There's a scene in the movie Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World in which Captain Jack poses a question to the ship's doctor. Two wevils were crawling on the doctor's plate, and Jack asks the doctor which one he would eat if he had to. The doctor is hesitant to reply, but is finally prodded into choosing the larger one. Captain Jack bursts into laughter when he tells the doc that he should have chosen the smaller one because it was "the lesser of two wevils."
In a way, that is bit how I felt about the election this year. This being my first election in the state of Ohio, I am not very familiar with the political background here. I do know that there have a number of political scandals in recent times. As I have been subjected to a constant barrage of political attack ads for the last 2 months, I have felt a little like the doctor in Master and Commander. All of the talking heads asking me to vote for them are the wevils and I must choose the ones who will represent me in local, state, and federal government. I don't really know if any of them truly take the stands I do. I don't really know if I can trust any of them--Democrat or Republican. It can be a bit discouraging.
With this in mind, I pose the following question to all of my readers and invite them to answer via the comment section. It is not a new question, to be sure, but one that can spark some lively conversation nonetheless. Here it is--Should we take a principled approach to our vote or a practical approach? In other words, do we vote only for those who truly agree with our values and positions, or do we choose those who come as close to our values as is possible because someone has to do the work and it might as well be a Republican (in my case)? I have known people who have cast their Presidential vote in favor of some publicly unknown person from some publicly unknown party who has no legitimate chance of winning. They voted this way because they could support every position their unknown candidate held. They couldn't in good conscience vote for a candidate who held even a few positions with which they could not agree. Is this just throwing your vote away, or is it doing the right thing by voicing your principles in the voting booth even though no one may be listening?
Post a comment, and let me know what you think.
See ya...
Bio
- Andrew D. Doan
- I am a high school Bible, Speech, and History teacher. My wife and I were married in 2004, and we have three kids-2 boys and a girl. We currently live in Merrimack, New Hampshire.
Blogroll
-
-
The End...10 years ago
-
The end11 years ago
-
Kole and His Sisters15 years ago
Automatic Updates from Eldansdad!
Posts
3 comments:
yes
Yes, I remember this question, and here's how I see it.
We have to face the reality of the situation: one of the two weevils will be elected, and we want the lesser. However, if every evangelical got behind the consitutionalist or libertarian candidate, then we might have a chance of putting forward another real candidate.
So once the election is at hand, I do think it is wasteful and perhaps harmful to vote for an unknown -- if that's all the involvement you have.
However, this should not stop us from working and campaigning long before the election so that there might be another or different weevil on the ballot. Once that happens, vote for the weevil who most closley supports your ideas.
Which brings out another point. In a democracy, not every view gets represented. Ideally an aggregate is represented at the highest levels. This is what we call the "majority." If the candidate that lines up with your beliefs is an unknown, then there is proof positive that you are in the minority and will not be represented. That's how democracy works, and I think we ought to be thankful for that (imagine all the other minority opinions that might be represented). So what we do is decide which issues are the most important to us, and we elect the politician that identifies with us against an opponent in those values.
But democracy isn't really working anymore, and I don't know for how long this has been going on. The American people trust one of two parties to supply a candidate, as if parties have this power by virtue of their existence. This leaves us with the "two weevils" problem. What should have happened is that like-minded people get together and produce a candidate that represents them. I guess this is what the R's and D's do, but the platforms have changed. I predict that in 2-6 years, there won't be any R's we will want to support. Then where will we be? We'll be firmly established for the minority that we are, and maybe we'll start looking to God rather than Washington for our help and support.
I don't have too much to say about your last post- Aaron has said not only all I would say, but has elaborated on the thoughts of a thousand minds :) I will say the I especially hate it when two contestants in a race (political or other wise) end said race in a tie- especially when one contestant has admitted to cheating. To quote Ross Perot, "That's just sad." In general, I find your blog enjoyable, informational and at times whimsical, but overwhelmingly aloof.
Post a Comment