My Stinky Opinion on the Ethics of Voting
With the chatter about yesterday’s first Republican presidential debate continuing to fill the room – some of it like a whiff of coffee or the scent of fine wine, but most of it resembling overbearing cologne or flatulent stink – now seems an opportune time to reiterate my distaste for an issues-centered approach to the ethics of voting, an approach used by your garden-variety voter guide.
Yes, the State’s policies regarding war, interrogation, health-care, the economy, reproduction, climate and so forth cry for the attention of the citizenry, and we typically vote for candidates based on their positions on these polices and their related issues, but, when we vote for the president or other public servants, we ain’t voting on the issues. We vote for people 1) with intentions regarding the means by which they plan to address these issues and 2) who will have limited, if any, power once elected to act as they intend due to the checks and balances of power and other contingencies within the political arena.
So while issues of nascent life and reproductive policy may morally outweigh matters of coercive interrogation, the president, for one, has little sway over the former, but a whole heck of a lot of say about the latter. Do the boundaries of presidential power make torture a more important moral issue than abortion? Not necessarily, but they do establish varying limits upon the effectivity of my vote. The moral gravity of the various moral issues facing our country do not line up equally with what I or my preferred candidates can do about each of them.
This is why I don’t like voter guides that establish criteria for morally sound voting based solely on an abstract weighing and measuring of the issues. If I were voting on the issues directly, or if the candidates could address them with unhindered force equal to their moral gravity, then an issues-based calculus would make sense. It doesn’t in a representative democracy.
Oh, and to readers who take this post to be a thinly-veiled argument for supporting the reelection of Barack Obama, I note that the president’s ownership of the government’s treatment of Bradley Manning rules out the president being an anti-torture candidate. The administering of pain doesn’t cross into torture when the pain reaches a certain level, but when the will of the one interrogated ceases to be motivated and becomes coerced and undermined. I won’t be supporting President Obama in 2012, for a number of reasons, but I can’t say the GOP is providing me with a worthy alternative. Maybe they’ll surprise me, but I doubt it. I have as much hope for that as I do for Obama sincerely transforming into a peacenik or Mounier-styled socialist by November of 2012.
Comments are closed.
So while issues of nascent life and reproductive policy may morally outweigh matters of coercive interrogation, the president, for one, has little sway over the former, but a whole heck of a lot of say about the latter.
I kind of wonder if one of the lessons of the Obama presidency is that the president doesn’t actually have as much choice over how foreign and military policy is carried out as tends to be imagined.
On the meta-point, I agree with you that a politician’s stances on moral issues should be weighed against his ability to act on those stances.
However, I’d weigh on the other hand the fact that one votes not merely for a bundle of issues and likelihoods to act on the issues, but a person — a person whose opinions of a variety of issues tells us something about what sort of person that is and what that person is likely to do when in office.
This ends up, I think, being one of the areas on which partisan leanings end up playing. People often decide “I like this guy” or “I want to vote for this guy” based on the stances a candidate takes irrespective of his ability to act on those stances because those stances are taken as signals for what sort of person the candidate is.
Add to that that people of differing political leanings often get used to ignoring certain issues on which they habitually disagree with their own party. (As, for instance, a right leaning Catholic may be used to ignoring the immigration stances of his favorite candidates, or a left-leaning Catholic may be used to ignoring the abortion stances of his favorite candidates.)
While I can point to differences between 2008 Obama and 2011 Obama on military policy, I remain not much surprised by his presidency in this regard. Obama campaigned on expanding U.S. military power in the world. His objection to Iraq wasn’t moral, but pragmatic. The military policy on which he campaigned was one reason I wouldn’t vote for him. He’s faced hurtles to closing Gitmo, but if Glenn Greenwald is to be believed, civil liberties were never a priority for this president, whatever his promises and apparent desires.
I agree that where a person stands on certain issues reveals much about his or her character, and so these stances can be a guide to the quality of the candidate in general and in respect to seemingly unrelated issues. This line of reasoning goes in the direction I like: it focuses attention on the worthiness of the candidates, the people for whom or against whom we are voting.
Darwin writes:
I kind of wonder if …
However, I’d weigh on the other hand …
This ends up, I think,…
Refreshing, and I appreciate it.
Contrary to those who like to tell others they are morally obligated to vote a certain way, even if we have come to a conclusion, it is still what “we wonder”, “we weigh on one hand and the other”, “we think.”. even, “we guess.”
No one has objectively sinned by voting for Obama or Bush or Santorum or Ron Paul or Nancy Pelosi.
Add to that that people of differing political leanings often get used to ignoring certain issues on which they habitually disagree with their own party. (As, for instance, a right leaning Catholic may be used to ignoring the immigration stances of his favorite candidates, or a left-leaning Catholic may be used to ignoring the abortion stances of his favorite candidates.)
I have to say, that Vox Nova (along with Commonweal) are notable as places where I find Catholics who actually agonize over their choices, unlike other forums where writers are far too quick to have no doubts and no stated regrets of their chosen candidates. It is a very virtuous sign.
