Voting: Principle vs Praxis

One finds no shortage of persons who will tell you with great confidence who is and who is not electable.  Certainly one can analyze what he knows -- or believes he knows -- about American voters, their political and policy opinions, their "mood" and their likely preferences and form an opinion as to how any election will fall out.  In fact, polling data, in experienced hands most often yield high probabilities of electoral outcomes.  But surprise!  Human behavior is not always predictable.  Black Swans -- perhaps far more common than the name suggests -- have ways to make laughable statistical models that very often assume a stability in kinetic systems that does not exist.  The models are correct often enough to create the illusion of predictability, but as, for example, the recent collapse of the derivatives market has shown, our confidence may be misplaced.  Said more directly, the laws of probability are not the laws of physics; they do not compel outcomes.  And it is always possible that there are variables that we do not recognize, anticipate or even imagine.



Pundits, Wizards and the Coming Election
During the heat of the current Republican contest for the presidential nomination I find myself becoming increasingly annoyed by the arrogance of talking heads, radio pundits and political "analysts" of every stripe who tell us -- as if it were a certainty that should be apparent to everyone -- who is electable, who will gain or lose ground and why and what the American people think and feel.  What they will do at caucuses, primaries and the polls on election day. [1]

The Rest of Us
Now I don't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong in predicting electoral outcomes. so long as we understand that is a game of chance.  Else, why bother with voting?  Game, though it is, it's worth noting that some persons have pretty impressive records.  In the pundit class two names come to mind because of their historical accuracy and, refreshingly, their lack of arrogance.  Karl Rove and Michael Barone.

What is wrong, I think, is allowing ourselves to substitute the judgment of others for our own.  That is particularly true in the matter of electability.  In the current election cycle "everyone knows" that Ron Paul is unelectable   Or Newt Gingrich.  Game over.  But not so fast; if we "know" that Mitt Romney will (or must) be the Republican nominee because he is the only electable candidate, why bother with caucuses and primaries?  Who foresaw Santorum's late rally?

"Surprisingly..."
Surprisingly, Rick Santorum won the Iowa caucus.  Surprisingly, Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary.  Surprisingly, home sales continue to decline...  The growing use of the word seems to me a harsh indictment of the unbounded hubris of our "experts" and their followers,, who very often are alone in their astonishment.  Ordinary people, it seems, exercise greater wisdom in their tolerance of uncertainty.

What Is One To Do?  The Choice.
Electability prognosticators who vote according to their view of most probable outcomes -- so-called, "tactical" voters -- favor tactics over strategy, and they are often disappointed when their candidate wins.  On their side is the argument that failure to prevail in a general election is the worst possible result.  In the short term that may be true, but perhaps more is at stake.

Here, finally, we come to my thesis: one ought to vote solidly on principle.  Even at the cost of seeing principle trounced by the popular will. [2]  Where first principles are vigorously asserted, a loss in one election cycle may translate ultimately into a victory.  Barry Goldwater, who lost badly in his election bid, brought about an energetic revival of conservatism; Ron Paul, a perennial "loser" has given the Tea Party Movement a sound underpinning of Libertarian ideas.  The conscious elevation of principle over praxis is the only means by which principle can survive, and, in the end, triumph.

---------------
1.  In the case of media mavens, news writers, public intellectuals (whatever-the-hell that means) and many established political bloggers, the "hubris" in the title is probably the wrong choice of words; wrong because it implies nemesis, which is usually moot.  Chutzpah, then, is the better word.  These "experts", however spectacularly wrong their prophesying may turn out to be, go about their business as if they had never gone on record.    A refreshing exception is Roger L. Simon (PJM) who actually has the grace to acknowledge and even apologize for his mistakes.
2.  Readers who are even slightly acquainted with my essays will know that by "principle" I mean the doctrine of our Founders -- first principles.  There are, of course, lesser (baser) principles, as regularly demonstrated by the Washington Establishment of both parties, that are concerned with the maintenance of political power.  In ways that can be called nothing less than shameful, establishment Republicans are willing to cede power to the Institutional Left as a means of remaining in office; second-rate is better than nothing, they seem to be saying.