I have not taken part in the passionate debate about "Operation Hilarity" - the push for tactical voting in the open Michigan primary, wherein kos urged Michigan Democrats to vote for Santorum in order to further mess up the already super-messy Republican nomination battle.
Again, I haven't followed closely, but it seems the more "pragmatist" line was associated with support of kos' proposition, while the anti-Hilarity position was deemed a "purist" one. I'd like to suggest a very pragmatic, down-to-Earth reason why such tactical voting for the candidate who is more diametrically opposed to the core of your being as a progressive/liberal - because you think he is the weaker one - is a bad idea.
See, this has happened before. Many times at all scales. That's why there's a well-known term for it: The Law of Unintended Consequences. Follow me for specifics.
First, assume that thanks in part to tactical Democratic voting in Michigan, Santorum manages to pull off another upset there tomorrow, and also comes close in Arizona. Then Gingrich pulls out of the race before Super Tuesday, and Romney fumbles a few more fumbles (he has certainly shown the uncanny ability to do so, like all previous GOP frontrunners). After Super Tuesday, Santorum amasses an advantage and momentum too big for the party elites to try and "broker" someone else - and eventually becomes the nominee.
Now consider two unlikely, yet certainly possible scenarios.
Scenario 1: Sometime around September or October, President Obama - God Forbid - tragically dies, in circumstances that leave the public confused rather than automatically unified around his successor (as happened, say, after Kennedy's assassination). Furthermore, the DNC, bless them, make a mess of deciding whether to run Biden or Hilary instead of Obama. Santorum wins sympathy by making a very impassioned homage to the deceased President, which receives an even more impassioned praise from all MSM pundits. Bottom line: Santorum wins and becomes President.
Scenario 2: Obama is alive and well. But despite all the valiant financial duct-taping, the Euro implodes in mid-summer. By October, all the American economic indicators have entered a deep freeze. Companies go bankrupt again. Social chaos spreads from the Old Continent across the ocean. Suddenly, Obama's cakewalk becomes his opponent's cakewalk. Bottom line: Santorum wins and becomes President.
Now, how would a progressive who had voted for Preachy Rick in Michigan feel for the rest of her life?
Of course, other scenarios can be put together (e.g., the ill-timed exposure of a large corruption scandal at the top). And Scenario 2 is not all that unlikely. The Euro is not out of the woods, not by a long shot. It is easy to forget, but before Lehman Brothers went under in mid-September 2008, Obama and McCain were running neck-and-neck in the polls.
I don't know about you, but if bad comes to worse I would prefer as a GOP President an unprincipled 0.1%-er weasel who has shown an ability to go to center when needed, over a fanatical hate-filled zealot who has declared war upon the 21st Century. And I'd hate to be someone who had in any way, shape of form helped the latter become President.
If you disagree with who would be the worse President for America - Romney or Santorum - then feel free to support that "operation". But if you agree with this evaluation of the two politicians, then I advise you not to play with fire.
Unintended consequences happen all the time. The current Troubles in Israel-Palestine seem so permanent, but in fact prior to fall 2000 most residents of that land were fairly hopeful, optimistic and living in relative calm. Then,
- Some irresponsible brinksmanship by Sharon, Barak and Arafat led to an eruption of unrest;
- The shelf-plans of the Israeli military to deal with such unrest had turned out to be the equivalent of dousing a fire with gasoline;
- Five weeks later, hanging chads in Palm Beach county led to an unclear result in the American 2000 elections. The one man who could - and would - intervene to calm things down in Israel-Palestine, then-VP Al Gore, was eventually blocked from his Presidency by a bad ballot design in a single county and by a corrupt Supreme Court decision;
- The next fall, 9/11 happened, and the man who took Gore's seat as President had changed his attitude to the Middle East from indifference, to "hey, let's reshape that region a little bit, shan't we?" The cowardly complicity of the media and many Democrats with the Iraq invasion also helped secure a woefully undeserved 2nd term for this terrible President, who just prior to 9/11 looked to be facing the longest-ever period of Lame Duck.
The rest is a very sad history - for Israel-Palestine but even more so for Iraq, and even to the entire world - a history that looks cast in stone. I isn't. It is the result of coincidences, mishaps, and cynical choices by some individuals at critical junctures.
Hopefully, whatever corrupt clown the GOP places as their candidate will be walked over by President Obama en route to an easy 2012 re-election. But we don't know that. Stuff happens. Let us not be part of that stuff.
Have a great week everyone.