Sunday, July 15, 2012


What If I Don't Vote? (Part 2)

(This post is a continuation from "What If I Don't Vote? (Part 1) posted July 12th.)


       The last post dealt mainly with the potential consequences of not voting. This post will instead focus on some of the remaining questions raised in part 1 and it will address some of the commentary made from that post. These questions reflect some of the key dilemmas people struggle with when they are wondering whether or not it is even worth their time to go to the polling station on election day.

What if I don't like any of the candidates?

      Some people don't vote because they don't like any of the candidates. There can only be one choice right? Election seasons begin with a whole pool of candidates, and these candidates are then weeded out in the primaries, and on election day you are left with only two to choose from. Often, your favorite was wiped out back in the primary. In '08, Clinton fans were gravely disappointed when they were left with Obama to go against McCain. Similarly, in '12, Gingrich and Santorum fans are annoyed that Romney has been rendered the choice to oppose Obama in November. It's bad enough that you don't like the opposing party's candidate, but now you're in a position of disliking the one your supposed to vote for to kick out the other one. How's that for pumping up your excitement for election day?


      Always, when we come up against things that deflate our enthusiasm for a cause, it is time to go back to the drawing board and re-examine our cause. Politics is the art of the possible. This means we can't have it all the way we want. We need to give a little to get a little. If we can't have our hero, this doesn't mean we can't have our cause. Since the presidency is national, let's use that as the example. Now that we know for sure that the next president will be either Obama or Romney, our choice has been made easier than it was back in the primary. Take a closer look at the stated claims and the record (governmental and non-governmental) of leadership exhibited by the two candidates throughout their professional careers. After all, a candidate can not hide from his or her past; it is objective. But what if their records show blemishes, even similar ones? From this feeling, you may find yourself in the depressing thought of having to choose between "the lesser of the two evils." 

How do I know the "lesser of the two evils?"

     The more I study politics and history, the more I see differences between candidates for office. Often, the opposing politicians begin to sound remarkably like each other when they are trying to 'shoot for the middle'. Have you ever noticed that candidates sound the most similar when times are good? For example, back in 2000, the economy was coming to the end of a long boom period (except the IT bubble burst that year, hurting many stocks). There hadn't been much war for a while (except for NATO operations in the former Yugoslavia, and some other small-scale adventures). The deficit was in the best shape in a long time and the government was running budget surpluses. And in these calm waters, we had the most bland presidential election season in a long time. That is because in times such as those, candidates are very careful to reassure the voters that they will continue "what works." So, we had to choose between Gore and Bush - two candidates of laid-back temperament that tended to bore audiences in interviews and debates. Things didn't even begin to get interesting until election night, when the ballot-counting fiasco erupted in Florida, spinning the outcome of the election in doubt.


      And yet, if you had looked below the surface and examined the stated beliefs and records of the opposing candidates, glaring differences would have come to light. For one, Al Gore had been an aggressive promoter of environmental regulations, whereas this was not as much an issue for Bush. Bush, on the other hand, claimed that the Clinton/Gore administration had gutted the personnel and technical strength of the military and that a Bush presidency would reverse this. Examples such as these show major differences between two (even bland) candidates. 


     In the tougher times our country is facing today (spiraling public debt; high unemployment; a highly-controversial health care reform; a flagging war in Afghanistan; revolutions breaking out across the middle east; Iran plowing full-speed ahead in weapons-grade uranium enrichment while threatening to spike world oil prices) the positions (and therefore the choice) between the opposing candidates has never been starker in an election year. If the Obamacare law is consistent with your view of what is best for our health care system, you know Obama will sustain it, but Romney has promised to repeal it. If you feel that our military mission in Afghanistan needs to end soon at all costs, Obama is your man. On the contrary, Romney has vowed to continue the mission until a stable, non-terroristic regime is safely in place there. These are only a few examples, but if you have a cause that will motivate you to cast a vote, it should not be difficult to figure out whether or not your cause will be helped or hurt by the outcome of this November's election. If you base your vote on an informed summation of the two choices, you will never feel like you are choosing between "two evils."
  
What if, after the election, I end up disappointed with my choice?

      What happens if the candidate you vote for actually wins and ends up a disappointment as president (or senator, or congressman, the point is the same)? If you vote for an elected official who turns out to be your worst nightmare, isn't it your fault it came to be that way? Even if you come to regret your choice, your guilt will disappear if you remember that when you went to the polling station, "He seemed like a good choice based on what I was thinking and feeling at the time." No one casts a vote thinking, "Yeah, I'm voting for my worst nightmare! I can't wait to buckle up and ride this rollercoaster for the next four years!" On the contrary, a regretted choice is a beautiful opportunity to go back to the drawing board, re-examine the cause, and decide how you can make a better-informed choice next time. This will deepen your political convictions and your appreciation for our electoral system.

       Added to all these dilemmas is the savaging competing politicians do to each others' character in the media. "Don't vote for that guy, he will bring an end to America as we know it!" How would you like to have that hang over your conscience? You wouldn't. Better to stay home election day and let the chips fall where they may, right? Isn't that the higher, wiser road? This leads us to the next major question.


How about non-voting as a form of political activism or protest? Shouldn't this send a message to the powers-that-be that 'we the people' are fed up with all their shenanigans (that word is so much fun to use)?

      All I can gather from non-voting is that by staying home on election day, you would be shrinking the electorate. If enough people do this over time, representation will be concentrated in ever-fewer hands. Consequently, the powers-that-be will become less and less in touch with the desires of 'we the people.' The potential for tyranny will be greatly enhanced and the non-voting movement will have achieved precisely the opposite of what it was meant to accomplish. You can never have a voice by silencing your voice.


Jason A.

Next Blog Will Be: Can We Have A Third Party?

No comments:

Post a Comment