Do We Have a Patriotic Duty to Vote?
“Mac” wrote something on another recent thread that I found intriguing and worthy of a post for discussion. He wrote:
“At this point, voters may have to choose between the ‘lesser of two evils’ if they plan to do their patriotic duty and vote.”
Let me say at the outset that I appreciate Mac’s sentiment that it is “our patriotic duty to vote,” and I think I understand where he is coming from – that the American colonists fought for Independence to assert and claim their right to proper representation in government. We as their successors, then, have a duty to vote – and what can be more American than that, given our history? I believe this is at least a large part of what is behind Mac’s sentiment; a sentiment I am sure is shared by many if not most other Americans.
But I think I disagree with the idea that it is our “patriotic duty to vote.” Especially if that duty is to vote for “the lesser of two evils.” Firstly, how could it ever be a duty to vote for evil, even if it is “lesser” than another evil? Even if we assume that the expression is meant rhetorically, if one sincerely believes that both options are, on the balance, bad for the country, how can one in good conscience vote for either option? If a car is heading for a cliff, it is not a good decision to choose to go 40mph instead of 100mph. Either way, the result is the same. It cannot be a duty – much less a patriotic one – to support what one believes is bad for his country.
Secondly, the American colonists fought for much more than just representation. Democratic representation is at best a means to the end of what they truly fought for: the preservation of their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Read through the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence and you will find that self-rule and representation in government (close to home) is certainly very much there. But, more fundamentally, what is also there is a concern for the administration of justice, domestic security, integrity of possessions and the right of property in home and self, right of the accused to fair trial, right of commerce and trade, and threats to life and property perpetuated by the very government that should be protecting them. (See also my post, “Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence”)
Without downplaying the importance of self-rule to the War for American Independence, I think it is safe to say that the Americans would not have rebelled if their more fundamental rights were protected and not actively infringed upon by the government that was supposed to protect them, whether or not they had proper representation in Parliament. After all, the colonists gladly suffered the English crown for centuries, because their freedoms, on the whole, were left intact. As Frederic Bastiat put it so well in The Law:
If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone’s interest in the law would be the same…
I wish merely to observe here that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be. In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder – is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?
In other words, all things being equal, benign republicanism trumps a benign monarchy. However, I believe the colonists would have contentedly remained colonists had the monarchy remained benign towards their more fundamental rights. So, to bring it around to the question at hand, and to conclude my third point, when the options presented by the two major parties are both, on the net, forces for evil toward these ends and are opposed to the good of the country, not voting as a protest, or voting for a third party candidate who is on balance a force for good, is in actuality the more patriotic response.
Again, “settling” and voting for the “lesser of two evils” is decidedly un-patriotic in this regard.
Third and lastly, Mac’s statement presupposes that it is somehow unpatriotic to vote for anyone other than the two major party candidates (”lesser of two evils”). Here then we have not one but two questions: 1) As already stated, do we have a patriotic duty to vote? and 2) …to vote only for candidates of the two major parties? Given my first point above, if a third party candidate is on balance a force for good in this country over and against the net evil options of the two major parties, then we may have a duty to vote instead for that third party candidate, if we vote at all.
The ready retort here is always that doing so helps ensure the worse of the two evils get in office. In reply: 1) Not necessarily; and 2) I believe our focus needs to be as much on the long-term as it is on the short-term. As I explained in the post and comments I wrote here, I believe that Ronald Reagan was on balance an excellent president and was very good for our country. But it took Barry Goldwater and his following going down in glorious fashion to make the Reagan presidency ultimately possible. (This is an example of the larger principle I am trying to get across, so please don’t let your possible disagreement re: Reagan to obscure my larger point.) Similarly, many of the big moves in the platforms of the major parties in our history (and even their extinction and replacement in a couple cases) came about because of the challenges of third parties. Those third parties may have been unsuccessful in the short term electorally, but they were successful in the long-term in changing the debate. (Ross Perot on the issue of the deficit is a pretty good example in more recent history; Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive Party is a better example in the much more distant past of changing the debate and the platforms of the major parties.)
I am interested in what others think? Regardless of your political persuasion, and the fact that what we may consider “good” for the country may differ, do we Americans truly have a patriotic duty to vote, and not only that, but a patriotic duty to vote for the “lesser of two evils” if that is the best the two major parties are offering? As I explained, my answer to both questions is “no.” What do you think?
