|
Compelled to Vote? Why? Questioning the current get people out to vote campaigns & a Review/Recommendation of Leonard E. Read’s “Anything That’s Peaceful - The Case for the Free Market”  I believe in personal responsibility. It’s the reason I am very careful and generally reluctant to join organizations and groups. Joining with others, in my view, makes one personally responsible (to a large degree) for the positions (which oneself may not agree with), actions, and results that group does. I cannot draw some imaginary line, distancing myself from what any given group does, if I have joined my name, will, and support to it. Same goes for who I vote for. I view the voter as culpable for whatever an elected politician does, that is if there was ample evidence of who that person was and what they stood for, before the vote was cast.There is often what I consider a false emphasis on the importance of voting in this country. I say this from the perspective of someone who has voted in every election since I was of age. I believe participation in the electoral process is essential to achieving liberty in this nation, and voting, obviously, extremely important. How else will we get those such as Ron Paul in office? But if an office has no candidate who values liberty running, I see no value (only harm) in casting a vote for someone who is anti-liberty. Harm, wrong actions and the consequences reaped, and the corrupt status quo of the current political scene remains the same as long as the same keep being elected. My state of Colorado has the longest ballot in the United States this November, with numerous ballot initiatives I consider important to vote upon. We’re considered a “battleground state” for the presidential election. Simultaneously, there are a number of local offices one may vote upon. For all offices, in which I see no candidate whom I can, in good conscience, vote for, I will cast no vote. What amuses me is this popular correlation between voting and patriotism, as if it’s your “duty” as a citizen. Better vote and when you do better not leave any empty spaces on that ballot or else you’ve failed to do your duty is a message I’ve heard. That assumes your voice is reflected in your vote. If only it were (how can it be when the “choices” actually provide no choice?). When presented with completely unacceptable candidates, I think the best (or most truly patriotic) choice is to select none of the above, so to speak. That, in itself, can require more thought and integrity, than blindly (or contemptuously and reluctantly) casting a vote for any candidate who to a significant degree does not reflect your principles and values. When I look at the field of candidates for an office, I I view it as a litmus test; to a large degree, on the issues I consider to be most important a candidate must share my positions. Sure, it would be rare (but not impossible) for a candidate for any office to be someone I agree with wholeheartedly (I say it’s possible, because I can imagine such candidates based upon the fact there are libertarian writers, whose work has been consistent for many years; if such trustworthy individuals exists, it is feasible that such a trustworthy candidate could present themselves- though that would be rare). But, usually, there will be disagreement between any given voter and any given candidate - that doesn’t rule out my casting a vote for them. But on key issues - it does. I don’t care whether it’s a choice between voting between the lesser of two evils or the lesser of five, I will not knowingly cast a vote for someone who I believe will harm others internationally, this nation, my state, or my county or city. To know that a candidate’s fundamental positions will harm others means to partake in that harm if one votes for them. The majority of those holding elected office in this country do not care what is in the best interest of this nation and its people. They are, in my opinion, focused on their agendas (consider how many vote on bills without reading them - that’s because they already know how they are going to vote - exactly in the way expected of them not by their constituents but by those who got them that office and those who will reward them). Regardless of the political party of a candidate, I vote (or withhold my vote) based upon who they are and what I believe they will do. Voting is important, just as is encouraging good liberty candidates to run. But I have no illusions, under this current system, all odds are stacked against any candidate who isn’t beholden to someone. True liberty candidates (those with the integrity to never compromise their positions) find every step of the process against them. I shall not look to the likelihood of such candidates being elected, but to casting a vote for someone who truly expresses - by thought and deed - liberty. And, likewise, such candidacies provide opportunity to discuss the issues they stand for with the populous - be it in your city, county, or state. Use such campaigns to share with others the “why” behind your vote. I just finished reading another book by Leonard E. Read, “Anything That’s Peaceful.” I highly recommend it (as I highly recommend any of Read’s books and essays). In it, I was pleased to find a chapter devoted to this prevalent notion that one must vote. Never before have I read such an articulate accurate analysis of voting. Read articulates the tragedy all of us now see - when not a single candidate is any good…when the candidates seek only to advance themselves by promising all to everyone, changing their positions dependent upon whom they are speaking to, and all the rest of the deceitfulness witnessed in every election. Read refers to such candidates who place political expediency above integrity as ‘trimmers,” which he defines this way: “A trimmer, according to the dictionary, is one who changes his opinions and policies to suit the occasion. In contemporary political life, he is any candidate whose position on issues depends solely on what he thinks will have most voter appeal. He ignores the dictates of his higher conscience, trims his personal idea of what is morally right, tailors his stand to the popular fancy.” Such candidates with blatant agendas could never gain such power in this nation if it were not for Americans with their own personal agendas. It is the weakness of wanting something from government, which makes the situation where those wants are exploited by the candidates. In any situation where two forces have agendas, the stronger (more manipulative and powerful of the two) usually wins - and at the expense of the other who also thought they would achieve their agenda. Until we demand candidates of integrity, this situation will remain. Style and handouts seems to be what elections seem to be about - where is the demand for authenticity and character? As long people keep casting votes for those lacking these qualities, those of integrity (who will face a tremendous battle when they seek office) will be discouraged from running. As Read says, “For a while we would continue to get what we now have: a high percentage of trimmers and plunderers in public office, men who promise privileges in exchange for ballots – and freedom. In time, however, this silent but eloquent refusal to participate might conceivably improve the situation. Men of integrity and high moral quality – statesmen–might show forth and, if so, we could add their numbers to the few now in evidence.” To cast a vote because you feel compelled to do so by social dictates is disingenuous, as you deceive yourself into thinking you are doing something of value. No action should be taken due to other’s expectations or a sense of obligation - all such decisions are based on fear. Rather, let your conscience, your heart and the values and beliefs you have placed there, guide you. Voting is still one of the means we can and must use to advance liberty. That may mean casting votes for only some of the offices on a ballot, writing in a vote, or at times not voting. As for me, I’ll be voting this November, but not for every office, since I see few “of integrity and high moral quality” seeking office. I highly recommend Leonard E. Read’s “Anything That’s Peaceful” to you. It is powerful and enlightening. It’s one of several books I recommend to those who are sincerely interested in better understanding libertarianism. The entire treatise is excellent, with a most truly beautiful ending chapter which all libertarians would be better to ponder.
 Christine Smith is a freelance writer and political activist from Colorado. She has written numerous articles for state, national and international publications (newspapers, magazines, online publications) covering a wide range of topics: the arts, technology, business, politics, health, environment, social justice, human spirituality, and profile interviews with high achievers. Articles by Christine Smith at MWC News http://mwcnews.net/ChristineSmith |
|
This_Category |
|
Category:: Op_ed |
Recommend this article...
 Quote this article on your site | Views: 393
Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4
Tags: Christine Smith Ron Paul US Vote US candidates
|
Commentary 
