Thoughts regarding imperfect candidates

The only person I completely agree with, 100% of the time, is myself. Heck, even my own opinions can change from time to time. I'm resigned to the fact that I'll never find a politician with whom I agree more than 80%. So I'm conflicted whenever I support any politician or candidate.

I'm often faced with this dilemma when evaluating Republican candidates who hold certain socially-conservative views that don't necessarily align with my own. In such a case, it is necessary to gauge the likelihood of that candidate infringing upon personal liberties by imposing their personal views if elected to office. This is hardly a foregone conclusion, as there are many liberty-minded folks who have some socially-conservative views.

Being fiscally-conservative and socially-conservative often (but certainly neither always nor necessarily) go hand-in-hand. Social conservatives sometimes seek to use state power to impose their beliefs (abortion), but social liberals use it regularly (insert endless list of liberal social programs here). I have some opinions regarding morality that others might consider "socially-conservative," but I don't seek to infringe the individual liberty of others by pushing my beliefs on them. If I were to publicly state that it is preferable for children to be raised in a home with both parents, would it be reasonable to assume that I would seek to criminalize or somehow penalize single parents if I held public office?

There is a difference between advocating a position and enforcing it. Statements of support are a far cry from (ab)using executive power to advance personal views. Social engineering is not a proper function of government, and I do not support candidates who seek to engage in it. If individual liberty is your primary political principle, then pushing economic reforms supporting property rights, low taxes, and limited regulation is entirely consistent with not imposing your personal religious beliefs on others.

One general purpose of my political activity is to prevent the imposition of others' personal views upon my freedoms by advocating for limited government and individual liberty. I suppose even that could be construed as imposing *my* views upon others, but I see it more as a form of self-defense. So the political calculus here leads me to support liberty-minded conservatives for the most part (as Libertarian Party candidates are hardly ever true contenders for election, and often have very flawed national security platforms). The risk of conservatives attempting to impose their social beliefs is more than balanced by the real, long-term damage being done to my economic freedoms by the current liberal cadre in power. The Democrats can be counted on as reliable opponents of overreaching by social conservatives. Unfortunately, the Republicans are not reliable opponents of [redistribution of wealth | Keynesian economics | big government statism | etc.], so for me, it's important to support those Republicans who assert such opposition.