) is a legitimate argument to make, but it is not a conclusive argument.

My point? There exist other perspectives, other arguments, other variables that are also legit. I, for one, refuse to limit my political horizons to the status quo.

Emily writes to conservatives and so I think fair questions to ask conservatives, in light of Emily's post, include 1) how well has the GOP enacted conservative principles since January 20, 2001? (spending, foreign policy, immigration) and 2) in what specific ways would a Hillary (2 l's) Clinton administration ruin the country?

Maybe HRC would be drastically worse than her husband, but I recall the years from 1993-2001 as being, in many respects, a good time for the United States. Did Bill Clinton destroy the country? Not as far as I can tell.

There is the center, there is the right and left, and then there is the crazy left and crazy right. The crazy left today is risible in its declarations that George W. Bush has ruined the country. I experience zero ruination day to day. The crazy right was equally risible in the 1990s in its claims that Bill Clinton was ruining the country. I am aware of no such ruination.

I can see that Emily's conservative readers would dislike the policies likely to be enacted by HRC and a Democrat House and Senate-- taxes will likely go up, policies flowing from the Executive Branch related to social issues will be executed differently than under a social conservative President. But will the changes likely to happen after January 20, 2009 ruin the country? Propel us into ACTUAL socialism? Not likely.

So, would things be worse for conservatives under an HRC administration? Most likely. But would the country experience disaster? Not likely. Rather, through the ebb and flow of various political movements, the United States will continue to flourish.

Emily quotes from Giuliani's address to a recent gathering of social conservatives, "Do not fear." Giuliani was telling social conservatives not to fear what would happen to their prized issues if he were to be elected President.

I would use the same words to those who fear that HRC would ruin the country. Do not fear. I would say to the left the same thing about George W. Bush. It's pointless to say those words to the crazy left who think George W. Bush has already ruined the country, but I don't waste my time engaging crazy people in dialogue because crazy people lack the cognitive prerequisties for dialogue.

Do not fear.

I contend for a perspective that says, "Vote for the best person for the job." If he/she wins, great. If not, do not fear, and keep working to see your goals become reality.

Conservatives who loved Reagan were despondent in 1976 when Reagan fell short of displacing Ford as the GOP standard bearer. Reagan and his Reaganites were seen as saber-rattling right wing nuts. But just four years of the malaise of Jimmy Carter and a Democrat controlled House and Senate led to a LANDSLIDE victory for Reagan that swept the GOP into power in the Senate and a stronger position in the House. Jimmy Carter made the Reagan of 1980 possible.

While I don't wish for Hillary Rodham Clinton to be my President, it may be that 4 years of HRC and a Democrat controlled House and Senate will precipitate yet another sea-change in US politics. The aftermath of 2004 (GOP mishandling their electoral successes) led to 2006 Democrat ascendance.

Do not fear.