Drum roll, please...
"Everyone should vote."
No, really, they shouldn't.
The fallacy of this statement couldn't have been more clear than observing the elections of 2008. During that election cycle, I had many conversations with people who planned to vote for our current president. When I inquired further as to why, this is how the conversation often went:
Me: "Why are you voting for Obama?"
Voter: "Change."
Me: "Change of what?"
Voter: "I don't know. Just change."
Me: "Do you know anything about Barack Obama?"
Voter: "No."
Me: "Nothing other than that he wants to change things?"
Voter: "Yes."
Me: "But you have no idea what kind of change he wants?"
Voter: "No, not really. I just think change is good."
Me: "So you've never read anything he's written, dug further into his political philosophy, investigated the people he claims are mentors or friends, researched who his favorite political philosophers are, or developed or formulated an opinion on any of the policies he espouses?"
Voter: "No."
Me: (proceeds to bang head against wall)
I wish it were not true, but I think that this is how a good portion of the American electorate functions at election time. We hear buzzwords spewed by candidates, we swallow what we hear our peers saying, we allow ourselves to be impressed with what celebrities say about candidates. And it shouldn't be.
What has happened to that independent American spirit? What has happened to being able to discern public policy and its effects on society? Why won't we invest the time necessary to know more about the people who are representing us and what kind of job they are going to do? These elections are like a job interview for a $174,000 per year job (what the average congressman makes.) Why do we act like it's for a minimum wage job that has no bearing on our everyday lives? These people we are electing are our employees. We need to treat them judiciously and with the utmost scrutiny when hiring them to do such critical and important jobs.
So how can we know if we're prepared to vote? If we've done our due diligience? If we should disqualify ourselves from this greatest of American privileges? At the risk of sounding elitist, here's a simple list to help you decide whether you should vote on Tuesday.
Please don't vote if any of the following apply to you:
1) You get all of your political news from Comedy Central, MTV, Stephen Colbert, or Jon Stewart. This alone pretty much just knocks you out of the running for voting. No other requirements need to be met.
2) You have no idea if you are a conservative, liberal, or libertarian and WHY. (Notice I didn't say a Democrat or Republican or Tea Partier.) Determining this may require some further reading on your part, however. Here's a reading list from my former employer that might get you started (and, admittedly, my own reading list just got much longer.) If you're not willing to invest some time into determining your own political philosophy and delving into the same of the candidates you support, it's probably best to stay out of the game for now.
3) You have ever asked or even wondered of a candidate, "Boxers or briefs?"
4) You walk into a voting booth and just pull the "R" or "D" lever without any forethought.
5) You typically make voting decisions according to how your profession, race, union, church, or family thinks you should. It amazes me how many people choose a candidate or party affiliation based on what their family has always done, how their union tells them to vote, what their professors tell them to believe, or what they think the rest of their peer group is doing. Think for yourselves, people. I believe in you.
6) And if these reasons aren't enough, here's a little video illustration for you of who should not vote.
Please, America, take time to be informed. The blood that has been shed, the risks that have been taken, the courage that has been displayed over the last 234 years so that we could have this privilege demands at least that. Please vote. Or maybe not.
Well said, Nikki, well said!
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing quite like sitting down with the ballot having thought carefully about candidates and issues and filling in the little bubble to say, "This is what I, American citizen, believe is the wisest decision." Taking the time to participating in the democratic process is thrilling, actually. I recommend it.
ReplyDeleteI'm relatively certain all politicians want change to one degree or another. Before signing up for "change" make sure you know what sorts of change you may be in for. The information is readily available (and this may be surprising but the quality information is not what you see broadcast on TV ads and in mailers). Thanks Nikki!
ReplyDeleteI agree...to a point.
ReplyDeleteI would add to your #1 list Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh. And then I would qualify the list to say "only." It's clear to me that you're carrying a significant agenda in your thoughts when you only listed voices considered "liberal" as those that "knock you out of the running" for voting.
I would also urge you to be more careful in your thoughts under #5. Especially for Christians, we can't always be fully knowledgable about everything, and so we are empowered to lean on the knowledge of brothers and sisters who know more than us about the issues. It's an act of communal trust. This applies to race, union, church, or family as well. This doesn't eliminate our individual conscience, but voting isn't all about our individuality either.
