I suspect it’s only those who have weak or no principles who don’t understand how other people might have principles in some domain which are so strong and so morally defining that they simply can’t bring themselves to vote for anybody breaking those principles.
It’s one thing to logically disagree with the lack of pragmatism of somebody not being able to vote for somebody supporting child mass murder abroad even to stop somebody who, whilst also supporting child mass murder abroad also supported a few more bad things.
It’s a whole different thing to blame somebody for not voting for anybody supporting child mass murder.
Unlike what some seem to think, voting for somebody who supports child mass murder abroad because they’re not as bad on things which affect you more closely (i.e. national policy) as the other candidate who also supports child mass murder abroad, isn’t a Moral High Ground from were to talk down to people who on moral grounds refuse to vote for anybody who would support child mass murder.
(Also and this being Politics, it seems to me that the competent candidate who trully means to represent their voters would move towards what voters want - especially on subjects that many voters would see as symptomatic of the candidate’s general character, such as child mass murder support - rather than expect voters to move towards the candidate’s views)
that they simply can’t bring themselves to vote for anybody breaking those principles.
But what if by not voting or voting for someone who literally cannot win you are helping someone who makes it clear they will violate the principles you hold dear even more flagrantly? Because that’s what happened.
One or the other WILL win. So do you help as much as you can or do you sit in a corner and cry?
I honestly don’t feel bad about blaming the people that chose to sit in a corner and cry. Especially because their decision to do so affected a whole lot more than genocide on the other side of the planet.
isn’t a Moral High Ground
For me it isn’t a moral high ground. It’s making the decision that is BEST for my country AND the people in Gaza and wondering why the people who chose to cry in a corner couldn’t do the same.
it seems to me that the competent candidate who trully means to represent their voters would move towards what voters want
Geopolitics isn’t some simple thing. Should a candidate run on abandoning an ally when a subset of their voters don’t like that country anymore? Especially if they aren’t sure that those voters represent enough of the total to cost them the election? And when a lot of their voters still do want to be allies with that country?
Turns out a lot of people can’t see the forest for the trees.
We don’t really know if the other candidate who also very openly proclaimed her “unwavering support” for Israel would cause Israel to act differently in any way form or shape - you’re just assuming a “rosy outcome” had things been different based on at best wishful thinking, possibly even just tribalist loyalty (you think your tribe’s leader is better and thus assume she would do things better, even in the face of her very openly supporting Israel just as much as the other candidate which indicates that on this subject such thing cannot be assumed).
Further, parties will put forwards on subsequent elections different candidates if the ones they put forward in previous elections got trashed by voters. This means that refusing to vote actually influences which choices will be available in the next cycle of this Ultimatum Game. I have actually seen this happen in Europe (and in fact in America too: the Republicans changed from conservatives to populist Fascists exactly by following the electorate which turns out to have quite a high percentage or Racists)
Turns out a lot of people when it comes to politics can’t (or maybe refuse) to logically analyze things beyond the superficial 1st order effects.
I suspect it’s only those who have weak or no principles who don’t understand how other people might have principles in some domain which are so strong and so morally defining that they simply can’t bring themselves to vote for anybody breaking those principles.
It’s one thing to logically disagree with the lack of pragmatism of somebody not being able to vote for somebody supporting child mass murder abroad even to stop somebody who, whilst also supporting child mass murder abroad also supported a few more bad things.
It’s a whole different thing to blame somebody for not voting for anybody supporting child mass murder.
Unlike what some seem to think, voting for somebody who supports child mass murder abroad because they’re not as bad on things which affect you more closely (i.e. national policy) as the other candidate who also supports child mass murder abroad, isn’t a Moral High Ground from were to talk down to people who on moral grounds refuse to vote for anybody who would support child mass murder.
(Also and this being Politics, it seems to me that the competent candidate who trully means to represent their voters would move towards what voters want - especially on subjects that many voters would see as symptomatic of the candidate’s general character, such as child mass murder support - rather than expect voters to move towards the candidate’s views)
But what if by not voting or voting for someone who literally cannot win you are helping someone who makes it clear they will violate the principles you hold dear even more flagrantly? Because that’s what happened.
One or the other WILL win. So do you help as much as you can or do you sit in a corner and cry?
I honestly don’t feel bad about blaming the people that chose to sit in a corner and cry. Especially because their decision to do so affected a whole lot more than genocide on the other side of the planet.
For me it isn’t a moral high ground. It’s making the decision that is BEST for my country AND the people in Gaza and wondering why the people who chose to cry in a corner couldn’t do the same.
Geopolitics isn’t some simple thing. Should a candidate run on abandoning an ally when a subset of their voters don’t like that country anymore? Especially if they aren’t sure that those voters represent enough of the total to cost them the election? And when a lot of their voters still do want to be allies with that country?
Turns out a lot of people can’t see the forest for the trees.
Except that’s selective bullshit.
We don’t really know if the other candidate who also very openly proclaimed her “unwavering support” for Israel would cause Israel to act differently in any way form or shape - you’re just assuming a “rosy outcome” had things been different based on at best wishful thinking, possibly even just tribalist loyalty (you think your tribe’s leader is better and thus assume she would do things better, even in the face of her very openly supporting Israel just as much as the other candidate which indicates that on this subject such thing cannot be assumed).
Further, parties will put forwards on subsequent elections different candidates if the ones they put forward in previous elections got trashed by voters. This means that refusing to vote actually influences which choices will be available in the next cycle of this Ultimatum Game. I have actually seen this happen in Europe (and in fact in America too: the Republicans changed from conservatives to populist Fascists exactly by following the electorate which turns out to have quite a high percentage or Racists)
Turns out a lot of people when it comes to politics can’t (or maybe refuse) to logically analyze things beyond the superficial 1st order effects.