What are the requirements for moral voting?

[BRG253]

There are a lot of pro-liberty or "tea party" candidates emerging and I'm not sure who I should support. A lot of them are "Ron Paul Republicans" who believe in Austrian economics, but also hold mistaken views of foreign policy, immigration, abortion, etc., and some are religious. I unreservedly supported Peter Schiff in his senate campaign, but I didn't support Rand Paul. I havent' supported any of the "Ron Paul Republicans" in local congressional races because I'm confused about the requriements for moral voting. I'm weary about voting for candidates who may harm capitalism by mixing it with other irrational philosophies. What criteria should I use to determine whether a candidate is worthy of my support? Also, do I have to take into account who a candidate's opponent is? For example, would it be right to vote for a pro-life candidate if the democratic leadership becomes so destructive that it threatens our continued existence if we don't get them voted out? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Edited August 25, 2010 by BRG253

[DavidOdden]

Rule one is that you will get lots of very helpful and contradictory responses. The reason is that all of the real alternatives suck one way or the other, so your question reduces to wondering "what sucks the least".

In my opinion, it is pointless to give any level of support to a candidate who sucks and has no chance of winning. Since you are using "support" in a broader sense (not just "will vote for" which implies that you live there), I would ask what the actual alternatives are. For example, you may determine that you have $1,000 that you can give to causes, so should you give it to Peter Schiff, or Rand Paul, or John McCain? These are not your only alternatives: you could also give the money to ARI; you could purchase copies of Rand's books and donate them to your local library -- etc. I would do one of the latter two things, rather than give money to a political candidate. You could also spend some time, let's say 200 hours, working for something (distributing literature, making phone calls, writing letters to the editor, etc). Should you dedicate your free time to Peter Schiff? Or should you dedicate your free time writing an article for The Objective Standard, or hanging out at an Objectivist table at a tea party event? I'd go for the latter, myself.

There's a weaker sense of support, not involving money or time, simply giving "moral support", for example publicly advocating -- when the question arises -- a particular candidate. So if someone asks "Do you support Rand Paul", you could say "Yes" as opposed to "No". But a better option, if it works in the conversation, is to change the conversation to something about why certain ideas are good and worthy of supporting, and why other ideas are bad and need opposition.

When it comes time to pull an actual lever, though, the question before you is a stark dichotomy: either Rand Paul will be the Senator, or Jack Conway will be the senator. Which one would be a worse senator. Both are dangerous candidates, but one of them will win. Which is the greater threat to our existence, creeping socialism, or theocracy? The answer to that question could push you a particular way. Another more fundamental question is whether it is more dangerous to have a well-defined enemy in government, or an apparent friend who will betray the principles that you support and sully the reputation of those principles. In my opinion, it would do more long-term harm to have a fake capitalist in office than a socialist. One can point to the catastrophe of communist nations as an existence proof that communism is not a proper political system for humans. We do not need a catastrophe perpetrated in the name of capitalism.[Rand had a very appropriate comment on supporting false friends, in CUI, which I cannot find now -- maybe someone out there know what I mean].