I love that Jaywalking clip! Oh, classic stupid Americans.
ReplyDeleteBut I agree with Nate about the caveat to your No. 1. You should add Fox News to your list. There's nothing wrong with watching Fox -- that is, if you like hearing buzzwords spouted by virulent talking heads -- as long as you realize they, like every other major news media network, have an agenda and a slant. Speaking of buzzwords spewed by candidates, how do we feel about buzzwords like "maverick," and "folksy hockey mom," and "drill, baby, drill," and "death panels"?
The problem with democracy is that too many people are allowed to participate, but hey, it's the nature of the beast. George Bernard Shaw said, "Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few."
I had to post this as two comments because Blogger says I talk too much (probably true.) Here's part one:
ReplyDeleteJulia, you sound very Samuel Adams-esque when he said, "Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual - or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country." Love it, you patriot, you! :)
Nate and Jess, thanks for your comments as well. I hate that you saw a "significant agenda" in my words because it means I failed to get across what I really wanted to say, and that is: we should be informed voters. Every single one of us. Could perhaps your own significant agendas have veiled your discernment of that or could it be that we just disagree?
I knew I would have someone comment about the networks/comedians I chose to call out (and for the record, I have plenty of conservative friends who watch those shows as well.) Why did I not put Fox News or any of the talking heads of that network on my list? Because, for goodness sake, at least you get some legitimate commentary and debate from them. In the last 48 hours, I've seen liberals Juan Williams, Susan Estrich, Kiki McLean, Bob Beckel, and Alan Colmes on there just to name a few (I've been sick in bed with the flu so I've had my share of TV over the last few days.) That's more balance than I can say for what appears on any of the shows or networks that I've mentioned. The point is that MTV, CC, Colbert, Steward don't even have an honest discussion of policy so people who rely on them (or like Matt said commercials or fliers or anything solely put out by a candidate) and consider themselves informed are doing themselves and all of us an injustice.
And here's part two:
ReplyDeleteAs for your urging to be more careful with my fifth point, Nate, I don't think I've been wreckless in my thoughts on it. Call me untrusting, but I don't think we should "lean on anyone else" when it comes to making decisions about the issues. Ask for wise counsel, yes. Inquire of other's opinions, sure. But when it all boils down, I believe that the American people are bright enough to be able to figure this stuff out for themselves. I believe that if you are willing to do some research that it's not really hard to understand the basics of an issue. What wears me out and the point I'm trying to make is that too many people vote without thought and just pull the lever they think they "should": "I'm a WASP, or an evangelical or I'm wealthy so I 'should' vote Republican" without ever figuring out why. Or "I'm a union member, or black, or Jewish and 'should' vote Democrat" without ever figuring out why. The lack of diversity in voting demographics is disconcerting because it makes me wonder if anyone is listening at all to what is being said. When you study voting demographics for certain segments of the population, their voting does not line up with what they say their values are. It makes no sense other than that they are uninformed when they are pulling those levers. As I explained to my children earlier today, of all of the people on the planet, a very small percentage have the privilege of voting. I wish Americans reflected more that we understand the great responsibility it is and treated it with the due diligence it deserves.
Jess, your quote about democracy is interesting and I wonder if Shaw (and most American people) realize that we don't live in one. I am thankful that the Founders discerned the dangers of a democracy to the minority and its lack of rule of law, and, in all their wisdom, decided to give us a republic. And to quote Benjamin Franklin when asked after the Constitutional Convention what kind of government had been decided upon said, "A republic, if you can keep it." I think that's what I'm encouraging people to do. Be informed so that we can keep this republic. Keep it vibrant, strong, and healthy so that it can defend its people and be a beacon of light to the rest of the world. [This is the part where you put your hand over your heart and sing, the "God Bless America".]
Anyway, everyone, I appreciate your thoughts. I appreciate your own thoughtfulness. I love the "American experiment" and know you do too. I am certain that each of you is the kind of person who thought long and hard before you voted today. At least I hope so.
Yes! I've been checking back all day to see your reply!
