The Only Vote Worth Casting in November by Dr. Alasdair MacIntyre, University of Notre Dame
When offered a choice between two politically intolerable alternatives, it is important to choose neither. And when that choice is presented in rival arguments and debates that exclude from public consideration any other set of possibilities, it becomes a duty to withdraw from those arguments and debates, so as to resist the imposition of this false choice by those who have arrogated to themselves the power of framing the alternatives. These are propositions which in the abstract may seem to invite easy agreement. But, when they find application to the coming presidential election, they are likely to be rejected out of hand. For it has become an ingrained piece of received wisdom that voting is one mark of a good citizen, not voting a sign of irresponsibility. But the only vote worth casting in November is a vote that no one will be able to cast, a vote against a system that presents one with a choice between Bush's conservatism and Kerry's liberalism, those two partners in ideological debate, both of whom need the other as a target.(HT - Rod Dreher @ TAC)
Why should we reject both? Not primarily because they give us wrong answers, but because they answer the wrong questions. What then are the right political questions? One of them is: What do we owe our children? And the answer is that we owe them the best chance that we can give them of protection and fostering from the moment of conception onwards. And we can only achieve that if we give them the best chance that we can both of a flourishing family life, in which the work of their parents is fairly and adequately rewarded, and of an education which will enable them to flourish. These two sentences, if fully spelled out, amount to a politics. It is a politics that requires us to be pro-life, not only in doing whatever is most effective in reducing the number of abortions, but also in providing healthcare for expectant mothers, in facilitating adoptions, in providing aid for single-parent families and for grandparents who have taken parental responsibility for their grandchildren. And it is a politics that requires us to make as a minimal economic demand the provision of meaningful work that provides a fair and adequate wage for every working parent, a wage sufficient to keep a family well above the poverty line.
The basic economic injustice of our society is that the costs of economic growth are generally borne by those least able to afford them and that the majority of the benefits of economic growth go to those who need them least. Compare the rise in wages of ordinary working people over the last thirty years to the rise in the incomes and wealth of the top twenty percent. Compare the value of minimum wage now to its value then and next compare the value of the remuneration of CEOs to its value then. What is needed to secure family life is a sufficient minimum income for every family and that can perhaps best be secured by some version of the negative income tax, proposed long ago by Milton Friedman, a tax that could be used to secure a large and just redistribution of income and so of property.
We note at this point that we have already broken with both parties and both candidates. Try to promote the pro-life case that we have described within the Democratic Party and you will at best go unheard and at worst be shouted down. Try to advance the case for economic justice as we have described it within the Republican Party and you will be laughed out of court. Above all, insist, as we are doing, that these two cases are inseparable, that each requires the other as its complement, and you will be met with blank incomprehension. For the recognition of this is precluded by the ideological assumptions in terms of which the political alternatives are framed. Yet at the same time neither party is wholeheartedly committed to the cause of which it is the ostensible defender. Republicans happily endorse pro-choice candidates, when it is to their advantage to do so. Democrats draw back from the demands of economic justice with alacrity, when it is to their advantage to do so. And in both cases rhetorical exaggeration disguises what is lacking in political commitment.
In this situation a vote cast is not only a vote for a particular candidate, it is also a vote cast for a system that presents us only with unacceptable alternatives. The way to vote against the system is not to vote.
Related Post - Why Should We Vote For Mitt Romney?
2 comments:
I must respectfully disagree with McIntyre not only because (1) he offers no compelling argument for a "No" vote, but also because (2) what he does offer distorts the nature of politics and (3) the responsibility of citizens within a democracy. (1) His argument is not compelling because it is woefully lacking evidence to support his claim. His "compare" statements simply beg the question. I believe a very easy and strong argument can be made to demonstrate that one of the alternatives is acceptable, especially in comparison to the other. McIntyre, however, seems blind to the obvious. (2) The nature of politics is "the art of the possible" (as McIntyre seems to acknowledge). So, if politics is the art of the possible then it is up to those responsible to construct that government that will effect the greatest amount of good, to bring about the common good. (3) In a democracy, citizens (past a certain age) are responsible for constructing this government and one of the important ways they do so is through their vote. A "No" vote entails a failure to understand representative government and an abdication of our responsibility.
Third option: Vote for a third party candidate, even if you don't agree with their platform, precisely because they represent the ability to shake up the status quo.
This election, vote Gary Johnson, or write in Ron Paul. Send a message with your vote - if enough people do this, it might get through. And if the 3rd party get's 5% of the popular vote, then they qualify for federal funding in the next 2 elections, which could further help even things out.
Post a Comment