Choosing Not to Choose
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In the spring of 2012, I found myself alone for several minutes in a network green room with Ben Bradlee, the legendary editor of the Washington Post, who was at the helm of the paper during its glory days of the Pentagon Papers and Watergate.
It being an election year, our conversation turned to politics and Bradlee told me something that was utterly surprising coming from a veteran Washington editor: that he didn’t vote in elections. Why? He didn’t want to compromise his judgment as a journalist and editor by forming an attachment to candidates he’d voted for and would later have to publish stories about.
Though outwardly I nodded my head politely, I remember inwardly scoffing. “Come on,” I was thinking. “You’re famously liberal, and the paper you ran for years has been a reliable organ of the center-left in this country, with documented bias in its news pages, let alone its editorial voice.” But I didn’t say any of that, and shortly afterward others were in the room. Bradlee, who was already over 90 at the time, died a few years later. It was the only time our paths crossed.
’m not sure Bradlee was honest about not voting, but I now think there is something true about his stated rationale. We do form attachments to the candidates we vote for—especially if they win and wield power. We feel instinctively that we should defend what they do, even—or especially—when defending them is hard. When the president, or the senator or governor, is “my guy” because I voted for him, I feel something of my own integrity at stake. I’m inclined to rise in his defense. He has enemies? Of course he does—he’s in politics. They will be my enemies too.
As I said, I don’t know whether Bradlee was putting me on. He had a close personal friendship with John F. Kennedy from the time JFK was a senator, and he even wrote a book about it a dozen years after the president’s death. Did he really not vote for him in 1960? Maybe Bradlee settled on his habit of nonvoting in later years. But if he did at any time give up voting, then it freed him, as a journalist, to report on liberals as well as conservatives when the story wouldn’t be flattering to them. Liberal he might be, but perhaps not personally invested in any particular politician’s success.
For at the end of the day, that is what voting is: a kind of investment. Not of our money, but of ourselves—our will, our intention, our passion, and our conscience. Of course, our investment can be a light matter to us, if we cast our vote in a throwaway mood, thinking “better this guy than the other guy.” Then we might cut our emotional losses when he disappoints us. “Live and learn.” Yet paradoxically, if it took a great effort to “screw your courage to the sticking place,” as Lady Macbeth put it—if, that is, you had to swallow hard to vote for a candidate, and he won—you may find your investment in him very heavy, and your felt need to defend him equally so.
“Vote as if your ballot determines nothing whatsoever—except the shape of your own character,” the piece concluded. “Vote as if the public consequences of your action weigh nothing next to the private consequences. The country will go whither it will go, when all the votes are counted. What should matter the most to you is whither you will go, on and after this November’s election day.”
There is nothing in what I said then that I would now retract. I rejected the idea that I, as one individual, must treat my choice as confined to the binary of Clinton versus Trump, as though the weight of the outcome were on me alone. It is frequently the case that we vote for one major-party presidential candidate principally because we are against the other one—usually because we find “our guy” a less than optimal choice but “the other guy” strongly repellent. But when we conclude that both of them are wholly unfit for office, our habitual partisan commitments, and our fond hope that the one representing “our side” will be normal, or guided by normal people, do not compel us to cast a vote in that direction. What we must consider, I argued, is not our role in the outcome of the election (which is negligible, and unknown to us when voting), but the effect on our conscience and character of joining our will to a bad cause.
Tags
Who is online
400 visitors
No one should feel pressured to vote for a clown.
This is no longer about either man. It is about the future of the country.
How do we want our kids & grandkids to live?
They'll figure it out and probably do a far better job than we have.
mine won't be living under the thumb of a bunch of christo-fascist thumpers ...
I’d like them to live without fear of dying from an ill fated pregnancy that can’t be terminated, even if it is threatening to terminate them.
That’s an irrational fear. No hospital in this union would intentionally allow the death of the mother in such a case.
Nope, not one. Not without the mother making the decision.
Nothing is irrational about fearing the mortal risk of childbirth...
Nothing rational fearing for the mortality of the mother in childbirth in this country. Not specifically related to the abortion debate that is.
Nope.
You should change the channel once in a while.
