I run into this same dilemma every 4 years. No, that's not an exaggeration. As long as I've been voting, I've been running into this same question over and over and over. How to vote? First and most obviously (perhaps), the option I have not had is to pick someone on the ballot with whom I agree. Such a person has apparently not yet run for office. No such person has ever been on my ballot. Or, I suppose, they have run, but not made it to my final list of choices. So, lacking someone whom I can wholeheartedly endorse, my options are few. What approach should I take?
Practical
The single most common approach that I am offered -- that I am practically ordered to take -- is the pragmatic. "Sure, sure, you don't have a candidate you can endorse, but don't choose someone that will cause the guy we don't like to win!" It is ABS, the "Anybody But" Syndrome. "You may not like the guy you're voting for, but it would be better for anybody but the guy we don't like to get in." A non-stance, so to speak. No, I don't think that Candidate A is a good candidate. No, I don't like his positions on the issues that concern me most. No, I don't think he'll take the country in a good direction. Candidate A may be bad, but he's better than Candidate B. And voting for Candidate A might get Candidate A elected while voting for anyone else might get Candidate B elected. You wouldn't want that, would you?
Principled
The higher road, to me, is the principled approach. If I cannot find a handy candidate on the ballot that I can support, find one off the ballot. Maybe the Constitution Party that doesn't show up in my state as an option. Maybe a write in. There are people that I could endorse. Pragmatism may be more practical (how's that for circular logic?), but principle demands that I don't support someone I don't support, even if that means that the person I support less gets elected. Bottom line in this approach is "I'll do what's right and leave the outcome to God." Of course, if the dreaded Candidate B gets elected, do I blame God or myself for standing on principle rather than pragmatism?
Quitter
This is the easy one. "Look," I tell myself, "in truth your vote will not make a difference one way or another. They try to tell you it will. It won't. It never has. You have never gotten anyone elected. You have never prevented anyone from getting elected. It just doesn't matter. So ... don't. Don't vote. Don't support a bad candidate to prevent a worse candidate from getting elected. Don't bother voting for an impossible candidate because you can support him. Both are wasting your vote. Don't vote." Yeah, much easier than the other two. Not necessarily right or good, but much easier.
So, look, I'm looking for some input. I obviously can't vote for President Obama. The damage he has already done will be magnified in another 4 years. The moral assault alone -- in the areas of homosexual rights, religious freedoms, and abortion rights, for instance -- are staggering. The damage to the economy, the attack on the rich, the mindless political games ("Their side is playing politics but my side is operating on principle. To not play politics you simply need to agree with me without reservation."), the lies and deceit and ... well, you get the idea. Bad stuff. I can't go there. But I can't vote for Romney. He's a richer version of Obama as far as I can tell. Slightly more conservative, which isn't saying much since Obama is the most liberal president we've ever had. Gingrich is only slightly better. "No, trust me, I'm a reliable man." Your first two wives don't think so. And it only gets worse from there. I can't vote for him. Definitely not Ron Paul. Maybe Santorum, except that it still looks doubtful that he could actually end up on my ballot. So I'm stuck. I'm back to the "no one I can endorse" ballot option. Which approach, then, would you recommend? Or do you have a better option? 'Cause I'm stuck here ... again.
10 comments:
We are only dealing with the primaries at this point. For some, the deal is that we support the one most likely to beat the other party's candidate. I don't like this at all, as I believe that "our" party is always capable of beating the other side if the party's platform and benefits to the country are properly articulated. To put it another way, if I call myself a Republican, it is only because the ideology purported to be Republican is the closer of the two parties to what I believe, and what I believe is better for the country in general, and a Democrat is far less likely to take our country in the direction I believe it needs to go.
So, as to the primary race, we are offered a selection of candidates for the party nomination and from that small pool I can only select that candidate that is most closely aligned with my own ideology. By the time my own state gets to choose, it might be down to two guys. But regardless, I must choose one of them, and I'll choose the one closer to my views.
Once the party has narrowed it down to the one that will vie for the presidency, whoever that dude is is my guy.
I have been encouraging constant vigilance throughout the years in between elections so that from the local level on up to the national level, the best people possible are in place. Now is too late to complain about the quality of candidates. We can only choose from amongst the pool. And though we may be displeased with the quality available, it's the best we've got at this point. But the primaries give us the best shot at voting for the guy closest to our own views, and the general is as much to keep the worse guy out, which in my opinion is a worthy goal. The lesser of two evils is the better choice if not the best choice.
Remember, the candidate who wins has to appeal in some way to at least 51% of the people who bother to cast a vote. There is a point, for the principled person anyway, that a candidate is going to find himself a principle too far.
I would say that you are faced with the same choice that the Israelites felt that they were faced with: to "die" in the desert quickly, or to run back to Egypt and die slowly there.
Stan,
For what it's worth I don't think you can go wrong with the principled approach. When you cast a vote, you are casting a vote for someone. Ultimately you are accountable by God for what you do, not what you want to see not done. And take solace in the unchanging Truth that God is Sovereign. He puts leaders in positions of authority for His glory. Act according to the dictates of your conscience (with knowledge of the Truth) and press on in the faith regardless of the outcome of the election.
Practically speaking the write-in option is available and valid and it seems is becoming the only remaining alternative for those principally minded. For what it's worth.
But, Danny ... the Israelites did neither.
Marshall, I understand the "by the time we get to vote there may be only two" concept. So what if "the closest thing to my views" at that point is "Well, we're both Republicans ..."?
Marshall, that would put you in the practical category.
OK you made me look it up. I was working off memory and wasn't a hundred percent sure, even as I wrote. Here is the scripture that makes up the crux of my point. It is the Israelite's response when they were faced with the dilemma of the Red Sea and Pharaoh's army in hot pursuit.
"It would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert!” (Exodus 14:12)
I think this is the mentality with which my "self" confronts me in these matters. Do I trust God to do something I could never have imagined? Or do I vote for the guy who appears to be the more benevolent slave master?
Interestingly, Alice, of Wonderland, was faced with a kind of two lemmas as well, in the form of a fork in the road. After asking the Cheshire cat which way she ought to go he tried to help her by asking her where she was going. To her response of "I don't much care where", he replied, "Then it doesn't matter which way you go...".
My intention for the general election is to cast a vote that will cancel out one bogus A.C.O.R.N. vote for Obama, just as I did in 2008 in voting for McCain/Palin.
Anonymous, that would put you in the practical category.
Danny, you've actually hit upon where I appear to be standing right now. Israel was between Pharaoh's pursuing army and the Red Sea. Choices? Die ... or die. Nice. Their outcome? Neither! "Do I trust God to do something I could never have imagined?" That's where I am currently standing. Do not vote for the one that is not the right one, even if the wrong one is worse. Do not abrogate my God-given responsibility to be a responsible member of my society. Vote for the right one regardless of whether or not he can win or whether or not "the wrong one" might win because of it and remember at the end that "There is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God" (Rom 13:1). Including Obama.
Post a Comment