What Is Wrong with Purism?

[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

[Milton Bradley]

Something tells me this piece is meant to influence you vote, more than to speak truth.


Dammit man, they just don't want you to vote for the guy that is going to bring thier little theater crashing down, and they'll do, or say anything they think works toward that end.

[Mr.Vicchio]

The reason purist don't get elected is because the electorate votes for people that are well rounded. (in their eyes)

Voting for a fire brand for a hard right, or hard left.. is not something that people are comfortable with. They for now want "compromise" That's reality. You can go into all the scary dark "Voters are controlled by the media run by the parties" goofiness you want, reality is far simpler.

[Autolykos]

"Voters are controlled by the media run by the parties" seems pretty simple, actually. Reality is a lot more complicated.

Tell me, Vicchio -- why do you think voters want "compromise"?

- Rob

[Mr.Vicchio]

Partially because people believe that compromise makes sense. Part of that is the media, but in real life, do the hard chargers, stick to their guns unwaivering types annoy people more then they make friends?

Or is it the people that can make deals, see "the other side of the issue" that appeal to people? Americans as a whole worry more about what happens this week, next week and so on in their daily lives more so then worrying about "the big issues"

Is it a fault? Yeah, but don't think the people can't get fed up, and I think we're seeing that starting, people sick of "business as usual. It's like waking a sleeping dragon. Let it run it's course.

[Alive]

What about the obvious reason. The US is extremely politically diverse. Purist candidates only get votes from purists; these make up a minority of the population. Compromise candidates can appease many different groups, and thereby get more support.

Purism doesn't go well with democracy. It's a sad thing since purism is sometimes exactly what is needed. But that's not how the system works.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Autolykos 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?

Are consistency and integrity in the service of bad policies virtues? Are people who compromise dishonest? I think our Founding Fathers looked at "purists" and "compromisers" and chose the latter as the best gamble. They set up three independent branches of government, each specifically tasked with "checks and balances" against purists (ie a king or the majority or mob rule). Those checks and balances demand compromise. It's not a choice.

[Jack]

It seems sometimes that honest politicians make people suspicious, more so than openly corrupt ones do. We expect politicians to be greasy, slippery, dishonest. So there's a temptation to suspect that honest politicians are really being dishonest, "they must be covering something up." Not too many nuns live in whorehouses.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Isherwood It seems sometimes that honest politicians make people suspicious, more so than openly corrupt ones do.[/b]

There is also a tendency to see compromise (and diplomacy) as corrupt. If so, our nation's Founding Fathers were the cream of the corrupt crop. Compromise forged our nation, not purism. And if any so-called purist like Representative Ron Paul got elected president, he would fast learn the art of compromise or suffer the political consequences. And once purists compromise, they lose their precious virginity--and their unique claim to "honesty." Purists fail to win the American presidency because they can't remain pure in all 50 states and still cobble together working coalitions needed to win. I doubt any of the Founding Fathers would mind.

[Jack]

Would you consider Carter a purist?

[The Decider]

Quote by: Isherwood [b]Would you consider Carter a purist?[/b

No. Carter won the presidency on a wave of popular anger against Watergate. He campaigned on "government reorganization" or limited government. His "born again" Christian revivalist tone didn't hurt him either with the "moral" crowd. Later, after winning the presidency, Carter had limited success with his government pruning initiatives. He played hardball with Congress by vetoing some bills, but in the end, he compromised. Even on human rights, his signature issue, Carter made concessions to dictators in El Salvador and Iran. Purist? No. A stubborn one-term president with hints of populist appeal.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: The Decider Are consistency and integrity in the service of bad policies virtues?

Yes. It's the policies that are bad, not the consistency and integrity in their service.

Are people who compromise dishonest?

When they betray their principles while continuing to uphold them, yes.

I think our Founding Fathers looked at "purists" and "compromisers" and chose the latter as the best gamble. They set up three independent branches of government, each specifically tasked with "checks and balances" against purists (ie a king or the majority or mob rule). Those checks and balances demand compromise. It's not a choice.

Even if this is true, it's meaningless to me here.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Partially because people believe that compromise makes sense. Part of that is the media, but in real life, do the hard chargers, stick to their guns unwaivering types annoy people more then they make friends?