Right back at ya!
I should change to a channel that purposely omits actual real news that conflicts with their preferred narrative? What you said above is absolutely false. You would know that if you just took a break from fake news. Or, you know, there’s always google.
I have to wonder when he started doing her - probably way before puberty.
How long have you been wondering that?
That's why I'm voting AGAIN for President Biden.
Why would anyone vote for a ranting raving deluded demented freakshow clown psycho/sociopath traitor convicted felon like #34?
It would be nice if typo-warriors followed suit.
Did I say convicted felon? 34 times convicted felon? Therefore, #34
[Deleted][✘]
"What we must consider, I argued, is not our role in the outcome of the election (which is negligible, and unknown to us when voting), but the effect on our conscience and character of joining our will to a bad cause."
Very simple concept that so many just can't seem to grasp.
I think that to a large degree that might be attributed to the fact that different people define "a bad cause" differently!
“Vote as if your ballot determines nothing whatsoever—except the shape of your own character,” the piece concluded. “Vote as if the public consequences of your action weigh nothing next to the private consequences. The country will go whither it will go, when all the votes are counted. What should matter the most to you is whither you will go, on and after this November’s election day.”
Well if that's the case-- why bother voting at all?
if you want your vote to matter, mathematically, there is no point in voting in a presidential election. Even in Florida, in 2000, no one individual vote actually mattered.
I wasted my vote once. Never again.
I never waste my vote, my conscience is clean. As there are over 160 million registered voters in the US, a single vote doesn't carry all that much weight on the national stage so I vote as my heart wants me to. I really don't care what other people say about who or what I should vote for, my vote is mine alone.
Listening to people telling me how to vote reminds me of fans of some NFL teams, who during mini-camps loudly proclaim that this is the year their team wins the Superbowl when the betting line out of Vegas has their team finishing with a four win season.
Vote or don’t vote as your conscience dictates. After all, you are the one who has to live with it,
I bet you have, if you’re being honest with yourself that is. Few politicians are what they say are. One of the reasons so many like Trump. What you see is mostly what you get. More than most politicians. Certainly unlike the LOTUS in office right now.
A quote from a man that many of us respect for varied reasons
Barack Obama
"There's no such thing as a vote that doesn't matter."
Obama’s opinion doesn’t slay me but rhetorically speaking, in this case, I agree with him.
I voted 3rd party in the last two elections and I'll do it again if I choose to. Cannot in good conscience vote for the two current front runners.
It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to build a viable third party and all you do is cast a vote on election day, then you are wasting your vote. A viable third party will not magically appear because a minority of people cast votes to the handful of disparate non-viable third parties in the USA. That is far too little, too late.
See @7.2 for details.
If, however, you are like Ed (and I suspect Robert too) and will not vote for someone he considers unfit on principle, then, as I have stated many times, that is certainly an understandable position. But that is not what you have argued. You have argued that you are trying to create a viable third party. Your approach is not going to work ... look at that past 150 years for mountains of evidence. Too little, too late. To create a viable third party requires substantial effort and merely sprinkling votes around on election day is not going to cut it.
I suspect others will actually read what I wrote and note that you have yet again got it wrong.
I suspect strongly that Ed, for example, understands from my post that I would not claim that he wasted his vote.
But one would have to read and understand what I wrote to appreciate this.
In this day and age, where the Democrat and Republican parties are no longer the voice of Main Street, but the puppets of Wall Street, it is natural that a Third Party should appear to champion the traditionally conservative proposition that the Constitution is the blueprint for the operation of the government of the United States.
I would love to see a viable third party. The closest we have come in modern times (briefly) was Perot's independent run in 1992 (which later caused the formation of his Reform party which went nowhere). In the meantime, we have had third parties for very long times such as the Green and Libertarian parties (and even older ones such as Prohibition, Socialist, etc.) which in their long runs have come nowhere near the presidency. In the past 150 years, the two-party system has dominated and shrugged off all third party attempts to become viable.
Seems like we need to keep trying or the stranglehold on America by the GOP and the Deems will never be lessened and it will be politics rather than public service that drives their actions.
Keep trying what, exactly?
