principle vs. pragmatism: it's not yes/no, it's a spectrum

James Dobson, in an interview with Frank Pastore on his (very) public announcement that he would not vote for Guiliani-- or any pro-abortion candidate.

...So I wrote an op-ed in The New York Times saying why we would not do that—because you start with a moral principle. You have to make your decisions about who’s going to lead you not on the basis of pragmatics—not on the basis of who can win or who’s ahead in the polls or who has the most money or who’s the most popular. You begin by saying what are the irreducible minimums that I believe in, that I care about; what are the biblical values I cannot compromise.

I think, Frank, that many Christians have not thought it through yet and they look at Hillary Clinton and they’re scared to death of her (for very good reason, I am too) and they just say anybody’s better than that, let’s take the lesser of two evils. I cannot do that.

I know what he means. But to be more precise, he means that he's willing to compromise on some things and not others. He is willing to choose the lesser of two evils-- if the compromise is not "too much". (And what's "too much" to me or you may not be "too much" for James or Frank.)

In my case, would he have voted for me because I would not send taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood-- or for my pro-life Republican opponent who had done that twice, but was much more likely to win? I think he would have voted R rather than L. He would have gone for pragmatism over principle. Many Christians made the same choice. Such a choice is legitimate and respectable, but one cannot call it principle when pragmatism turns out to be the key determinant.