I've most recently seen this in a lot of people's defenses of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who of course is facing a tough primary challenge based in part on his unpopular gung-ho support for the current unpopular war.

Lieberman is always defended on the grounds that he takes the stand he does based on "principle." As if it doesn't make any difference whether we think he's wrong; his constituents are not allowed to turn on him for a stand he's taken if his reasons are principled ones.

Results, apparently, mean nothing. What policies voters might actually want to see pursued, and their ramifications, take a backseat to the need to have leaders who are principled.

I can't say where this notion has its origins, but I've seen it before. I see it in the way both Republicans and most of the media were mystified that, when Bill Clinton's personal behavior evinced, in their view, a lack of principle, the public continued to support him. To many, it was evidence that the voting public itself lacked principles.

What it really showed was, while politicians and elite opinion makers may not view policy as important--they have money and security and are less likely to be significantly affected by as many policies as those with less of both--people lower down do notice when things are going well and when they're not. Under Clinton, the policies, by and large, seemed to be working, to most people, so they continued to support him.

This baffled those for whom everything is about politicians' "principle" and "integrity" and nothing is about the actual real-life effects of what those politicians actually do.

Of course, people lower down often fall for it, too; you can see it in the support commanded by John McCain, a man whose policy beliefs are significantly to the right of many of his supporters; those supporters will tell you they admire his principles and his honesty.

I suspect that in McCain's case, his "principles" are overrated. Lieberman, too. And, I think that if Bill Clinton is unprincipled, and he probably is, it's in ways that have nothing to do with infidelity.

But, let's put that aside, and ask one simple question:

Say you have two candidates. Candidate A has taken a stand clearly based on principle, in favor of eating babies. Candidate B opposes eating babies, but it's obvious he's only opposing it because polls show a majority of Americans are against baby-eating.

Are you going to vote for whoever's more "principled"? Or for the candidate who's going to enact the policy you actually want? (Can I presume near-unanimity on the not-eating-babies thing?)

I'm not saying principles are meaningless. I'd rather vote for a principled liberal than one who's only telling me what polls say I want to hear, of course; I'd rather have some faith that said candidate is going to continue to push for the causes I, a liberal, support whether or not it's politically expedient.

But I'd rather get those policies now, and precariously, than vote for someone who's never going to enact them under any circumstances. I'll take the poll-driven liberal over the principled right-winger, given that choice.

I admire principles. I vote for results.

I was also looking at a bunch of the cartoons, very good...

Now we're in Hershey, Pennsylvania, should be getting back tomorrow...mmm, hersheys... but we had to go through New York two days ago, and it sucked, it took about 3 hours to go 10 miles... I'm just happy that I didn't have to drive.

I got a shirt at Hershey that says that Reese's peanut butter cups are "Peanutritious" (thought you might respect that one Chelsea, "kid tested...")

Brown seems like a great school as does Tufts, but I probably won't go to Middlebury (sorry Ms. Jousma but I'll probably be avoiding the Vermont school)

I can't wait to sleep in my own bed again... and get back on my computer

Edit: home now, finally, lots.... and lots...and lots.... of driving