Hey do you know the practical difference between somebody who acts out of greed or cruelty or bigotry or sexism, and somebody who modifies their own behavior and strategy to accommodate or appeal to cruel greedy sexist bigots?
Because I don’t.
I am quite satisfied to win and/or lose with not a single solitary vote from anyone who refuses to vote for a woman.
Imagine compromising your ideals and selling out your friends in some clever strategy to win over sexist voters, only to lose because sexists prefer to vote for the biggest sexist.
“We would not die in that man’s company.”
To be clear I think compromising on these matters is strategic disaster and will absolutely lead to a loss, but what good is it to gain the White House, if you’ve installed someone with neither the will or the inclination do any of the things that need to be done?
To be good is to be smart, And it’s smarter to be good.
We don’t have to choose between. They are aligned.
If the country wants something cruel and greedy and bigoted, it has its choice. We can’t offer worse— and why would we want to?
If they don’t, we’d do better to offer them something further away from it than closer.
Anyway if we *are* sunk, better to sink among friends.
You can follow @JuliusGoat.