| | Doug Fischer writes:
> Not voting is the equivalent of saying "please, run my life and do my thinking for me." Power is lost, not gained.
> Silence is not a voice because, though it may be powerful, it cannot be depended on to deliver a coherent message.
The analysis of deciding which of the political candidates to vote for or whether to abstain from voting altogether is a very complicated matter influenced by numerous factors for each individual and there is not one answer that can be applied to all. Doug's statements on the matter may represent his personal view and may be correct for him, but it is not one which I share. Let me offer a few observations of my own.
* When one votes, it is a private matter in a voting box, which no one sees or hears. The "message" is the aggregate vote where the individual's contribution in a presidential election represents maybe 1/1,500,000 of the total. In other words, it is insignificant. Unlike other areas of my life where I can see immediate measurable consequences of my actions, voting does not afford this and therefore I do not see how voting delivers a "coherent message". My view is that voting is more an emotionally cathartic experience for some people, offering the illusion of "control" over their fate, rather than being a truly effective action.
* It shouldn't need pointing out, but abstaining from voting is not the same thing as remaining silent on issues of significance. One can raise their voice in support of ideas and actions which one sees as good and vocally condemn those things which one judges to be wrong or evil, without having to vote. If you believe that Rand's observation was correct that meaningful change in this country is going to have to originate from cultural and not political roots, then I believe that taking a vocal stand on issues is an important factor in influencing the direction of culture, while voting is not. Of course, I'm not saying that it's an either/or choice. I'm simply making an observation about how I rate the relative importance of these two types of actions.
* In case it's not clear yet, I do not vote. My decision has a lot to do with my personal hierarchy of values which I'm sure differ from many other people on this list. I understand that for some people, politics is seen as some sort of strategic game where one maneuvers in order to attempt to maximize benefits and minimize losses within the framework of what is possible, given the circumstances of a specific election. I don't think that there is anything morally wrong with that process, but it doesn't fit me. As a highly individualistic person, my approach is more self-centered. I wish to live comfortably with myself, and the simple fact is that I would be in a state of internal emotional turmoil if I had to acknowledge that I contributed to the election of any of the jackasses who have represented us over the years. I did vote once for Richard Nixon in 1972, and I am still embarrassed by that outcome. Ronald Regan is possibly the only President whom I could have voted for and felt somewhat "clean", and yet, had he been able to outlaw abortion as he pledged, how would people then feel about him?
* Another voting-related issue that is very important to me is the fact that I do not agree that most of the issues advocated by the candidates in political races are even fair game for discussion. To take one case as an example, the issue of nationalizing our health care system is not something that should even be on the table. It is prima facie unconstitutional. And yet, not only do we not have the Supreme Court striking this down, we don't even have a candidate willing to stand up and make an issue of this. The debate centers on what and how much of medicine will be under federal or state control. Given these circumstances, casting a vote - any vote at all - validates a system which allows anything and everything to be up for grabs, with no constitutional limits of any kind. It is my analysis that the long-range harm done by individuals who vote with otherwise good intentions, is enormous and far outweighs any "good" accomplished. You may disagree with my conclusion, but I hope you can acknowledge that it is nevertheless a conclusion for not voting that is based upon some rational thought.
* Is voting and then complaining about our government's policies a conflict of interest? No, I do not think so. But many people do, and it can be a real diversion in discussing one's objections with other people who raise this challenge. Being able to point out that you didn't vote for and support the current government can be very effective in knocking down this false objection. Agreed, that's not a very strong argument for not voting, but it is one that I have found useful in many circumstances and it really throws the critics off kilter.
The ultimate point I am trying to make here is that voting can be a risky business for those of us who accept a lot of personal moral responsibility for the consequences of our actions as voters, and as a strategy, abstaining from voting shouldn't simply be dismissed. Not voting is NOT the same thing as saying "please, run my life and do my thinking for me", and I'm offended by this charge. I do think much more could be accomplished if non-voting was articulated as a real political strategy and a very vocal movement was organized. I have suggested this before as something that Objectivists should do. It would offer a platform for a unique message that would very probably get significant media traction and it would also provide a rallying point for many disaffected citizens who would never be attracted to a philosophical movement, but might be willing to lend support to a political organization that offers a unique alternative to politics as usual. It is a method that offers the possibility of having that all important cultural impact that must precede political results.
Regards,
--
Jeff
|
|