If all that 'keep trying' means is to sprinkle votes among minor parties then how many more decades will it take before people realize that this is a practice of futility?
I have stated a method that goes far beyond the reactive voting. It involves proactive, serious work. It is a very tough gig, no doubt, but continuing to merely vote on election day (expecting some magical result) is clearly futile.
Yeah, keep trying WHAT?
Makes no sense
Robert's post did not specify what 'keep trying' means.
So explain what 'keep trying' means; and if it only means to keep voting for third parties then explain how, after 150 years of trying, you think this alone is magically going to work.
T Lo
It seemed very clear but here you go - we need to dislodge the stranglehold on the American way of life exercised by the political professionals (not public servants) of the Democrat and Republican parties by introducing more choices.
How do we do that, Robert?
You have stated an objective (dislodge the stranglehold). Your abstract method is to introduce more choices. So how is that done? Merely creating a third party is futile. A real choice would be a viable third party. How do we create a viable third party? We have been unable to do that for over 150 years. We have several extant third parties but none of them are viable.
Not clear at all.
It is the middle of June. Baring an act of God Donald Trump and President Biden are going to be the nominees. Considering those are the only viable options, it is cowardly not to pick sides...
I do not deem this cowardice. I can see how some could be so disgusted with the choices that they basically say 'fuck it'. (Typically less than 2/3 of eligible voters do not show up to vote; often it is less than 1/2 of eligible voters.)
Personally, I do not believe it possible in 2024 to not see a profound difference between the two presidential nominees (to be). They are vastly different in almost every dimension (presidential behavior, personality, integrity, policy, experience, demeanor, ...). It is inconceivable to me that any functioning mind could not determine which of the two is better for the nation and cast their vote accordingly. In particular, Trump is so bad in so many dimensions, it is amazing to me that anyone would consider voting for him.
But, then again, try to imagine being a lifelong highly partisan R who only votes R. When faced with the choice of voting for Trump or not voting for Trump (since highly partisan Rs will typically never vote for any D), it does make sense for them to choose to not vote for Trump. It is a sad situation to have such a miserable nominee that a loyal GOP voter would choose to not vote rather than vote for the nominee of their party. But I would expect individuals thinking this way to essentially try to put the presidential race on a back burner rather than engage in heated political debates attacking Biden.
But, as I noted, I can appreciate the disgust and the subsequent apathy.
However, those who think that they are accomplishing anything by merely voting for someone other than Trump or Biden are kidding themselves. Merely voting for a non-viable candidate has not worked for at least 150 years. So those who wait until election night and then make their one act ... voting for a non-viable candidate ... are pursuing futility.
I meant what I said. I said what I meant. Do you understand?
Those who will not stand for anything will fall for nothings...
Either one has the courage of conviction or one is ashamed!
Too lilly-livered to make a principled choice and stand firmly.
How could I not like your choice when you won't reveal it?
Given the thousands of comments you have made attacking Biden and defending Trump, it strains all credulity that you cannot make your decision. Or, that you really do not care how any others vote!
Apparently you care very much or else you wouldn't bother us so.
By making it simpler for as many candidates as possible to be on the presidential ballot
Would that not simply diffuse the votes going to candidates other that R and D?
What I envision from your comment is a ballot with:
Okay, this list goes on for a while. And your idea is to make it easier for even more to pile on.
Seems to me that this will further diffuse the non-D / non-R vote. Those who are voting D or R are unlikely to vote for yet another non-viable third party so those who are willing to do so will have more choices and thus more diffusion.
You are free to give up if you wish. I think that is irresponsible, but that is your choice.
My point, since you missed it, is that the actions we take must be realistic — must have a good chance to succeed. Merely voting third party on election day has demonstrated (over and over) to be an act of futility. It is too little too late.
Instead of that, I suggested what I think needs to happen @7.2
Demonstrably a false claim.
And, yet again, you demonstrate missing my point.
Read @7.2 and if you can muster a thoughtful response, considering penning it.
Is a thoughtful response forthcoming or is "meh" the best you have?
Those that want a 3rd party to work must put in the work years before an election. They need signatures, candidates, full press canvasing and marketing which takes fundraising to get the names and positions in front of those who don't spend all their waking time on social media bitching about politics.
