When reading the chapter on Miller, and seeing the stance of the Liberty Party in the election of Clay vs. Polk, their moral reasoning cost Clay the election. This was certainly not the only time that a third party cost the election for the party that it actually had more in common with.
The idea that "morally speaking," one should not vote for a given candidate, for reason 'x,' and (supposing this person is against reasons x,y, and z) causing a different candidate of whom supports reasons x,y, and z (and not just x, as the given candidate did) seems to be a deeply flawed concept, which places more emphasis on deflecting personal responsibility (wiping the hands clean, if you will) than actually acting in a way that ensures the greatest moral outcome, relative to the voter's moral system.
I think Miller, in dissecting the moral argument of the Liberty Party, via Licoln's original argument, unearths an important aspect of American Politics; that is seems, the only way to introduce a 'moral' theory, or idea into a party platform involves great oversimplification, and inevitably, ruins the moral principle that originated the idea.
It seems that most politicians do not attempt to integrate any sort of complex moral reasoning into a party platform, because it either cannot be digested by the average voter, or because it can easily be taken out of context by political pundits. Any 'moral' theory that survives this scrutiny becomes thwarted by simplification and quite often, becomes a prideful and dogmatic 'do' or 'do not' imperative. Thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment