Party poopers

The idea of the “electability” of certain presidential candidates has been discussed a lot recently. As I see it, electability as a reason to vote for someone is a somewhat shallow argument at best. I assume most Americans like to think their vote will be based on principle and not on some imagined idea of whom others would vote for. Needless to say, however, in a two-party system such as the United States, that almost never happens. People need to not only vote, but also compromise, for their candidate of choice.\nThe electability argument is one that raged in 2000 for liberals, thanks to the presidential run of Ralph Nader that changed the face of U.S. politics for the foreseeable future. With Nader’s rather successful pull of almost 3 percent of voters, many Democrats seemed to believe that Al Gore would have won if only a small portion of the Nader voters would have gone with Gore. Nader’s third party bid for president, many resentful Democrats argue, led the nation to elect George W. Bush. And the rest, as they say, is history. \nAs the nation grows more polarized, there seems to be little room for a third party in the ever-increasing “our side has to win no matter what” political mentality. But this might not be the case for the cultural conservatives this year, who appear to have all but given up on having the political influence they enjoyed under the presidency of George W. Bush. The Republicans voted for McCain, the moderate, to represent them, and the conservative wing appears to want nothing to do with it. \nBut imagine for a minute that conservative Republicans, angry and fuming over the all but certain nomination of John McCain – sorry, Huckabee supporters – decide to say “no” to the Republican nominee and decide to run a spoiler candidate of their own or just abstain from voting altogether. Many have threatened it.Could it become a reality?\nIn order for a political group to run a third party candidate, it is imperative that the group be held together by the desire to vote for its ideals, not for whoever is more “electable.” The social conservative wing of the Republican party is a group that puts ideals above anything else.\nSocial conservatives’ main platforms revolve around the ideals of family and faith. Don’t believe me? Look at Mike Huckabee’s slogan, “Family. Faith. Freedom.” Ideals are often so strong that they fly in the face of science and reason. Cultural conservatives as a whole believe gay marriage will damage the institution of marriage, that despite scientific consensus, evolution is wrong and creationism is right, that children will have less sex with abstinence education, etc. These “ideals” are not supported by research or rationale, but instead by a belief in righteousness. \nCultural conservatives are a vocal group, and I imagine they don’t enjoy sitting on the political sidelines. If McCain can’t convince this section of his party to vote for him, we might see an “Evangelical Nader,” which might even make Al Gore smile.