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"
by Christine Smith
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 writer from
Colorado. You may visit her
website: