In the comments to my post about the Republican base, Spoons raised a very important point which invites further elaboration. His comment:

Eric, you fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia', but only slightly less famous is this: 'Some people care more about policies than politics.'

If a conservative who normally votes Republican is faced with a politician who is running as a Republican, but opposes them on many or most of their most important policy issues, should the voter still vote for him?

A strict partisan would say yes, I guess. If the (R) or (D) after a candidate's name is all that matters, then yeah, you should vote your preferred party no matter what. However, for example, if you're a liberal who's pissed at Kerry for being pro-war (sort of, I guess), then it might make sense not to vote for him.

I could never, never, vote for him -- no matter what his party affiliation.

The principle -- "Some people care more about policies than politics" might be every bit as much at the root of the problem than the policies or politics they champion. I see the point about politics as being one's nominal position in a party, but I want to focus on political philosophy ("ideology" is often used synonymously).

In one sense, there isn't much point in caring more about policies than politics. (and in some cases the two are inseparable).

Ideologues tend to care more about defining politics, but then when they see the policies not reflecting the stated politics of those who set policy, they are quick to complain about betrayal.

There's also the fact of political reality, or feasibility. If, for example, I say that the majority of the American people will never favor an outright ban on all abortion, but that a partial birth ban is feasible, this will irritate ideologues and theoreticians on both sides, who believe that principles are more important than feasibility. Same thing with gay marriage. Ideologues are simply irritated by practical considerations, and some see pragamtism as a betrayal of deeply held, core principles.

You get two people arguing when one is arguing principle and the other practicality, and the discussion tends to go nowhere, because they're not on the right wave length to even reach intelligent disagreement.

But it is always a mistake to be guided solely by considerations of pragmatism. Political philosophy -- especially when it is extreme in nature -- must always be taken into account, even if it seems there's not a snowball's chance in Hell of it ever being enacted.

I have previously used the example of whether handguns should be sold in elementary school vending machines as an example of how absurd this can get. No matter how much of fanatic libertarian/strict constructionist one is about the Second Amendment, handguns will never be sold in elementary school vending machines, so it's better to focus on practicalities. But still, it's helpful to know if one is dealing with a Second Amendment absolutist. Similarly, if someone favors the death penalty for homosexuals, while it might be safe pragmatically to to elect him to office (certain in the knowledge that the penalties of the Sharia or Leviticus will never be enacted into law), I could not vote for such a person, because I could not trust anyone who held that mindset.

Many Jews in 1930s Germany had heard about Hitler's views. They were stated clearly in Mein Kampf for the world to read. But the pragmatic view among many intellectuals was that this silly man couldn't possibly kill the Jews, and that in any case he wouldn't dare, because it wouldn't be practical. Who would do all the work, run the stores, run medical clinics, pay the taxes? They failed to realize that Hitler was ultimately not a practical man.

This is where common sense can be brought to bear. When views are so extreme as to be outside common decency and fair play, I think it's a good idea to proceed with caution. When an underlying political philosophy is crazy enough or fanatic enough, the policies that flow from it can be unsound.

Fortunately, Americans are moderate people with common sense. Most of the time, political aspirants who adhere to way-out ideas get nowhere, because these ideas just don't sell.

I still can't shake my conviction that if the Republicans want to win, they should avoid ideological fanaticism. Let the Democrats embrace and be guided by the Michael Moores and the Ted Ralls of this world.

Americans will vote for whoever makes them less nervous.

Not sure whether that's a political judgment or one of a policy.