I’m curious to know from those who believe voting Bush or Kerry is “pragmatic” exactly which moral principles are bring compromised, if either of these are the desired choice for president.

 
I’m also interested to hear if Badnarik supporters think he would make a flawless, perfect president. And if not, why they don’t think they too are being “pragmatic” by supporting “the best of a bad bunch.”

You haven’t answered my question, Duncan. A pragmatic act compromises long-term moral principles for perceived short term gain. Which moral principles are being compromised by voting for Bush or Kerry?

 
It’s not integrity. The voter is acting with the courage of his convictions. He wants Bush (say) for president, so votes for him accordingly. You could go a step further and say you’re embracing integrity by maintaining the courage of you convictions by advocating free market capitalism, abortion, etc. It’s not honesty. The voter says he’s voting for Bush, he encourages others to vote for Bush. You could go a step further and say you’re embracing honesty by disclosing that Bush doesn’t represent 100% of your ideas. (But that goes without saying; what politician does?) It’s not rationality. He’s identified the reality of the electoral college system and knows that the next president will be Bush or Kerry, and he wants it to be Bush and really doesn’t want it to be Kerry. It’s not justice either. If Kerry won the pivotal state by 537 votes that went to Badnarik, that would be a grave injustice. So, which moral principle is it?

 
By saying that someone who would vote for Bush (or Kerry) is being “pragmatic” or “compromising” is a smear, as Joe pointed out in the other thread. You’re accusing them of knowingly compromising their principles. But, again, what is it that they are compromising?

(Edited by Glenn Lamont on 9/08, 12:17am)

Eli:

"If Kerry won the pivotal state by 537 votes that went to Badnarik, that would be a grave injustice."

hah! not only are the people who vote third part foolishly throwing their vote away, but now they're committing injustice too?!

Eli: That’s not what I’m saying. The point there was that if you’ve recognized Kerry as the greater “evil” it would be a grave injustice to indirectly allow him to win. If you view Bush and Kerry as equally evil/incompetent/theocratic/whatever, then it doesn’t matter who you vote for.

Ed: I’m confused by your impolite response.

Firstly, my questions have been solely directed at those who believe that voting for Bush (or Kerry) is a “pragmatic” act. 

My “nonsensical” question about the “perfect” president was to determine the standard for “compromise.” Perhaps “ideal” would have been the better word. We’ve heard a lot of talk about voting on the basis of the “lesser of two evils.” Is voting for someone who is less than a “pure” Objectivist “unprincipled” for an Objectivist? What if you’re an Objectivist who supports/ed the War in Iraq? Then a vote for Badnarik would be a “compromise” on the basis of his domestic policies. What standard is set for a “principled” vote? What rules Badnarik in and Bush out?

I’m not sure what your quotes are trying to prove. And they still haven’t answered my question about where the moral failure is in someone:

1. who’s conscientious, who believes and supports each of your quotes, who publicly advocates them, who convinces others of their rightness,
2. knows that libertarian change will not come about through the ballot box, but through a cultural revolution, by changing minds one at a time, like he’s been doing,
3. but supports Bush (or Kerry), for whatever reason; to “stem the tide” of socialism/theocracy; because of the candidate’s moral character; because he’s the best candidate to fight the War on Terror as an emergency situation that needs to be addressed before the fight for liberty can continue; etc.

Bill: Rand also supported and campaigned for mainstream political candidates. I wonder what standard made Reagan “evil” and others not?