Reading the Feb. 1 letter to the editor encouraging people to vote their consciences, ideals and principles rather than compromise on an “electable” (but not ideal) candidate, I empathize with the sentiment.

I, too, would prefer Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton. But in politics, compromise isn’t the dirty word the writer, Valerie Razsa, suggests. It is the foundation of any functional government. Our Constitution was founded upon compromise between passionately held differences among the Founding Fathers.

Back in 1972, I worked along with legions of idealistic young people on behalf of George McGovern. He was, to us, the embodiment of all we aspired to in government at the time: the end to the Vietnam War chief among the causes.

We actually thought our enthusiasm, passion and hard work, with the idealistic banner of truth, justice, ethics and morality on our side, would ultimately convince the American electorate of the rightness of our cause. The result? Richard Nixon won by a landslide. McGovern lost 49 of the 50 states, squeaking by only in über-liberal Massachusetts.

The parallels to the current Clinton-versus-Sanders debate are inescapable. There is a prime factor in politics called “realpolitik,” which, as the name implies, is the idea that to accomplish anything, compromise is the only workable process.

Reality being inescapable, many other factors should determine our voting choices. Of course, the primaries are the appropriate place to vote our ideals. But in the general election, factors such as the future of the Supreme Court, Affordable Health Care, regulation of the financial industry and, for God’s sake, the environment, should weigh more heavily than “settling for” one’s second choice.

I will support the progressive nominee. I’ll vote for Clinton, as of right now, the only viable Democratic candidate.

William Ronalds

Rockland

Copy the Story Link