ReplyDeleteI think that, yes, you did obfuscate your point that we should all be informed voters by the choice of names you named. Instead of waiting to get called out on it, you should have just included some of the more rabid right-wing pundits to balance out the more liberal voices, that way your point would have come across as more fair and balanced. You're making a perfectly valid point, but your post could be read to imply that people who aren't informed THE SAME WAY that you are informed should not vote. Just sayin.
Also, I use the term democracy as shorthand for representative democracy. I understand that we live under the rule of law in a republic (I can't speak for Shaw, though).
It's interesting because James Madison argued that what distinguishes a democracy from a republic is that the former becomes weaker as it grows larger and suffers more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic grows stronger as it gets larger and combats faction by its very structure. I would venture to say that America, at least in the political arena, has become severely, and at times cripplingly, factional. What bothers me the most about either extreme -- liberal or conservative -- is their unwillingness to listen or work together to achieve the greater good for the American people. I am extremely frustrated with filibustering blocking important legislation, self-aggrandizing, and corruption prancing behind the scenes of touted "family values." All of this from both major parties. I'm going libertarian. ;)
JG, I don't think any obfuscation occurred (I couldn't help but use your word - it's just so beautiful and smart sounding.) I shouldn't have to make concessions to one side or another so that we all feel good and have warm fuzzies about things being "fair and balanced". I said exactly who and what I meant. No obfuscation about that statement. It's O.K. that we disagree - I still like you a lot. ;)
ReplyDeleteI hate to belabor this point, but the United States is not a representative democracy either. Why is that such a big deal? Because that was one of the things the Founders debated over in the Federalist Papers and at the ConCon. And, after much thought and debate, they continued to return to a republic to protect individual liberty and to protect the minority and to make the majority's decisions appealable under the legal system. It's beautiful.
As for me, I think we might see factions as very different things. I don't see a disagreement on political philosophy between liberals and conservatives as factional. I don't see filibusters as factional if they are routed in philosophy and policy (and that goes for both sides.) I see the machine working as it was intended, shifting and changing and sometimes grinding to a halt while we wrestle through the finer points of sound policy. I'm sick, I know.
As for the libertarian comment, there's no way they'd take you - you're far too opinionated. And that there may be one of the reasons I think you're wonderful.
Now, I'm getting off this stinking blog for the rest of the night because I've got returns to watch. And, hopefully, something to celebrate at least after all this effort I've put forth today. :)
anothernathanmyers.com, point #1 says "all", which as far as I can tell is the same as your suggestion of "only". And the intent reads to me as exactly that: if you get *all* your political news from a channel specifically devoted to entertainment, or specifically from Colbert or Stewart, you're not informed and should self-censor your vote.
ReplyDeleteIronically, hearing this message requires some minimal step of being informed. :)
Since I've seen little Glenn Beck (and none of the others), I can't weigh in very authoritarily on whether they should have been included. Categorically at least Glenn Beck claims to be different - his is a political show as I understand it, not a comedy show. What I've seen of it though doesn't leave me impressed, so I'd certainly agree that anyone who gets *all* their political news via him ought to fall in the same category - not informed and should not go vote (or rather should diversify their education before voting!)
I don't see anything dangerous with point #5. If you *typically just* vote as some group tells you, that's irresponsible. Get more informed so you know why you're voting that way (and whether you should). Otherwise you run the real danger of voting against what you believe is in your own and the country's best interest, all while thinking you're voting for it. (Ugh, torturous sentence, but I already rewrote this paragraph completely 3 times...)
I keep deleting additional paragraphs, so I guess I'm done. :D
OMG point belabored! I was bored of the conversation anyway. ;)
ReplyDeleteI thought I'd learned my lesson not to comment on any of your political posts. Maybe this time...although my baser instincts regularly best me.
And with that, I rest my case. Once the obligatory jabs at Fox News, Sarah Palin, and GWB are out of the way for many (and especially those TV personalities cited above), no one wants to hang on long enough to talk political theory, philosphy, or policy. It's too easy to claim boredom or claim we're above this political nonsense and peace out. I think this week's elections reflected that the American people are bored with wrangling, self-aggrandizing, and sophomoric-level discussions of politics from both sides. They're beginning to grasp that there is something bigger than promises and the politics of persuasion. They're beginning to realize that there is philosophy behind words. They're beginning to care again about IDEAS again. And that is a very good thing no matter which side of the aisle you're sitting on.
ReplyDelete