I'm talking about political purism. But while we're here, is making friends the end-all-be-all of life or morality? Somehow, I doubt it. If a friend of mine and I have a falling-out because I think he's behaving immorally, so be it.

Or is it the people that can make deals, see "the other side of the issue" that appeal to people? Americans as a whole worry more about what happens this week, next week and so on in their daily lives more so then worrying about "the big issues"

However, the big issues often affect what happens this week, next week, and so on. Take war, for example. It can have an immediate and profound effect on people's lives. It's also, by all accounts, a big issue.

Part of the problem, I think, lies in the fact that political issues are often decided by using logical fallacies.

Is it a fault? Yeah, but don't think the people can't get fed up, and I think we're seeing that starting, people sick of "business as usual. It's like waking a sleeping dragon. Let it run it's course.

Honestly, I'm glad you can admit that it's a fault. I agree that we're starting to see people getting sick of "business as usual".

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Isherwood It seems sometimes that honest politicians make people suspicious, more so than openly corrupt ones do. We expect politicians to be greasy, slippery, dishonest. So there's a temptation to suspect that honest politicians are really being dishonest, "they must be covering something up." Not too many nuns live in whorehouses.

I understand what you're saying. But I think it's duplicitous on the part of the people who believe it. On the one hand, they consider themselves, in effect, morally superior to those who rule them. Yet in the same breath, they are willing to trust those moral inferiors to continue to rule them! It makes little sense to me, at the moment.

- Rob

[Osborn F Enready]

I have to point this out......

There is no problem with "compromise" between politicians if the compromises being made aren't over individual rights.

ALL politicians are REQUIRED to protect individual rights, and OBEY the limits of the Constitutional sphere of authority, checks and balances, and the limitations within the bill of rights.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Autolykos Yes. It's the policies that are bad, not the consistency and integrity in their service.

If consistency and integrity prevent the purist from changing bad polices, then we usually call that stubborn foolishness. Consistency and integrity in the service of bad policies lead to bad outcomes.

Quote by: Autolykos When they betray their principles while continuing to uphold them, yes.

One can compromise without betraying principles. We may disagree about what those principles are, however.

Quote by: Autolykos Even if this is true, it's meaningless to me here.

I thought relevant real world examples might help to flesh out the abstract. My bad.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: The Decider If consistency and integrity prevent the purist from changing bad polices, then we usually call that stubborn foolishness. Consistency and integrity in the service of bad policies lead to bad outcomes.

If the purist sees that his policies are causing adverse outcomes (from his own point of view), then he would indeed be wise to change them. Ultimately, however, it is the bad policies themselves which lead to bad outcomes. This is irrespective of any consistency or integrity in said policies' service.

Also, a person can change which principles he adheres to. I don't think that violates consistency or integrity.

One can compromise without betraying principles. We may disagree about what those principles are, however.

That is true. Perhaps a better word for what I'm talking about is "hypocrisy".

I thought relevant real world examples might help to flesh out the abstract. My bad.

Sorry, I thought you were using the Founding Fathers' experience as an argument in favor of compromise.

- Rob

[GHook93]

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

What do you mean by Purist?

[Capitalist Pig]

Ron Paul is perhaps the last of the true Republican party. The Republican party of decades gone, when it was about smaller government, less spending, and laissez-faire. However, he's so disconnected from his own party, and practically invisible to the general public, his chances are grim.

Whatever. Voting is pointless anyway, not to mention immoral.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Capitalist Pig Ron Paul is perhaps the last of the true Republican party. The Republican party of decades gone, when it was about smaller government, less spending, and laissez-faire. However, he's so disconnected from his own party, and practically invisible to the general public, his chances are grim. Whatever. Voting is pointless anyway, not to mention immoral.

Wow, who is this stranger posting? Here I thought you had abandoned us.


I agree with the Paul assessment, but I think the poll numbers indicate that there is aa growing resentment for the lies the other candidates have come to defend.


How else would you go about explaining the initial results of Pauls numbers in the polls?


There are still some people awake out there, their just not voting in the primaries.