Who's going to put in that work?
The system [in U.S.] is designed for a two-party system. And those two parties have an interest in keeping third parties out. There's too much of the structure that works in the two-party way. They will keep the third party out.
Seems to me the critical factor for a viable third party is a charismatic candidate with a killer platform. That is a very high bar, but without it I see no hope for a third party.
Then, given this stellar candidate, the third party needs to be extremely well-funded to attract the talent to build the infrastructure and staff same to produce a highly effective, multi-dimensional force that could rival that of the D and R parties. And this all needs to be in place years before the votes start.
Merely voting for various third party candidates sprinkles a tiny minority of votes around ½ dozen feckless third parties and, as we have observed for at least 150 years now, accomplishes nothing.
How can that even be? Most of the country is divided into two camps. I won't bother to describe those in each camp.
Do you know anyone that favors a third party? I do. He never watches the news and advises others not to watch it. He longs for it all to go away. He has a very comfortable profession, and he is basically insulated from the economy and a lot of what else is plaguing the country. He is the one who was first to tell me about the No-Labels Party.
So exactly what kind of candidate would this person be looking for? Can there be a charismatic candidate with a killer platform, who is devoid of any extreme ideology, who offends nobody and is a throwback to Dwight D Eisenhower?
Sorry, I don't see it.
In today's highly partisan world, I do not see how it is possible. (That is part of my point.)
Read the comments on this article, Vic.
I do not either. Looks like we agree on something.
That said, I truly wish we had three or four equally viable parties in the USA.
that will never happen without strict campaign cash/finance reform.
Among other things. The sad part is that those who would effect campaign finance reform are those who least want it.
If we continue to choose from only the two sets of Clowns (Democrats and Republicans) then we will forever have the circus that we have today instead of the public servants we deserve in place of the professional politicians in it only for the money.
It is getting harder to smile when we say "Not my Circus, not my Monkeys"
Perhaps I've grown more pessimistic, but I don't think four sets of clowns to choose from would cure anything at this point. It's become more about those that don't embrace the extremism of either side standing up.
Ahh, but Congress, which is where most of the dysfunction in government emanates from is......
Correct.
The question though is how to break free of the two party system. We have a two-party infrastructure, a two-party culture, and a very strong two-party historical tradition. What is the event that will cause predictable R or D voters to NOT just vote for their nominee and instead vote for a SINGLE candidate outside of their party. The SINGLE candidate is key since diffusing the non-R | D votes across several candidates will favor the dominance of the D and R parties.
That would be nice since we have definitely produced a string of shitty candidates.
I think you are engaging in wishful thinking. This is not going to just happen. This election should encourage people to try to build a viable third party around a dynamic, charismatic candidate, pursue major league funding, staff with senior, experienced political players, build a strong ground game, etc. Will this happen? Probably not in the short term. I say that because the electorate is in such a screwed up state that it might put Trump in the presidency. If that many people think that scoundrel is fit to be PotUS, that suggests a fundamental problem that will not be easily solved.
Again you miss the point. It is wishful thinking that better candidates will simply emerge from an unchanged system.
Yeah, and maybe Putin or Sinwar will have a change of heart.
In life, fundamental changes do not simply happen by magic. Such change often requires a very focused, well-managed effort, enormously hard work, major league resources, and a boatload of luck.
Nothing is accomplished by dreaming; effecting change is hard work. The change we are talking about is not going to come about by people like you merely waiting until election day and then casting a protest vote. Been there, tried that. It has not worked for 150 years.
And you again demonstrate that you missed my point.
I am not looking for why something cannot be done. I want a viable third party. I am stating why your approach of merely waiting until election day to cast a protest vote is NOT going to accomplish anything. It will not, in itself, cause a viable third party to magically emerge.
I have now many times referred you to my post @7.2 where I stated what I believe we need to do.
I put forth an approach that, albeit is difficult, is based on well-established principles of change management. You suggest we vote and cross your fingers.
Do better than post a constant trickle of feeble bullshit.
[✘]
[✘]
A 3rd party would have to build the same sustained infrastructure to make an impact.
Exactly!