Here’s a pointer to a great article by Noam Chomsky.

(thanks, Mom!)

Regarding my question, argh, it’s a tough one.

I think of it as a struggle between being a short-term pragmatist and a long-term idealist.

I have voted for Candidate A before (pragmatist), and I have also voted for Candidate C before (idealist). Not surprisingly, I have never voted for Candidate B.

It bums me out that there are situations where I have intentionally chosen someone other than the person I felt was best suited for the job. And yet the times I voted for Candidate C, if Candidate B was elected and a vote for A would have swung the election, I would feel equally awful.

As Bubs said in a comment, the vote often “depends”. Both he and Beth indicated some examples where they would vote idealistically in a primary, but pragmatically in the election. Their argument makes perfect sense to me.

BlueGal says we are required to vote our conscience. I can’t really argue with that, either.

I’d like to think we all want to be idealists, but we are often pragmatists out of necessity (or at least a perceived necessity?).

Is there a way out of this short-term pragmatism? It feels like a collective shift from pragmatism to idealism has to happen to set things right.

I have sent a follow-up question to Dr. Monkey regarding this problem. Let’s hope he can work it out. Go, Dr. Monkey, Go!

I originally sent this question to Dr. Monkey for his January Q&A feature, but thinking more and more about it, I’d really like to know how anyone who reads this blog would answer it.

I think it’s really a difficult question, and I don’t have a good answer to it. Maybe one/some/all of you do.

Here it is:

There are three major candidates for an upcoming presidential race.

Candidate A shares some of your principles, but doesn’t share others. Some of the principles that Candidate A does not share with you are a little bothersome to you. You think A would make an okay president, but you have your doubts.

Candidate B is virtually the polar opposite to you with regards to the principles you hold. You are relatively certain that Candidate B’s presidency will have a negative effect on the country in a variety of ways, but you are not sure to the degree of this negative effect.

Candidate C seems in agreement with virtually all of your principles. They have interesting ideas, and address issues not dealt with by Candidates A or B. You believe that Candidate C would make a good president, and have a positive effect on the country.

Candidate A and B together have the majority of the vote. A and B’s campaign are in a dead heat. The projected votes are split evenly between them.

Candidate C is a distant third.

The question is, assuming you are going to vote for one of the candidates, who do you vote for? Assume I disagree with whatever your choice is, and try to convince me to vote for your candidate.

If you have the hankering to grapple with this question, it might be more appropriate to put up your own post in response to the question, rather than add your thoughts as a potentially large comment on this post (if you want to deal with it on your own blog, I’ll happily link to your post). Either way, whether it’s by comment or separate blog post, I welcome your thoughts and opinions.

As I waver in blog uncertainty, who comes to my rescue but my favorite terrible local newspaper, RedEye (a “hip” free daily paper squirted out by the fine people at the Chicago Tribune).

As I walked to my seat on the train, I picked up a copy of today’s RedEye off a seat. No, the cover wasn’t anything about Obama, Huckabee, or the Iowa caucuses. The cover was some pictures of potato chips. Apparently, “hip” newspaper readers are dying to know what the “champion” chip is.

Thankfully for readers of this blog, the RedEye’s website represents the relative importance of potato chips and presidential candidates in a similarly appropriate manner:

#1 story

#2 story

I’m filled with lots of questions from today’s RedEye.

1. Is the Tribune trying to appeal to a demographic it considers moronic?
2. Does the media cover politics the way it covers potato chips?
3. Does the juxtaposition of potato chips with the presidential race foreground the ongoing debasement of our political discourse?

One thing that I was disappointed in was the fact that the RedEye writers/editors did not take the next logical step — to make a correlation between the the most popular potato chips and the most popular presidential candidates.

For example, Mike Huckabee won the GOP’s Iowa caucus, and Jay’s was the champion chip. But from what I could tell, nobody at RedEye called Huckabee the Jay’s potato chip candidate of the Iowa caucus. Well, just because RedEye didn’t make the connection, doesn’t mean I can’t.

Disclaimer: I am listing the candidates and potato chips in descending popularity, alternating between Republican and Democratic Party candidates – no attempt was made to pick the potato chip name that most suited the candidate.

Mike Huckabee – Jays
Barack Obama – Lay’s Classic
Mitt Romney – Ruffles
John Edwards – Pringles
Fred Thompson – Krunchers!
Hillary Clinton – Lay’s Light
John McCain – Cape Cod (Old Fashioned Kettle-Cooked)
Bill Richardson – Kettle (lightly salted)
Ron Paul – Baked! Lay’s
Joe Biden – Munchos

Oh, the answers to the above questions are:

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes