What Is Wrong with Purism?

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Autolykos I read an article just now which states that "purist" candidates, such as Ron Paul, simply don't get elected. I'd like to understand why. Doesn't purism suggest consistency and integrity? What about honesty? Or do people, by and large, prefer candidates who make them feel good, without really meaning what they say? After all this time, have people learned nothing? Please help me to understand this. - Rob

I'm not sure I would claim any single candidate is "purist;" though some more so than others. Perhaps we need a better word here, or a scale. For me this is a deep philosophical issue. I don't believe in purity of any kind. Even within the brightest star there's probably a micron (or less) of dark. Even in the deepest, darkest portions of space there should be a little light.

But to get more OT...

Hitler was probably more purist than most. Of course there have been those who were; perhaps Jesus (depending upon historical truth versus what we are told), Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln... but I'd bet each and everyone of these folks were less pure than we believe them to be.

I believe humans naturally distrust people the more "pure" they seem to be, perhaps knowing that therein lies the path to fanaticism. I'm writing about perception here, not actuality. Jim Jones was "pure" in his own madness, as was Charlie Manson. Unfortunately we so distrust, and the media so crucifies, and political spinmeisters so slander the more pure we wind up with mediocrity... which can be just as dangerous and evil.

Quite the conundrum, eh?