*****
(Eric Langborgh is the author of Borg Blog and the director of development for the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU). His views and comments expressed at the Control Congress blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent those of the ACRU, unless so specified.)
[...] Posted by Eric F. Langborgh on 12 Jul 2007 at 11:50 am | Tagged as: Control Congress Blog, Politics and Culture In one of the ongoing conversations over at the Control Congress blog, “Mac” wrote something that I found intriguing and worthy of a post for discussion. He wrote: “At this point, voters may have to choose between the ‘lesser of two evils’ if they plan to do their patriotic duty and vote.” [...]
Eric
I have not voted for candidates at times when I could not make a rational reason why.
I will say that is what I did with Bush and Kerry!
Eric –
Good points – all.
Let me try and offer an “explanation” for my way of thinking.
Your point about electing “evil” to office, whether the primary evil or the lesser of two evils is very well taken. I probably used the expression because of the Bush/Clinton/Perot election.
I realize there are many who disagree with my view, but there’s no question that Perot swayed the election to Clinton. I believe Clinton was bad for the Country. (Please don’t slam me for that position folks….Eric asked for thoughts on the subject and I’m simply doing just that.) If Perot had NOT been a third party candidate, I believe the Country would be in considerably better condition today than it is. I realize that’s debateable, but it’s my view nevertheless.
If one weighs the platform of 2, 3, or even 4 or more candidates and makes a rational, principled judgement based on that platform, there’s nothing wrong with voting for that person. However, it’s important to attempt to envision what the Country will “look” like if, by voting for the third party candidate, you hand the election to the candidate you like the least. I believe this to be an important part of choosing a candidate.
As to your point about voting being a “patriotic duty,” I’d say it is. Those who don’t vote, haven’t earned the right to complain when things don’t go the way they’d like.
The last election (2006) is a good indicator of what I’m saying. Look at the number of people who DIDN’T vote because they were protesting. The current congress is the result of that election and it seems to me that “biting off one’s nose to spite one’s face” is simply ridiculous. After all the government we get is the government we vote for (or don’t vote for).
I’ve voted for republicans, democrats, and independents at one time or another over the course of my voting life. I’m proud to say I haven’t missed an election day in more than 30 years, but the fact is I’ve voted FOR some people so as NOT to vote for someone else. I’m not certain it’s the right thing to do, but I am certain it’s MY right to do it.
Thanks for the posting. It’s quite thought-provoking.
John Konop for U.S. Senate – It’s time for a change!
Hi Mac,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I understand your position and I think it is understandable and even a respectable position to take. I disagree with you, for all the reasons stated in my post, but I respect your stance.
I think that part of the difference between people that take my position and people that take yours (at least sometimes) is a difference in view about how bad the two major options are, such as in the 2000 election. And part of that difference comes from what standard you are judging the candidates on. I have many, but the first and foremost is their fidelity to the Constitution. I don’t have to have a perfect candidate (though this year Ron Paul comes close), but I do have to have one who is going to set us on the right path. For instance, the current political debate is largely over if, when, and how far to draw down our forces in Iraq. I’d like just one “frontrunner” to put forth a plan to at least begin to draw down the size and scope of government (as opposed to merely slowing the rate of growth and lessening “waste and fraud”) towards its constitutionally authorized limits. Can’t we at least begin to move in the right direction here? None of the “frontrunners” for the White House in 2008 (as so-named by the MSM and the Establishment) of either major party offers that.
Incidentally, to speak to your last comment, there is a huge difference between having a right to vote and a duty to vote. Wouldn’t you agree?
Eric -
Yes, there is absolutely a difference. I’m only saying that I (and all of us) have the right to vote for whatever candidate we choose, and I believe it’s my duty to exercise that right even when, as you say, I’m not able to find the ideal candidate.
Thanks again for the thought provoking post. We need more posts like this as they get to the real heart of things. Too often we start name-calling or going off on tangents. It’s nice to debate something vitally important to the Nation.
I agree completely that our Constitution is largely disregarded by our current politicians with the odd exception. That’s the real shame.
By the way, your points about Goldwater and Reagan were right on target. It’s a shame we don’t have that sort of principled politician in one of those front-running positions you mentioned.
