Your Head vs. Your Heart

The recent Republican primary for the U.S. Senate in Rhode Island was another manifestation of the perpetual conundrum members of both parties face in a primary, especially when they are in a state predominantly inclined towards the other party. Does one vote for the candidate most ideologically homologous to themself, or do they vote for the candidate who may be farther to the left or right than they are but who ultimately stands the greatest chance of winning the general election?

When you actually are in this situation, the inner debate is deafening. Your heart begs you to follow your conscience and vote for the candidate whose principles match the neatest with your own. Your head curtly responds that your blind adherence to principle will likely mean that none of your principles end up being represented by the candidate of the other party who won because you chose the ideologically-symbiotic candidate over the one who could have actually–you know– won.

Both heart and head are persuasive, and trying to resolve the two gives you both heartburn and a massive headache. But putting that aside, to best serve both you must side with your head–doing so ultimately best serves your heart.

Every voter of every party and ideology seeks a candidate who will best represent their personal principles in office. But to represent someone’s principles in office, a candidate must be in a position to get elected to that office in the first place. This means that a primary voter must not only decide which candidate will best represent their principles, but also which one has the best, or maybe only chance of getting elected to that office.

Critics may decry this approach as unprincipled, but I would contend that simply finding the candidate most representative of your principles, without regard to his ability to get into office and in a position to represent your principles, is itself unprincipled. Adhering to and maintaining principle sometimes means sacrificing a portion of it so that the greater portion of it may be preserved. Is not a conservative Republican, in effect, foreswearing his conservative Republican principles if, by choosing a conservative Republican over a moderate in the primary, he allows a liberal Democrat to be elected to office? The moderate may not represent the conservative Republican’s principles to the letter, but he will represent them more than the liberal Democrat will.

Of course, ideally the candidate who represents one’s principles the most and the candidate most capable of winning the general election are one in the same. Realistically however, that is not always the case, and when it isn’t the principled primary voter must decide which candidate will represent their principles the most. Part of that decision must include the determination of who has the best chance of winning the election, or at least a fair to good chance of winning it.

Ultimately, this can be simplified into one question: Which electable candidate represents the greater balance of my principles? An unwillingness to ask this question, in primary contests and situations such as that in Rhode Island, is tantamount to losing all your eggs because you tried to grab and carry too many at once. The preservation of principle sometimes requires sacrificing a portion of it to preserve the rest. Amputating your foot is painful, but if that is what it takes to save your leg than so be it.