Kyle,
Though I end up voting more often (and sometimes for different people) than you do, I definitely agree with your point:
Indeed, I’d be prepared to concede that choices on who to vote for are often either negative (he probably won’t do X) or symbolic (at least he says Y) rather than effective. However, I think the choice of whom to support is still very much worth making even in those conditions. And I’m more comfortable with “Decent people don’t vote for people who believe Z” kind of arguments than with the kind of outcome based wonkery which likes to assert, “It doesn’t really matter that this candidate disagrees with me, the effect of his actions will be something I can like.”
Kurt,
Actually, FWIW, I’ve always held that it’s not objectively sinful (in and of itself) to vote for any of the people you list. Indeed, I and several other of the TAC contributors wrote to the effect back during the ’08 election, though there may have been one or two who disagreed.
As for the degree of agonizing one does over voting — I think it’s mostly a matter of:
a) How messed up a party, by one’s own standards, one is trying to talk oneself into supporting and
b) How willing one is to either not vote of vote for someone unlikely to win.
I’ll admit I hadn’t noticed this happening at Commonweal, though I think some of the contributors here have taken some admirably principled stands along those lines (Henry and Kyle come to mind specifically, as well as Policratus back when he wrote here.) I’ve known conservatives to take similarly principled stands, according to their own priorities, as with the principled rebellions against candidates like Rudy Giuliani, but for those conservatives who aren’t either pacifist or isolationist (which some of the paleos are) the choices in regards to major candidates have not been as hard in the last couple cycles as they have for principled Catholic progressives. I’m sure out time will come, as fortune’s wheel turns.
Kyle,
It seems that you and some of the other contributors here on VN have very strong views regarding the immorality of military force by the US in the world and of war in general. It seems that you closely identify these views with the Catholic/Christian faith, and it often forms the basis for criticism of GOP-types or “conservative” Catholics. I understand these views, I understand the basis for these views and where they come from in the Christian faith, and I recognize that they have merit.
My question stems from you mentioning that Pres. Obama hasn’t lived up to your views. (Besides the Bradley Manning issue, I suspect you’re probably not a fan also of Pres. Obama keeping most of the Bush-era military policies open, continued war in Iraq and Afghanistan, use of drones as a military tactic, keeping Gitmo open, initiating war in Libya, and the possible kill-order of Bin Laden.) Yes, almost every GOP politician would disagree with you fundamentally on the morality of war and military force, but is there any Democratic politician who shares your views sincerely without giving lip service to them? Besides a few people like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, I don’t know that I can think of anyone. Wouldn’t any potential Democratic candidate, even though they may give lip service to the contrary, retain basically the same views of U.S. military force as Presidents Bush and Obama? For that matter, was there any past Democratic president who had a view similar to yours? Am I wrong in thinking that Presidents Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton has just as immoral a view when it came to exercising military force, coercion, etc.?
Your post, after all, is about the effectivity of your vote. But do you think that there is potential Democratic presidential candidate, either future or past, who has actually done anything when it comes to changing military policy to a more peaceful stance? Maybe your vote for changing military policy is just ineffective as voting for a President on abortion issues.
Important question, Thales. U.S. Military power has tended to grow and consolidate regardless of which party controls the White House, largely because both Democrats and Republicans share the same fundamental view regarding America’s military might.
As you tell from my post, I’m more or less left at this stage with no one to support without strongly desiring to bash my head through a brick wall.
I believe change is possible, but I think it’s going to require mass refusals to settle for the usual bullshit. Change can happen, though, when there’s enough support and energy behind it. Consider the GOP’s recent efforts at the state and federal levels to de-fund Planned Parenthood, a huge change in policy from the Bush years when the GOP controlled Congress voted year after year to increase federal funding of Title X. Whether it will produce anything permanent remains to be seen, but they’re making an effort to please their constituency.
Frankly, I’d like to see a well-organized dissenting group on the Left, a progressive Tea Party if you will, throw their support and money behind truly anti-war candidates during the 2016 election.
Kyle,
Thanks for the response. Another related thought I had: here on Vox Nova, some have made the point that every election, “anti-abortion” conservatives are being duped by the GOP into voting GOP on account of abortion, but that this is an empty promise because the GOP never actually does anything. Can’t something similar be said for “anti-war” liberals who were duped by an empty promise to change military policy? (And for the conservatives, at least there tends to be a small change re: Mexico City policy and embryo-stem cell research. Has there been any similar change under Pres. Obama with regard to military policy?)
At any rate, I understand and I respect your position, and I’m largely in agreement with your view that it would be good if there was a change of heart and a swelling of support in favor of peace.
On a slightly related note, I saw the movie There Be Dragons last night, and I encourage everyone to watch it. I think the VN contributors would enjoy it in particular, especially for Josemaria Escriva’s perspective on war: facing a Spanish Civil War with both sides acting unjustly (even though both sides have just reasons for their position), Josemaria advocates for a third way of changing hearts (including one’s own). The rest of the movie is quite enjoyable and thought-provoking, so I recommend it.
You should’ve been around for the ‘sixties, Kyle. When progressives organize, what happens is this: the cops come around and bash your head in for y0u until you change your mind. Sometimes they shoot you. Kent State happened before Tiannamen Square, y’know. What also happens is a relentless propaganda campaign to demonize anybody who has stepped out of line. Nobody seems to want to face the fact that our politicians are just foot soldiers and butt-boys. They are bought and paid for. They take their orders from a higher power (no caps) that is seldom reported on and almost never appears on television. It’s about MONEY. It’s not about anything else. Ever. Not ever.