John Konop for U.S. Senate – It’s time for a change!
Thanks, Mac.
And we do have that candidate – his name is Ron Paul! If enough people get behind him on principle, instead of betting in a horse race, we can make him the front runner!
Amen, Eric!
If anyone is close to Macon, we are having a Meetup at Ryans on Presidential Pkwy tonight at 7! We have the backroom for 2 hours, and will have two guests from the Alpharetta group joining us. We are expecting twenty people now, and have room for several more. Each person pays their own meal cost. We have bumper sticker, Slim Jims and campaign buttons. We need your help! We are planning on manning a booth at a big car show in Perry, and some of us are going to Spartanburg, SC on the 21st. Join us in this vital early grassroots movement.
The “duty” to vote may be even more important and more ignored in the primaries.
Why do we have the “lesser” of two evils to vote for? Often it is because we ignore the primaries for our elected representative and figure it is better to have them run again then try to find a new candidate that is more to our way of thinking.
We have become so ingrained to needing “victory” over the other party that we often shun “principle” and keep a candidate that has fallen away from the very principles we hold dear, but, believe can “win.”
We have more than a “duty” to vote. We have a “duty” to nominate good candidates. However, that requires doing more than just voting. It means sacrifice of time to go to political meetings, research the stands candidates have that challenge the incumbent and work to get the best candidate nominated when sometimes the “political machine” wants somebody else.
Also, the more we “centralize power” the less each voter feels he can influence policies. Yet, we learned in this immigration fight that the voter still has a voice. Now, we have to keep the voice loud and spreading to other policies besides just immigration.
Albert Einstein wrote in ‘Treasury for the Free World’ — “It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs. ”
One gives validity by voting. But one should be well informed lest they cast a ballot for the greatest of all evils; a candidate as inept as the ignorant voter basing decisions on the last campaign sign spotted on the way to the polls (kind of like the elected pols who check response polls to decide what principles he or she will rely upon when making important legislative decisions, i.e. immigration reform).
To the original question, yes I believe it is absolutely the patriotic responsibility of American citizens to learn about choices in an election, then cast a ballot for the best candidate in a given field (If I don’t like the choices offered, I use the write-in line to submit the name of a qualified person).
Great, great points, Jan. That’s a big part of what I was trying to get at in this post some time back. As I said then in the comments: “[A]ny ‘victory’ obtained by sacrificing principles is pyrrhic at best, as the Bush presidency has proven.”
BB,
I agree, absolutely!
bb
You bring up a good point and one that disturbs me about the immigration issue.
The “polls” show all the unrest about the immigration bill, borders, what to do with illegals, etc. but seldom if ever, do I see anything about why Congress wants 67 to 100 million more immigrants.
In other words, there is no dialog by either side as to why we need mass immigration or don’t need it nor any solutions to avoid that need.
It has boiled down more to “I don’t want” and “you should” or “shouldn’t” instead of actually addressing any core problems such as funding social security or Medicare or replacing the 78 million workers retiring. Voters are making demands on Congress without providing any alternatives and by the same token, Congress isn’t actually telling the people the full truth about why we need mass immigration.
Bart
I have never used the write-in idea. I will do that next time!!
If you are a regular voter and then don’t vote I would say you are making a statement. If you never vote, then you really aren’t saying anything at all.
I don’t think it’s anybody’s duty to vote. Or should be a right either. But I think it’s a responsibility for informed people or people who care enough about the issues to vote. Personally I’ve never voted for the major league allstars or the rock and roll hall of fame. I just don’t know enough about it. And most local candidates I’ll actually leave blank, because I just don’t know.
Those of you who’ve had the opportunity to live in a place where citizens are not allowed to vote will understand that there is a civic responsibility for everyone who is eligible to exercise the right to vote.
Patriotism, on the other hand, is more along the lines of slapping down those who shred the Constitution.
In that regard, one could vote and still be unpatriotic.
.
If you can’t find a candidate to vote for, you either didn’t do your homework or you can’t remember how to spell your own name. No other options.
Damn right you have a patriotic duty to vote.
If more of you limp-wristed defeatists had voted in 2003 we wouldn’t have had to endure a full year of Ruben Studdard as the “American Idol”! AS IF!
Text now to 1-800-HEADINSAND