Voting Philosophy: Part 4

In my opinion, then, there are several problems with our system. Those problems rest  with the presidency itself, the two party system, and, finally, the significance with which our votes have been imbued. 

The Problem with the Presidency

Over the past two decades the office of the president has assumed a much more prominent and visible role in our government and in civic life in general. Rather than just the executive of the government, the commander in chief, and the occasional symbol of its people, the president has come to be a very active and prominent part in all aspects of legislation, adjudication, and moral standards for our nation.

I don't think this is a good thing either for the kinds of people who are drawn to office or for the people who look to the president to solve all their problems. Those who believe the president can pay their mortgage, put gas in their cars, send them to college, and save their souls are more likely to accept a lot of the allowances that presidents have granted themselves in the name of the greater good.

The thing is, almost everyone who runs for office goes into it with the best of intentions. They want to change the world, make it better, fix problems and help people. They go into office thinking that they now have the keys to a social change machine. If they push the right buttons and pull the right levers, then they can make a difference. They can fix what came before.

The problem is, government doesn't work that way. The president can't single-handedly save the economy or control gas prices or save us all from evil corporations. If he could, then he would also have the power and authority to act in ways with which we disagree. He could impose martial law, disband companies he dislikes, lock away his enemies, and take anyone else's earnings and give them to those he deemed more worthy. 

Both of our most recent presidents have suffered and thrived under this set of expectations. They have enlarged their power to respond to serious issues and as a result they have had even more expectations laid at their feet. 

Now, there's nothing wrong with people wanting to make the world a better place. But who really knows what is best for your life? For mine? For the millionaire or for the destitute? Who knows how best to address the ins and outs of each and every American's life and would make the exact right decisions that would benefit even most of them? And what do you say to those harmed by your policies? Altruism is a good thing, but what do you do when it starts to impeded on the freedom of the people. Freedom means not just the freedom to make good choices but to make one's own bad choices as well. Freedom also means being able to deal with the consequences of those decisions. 

Am I saying that there shouldn't be a safety net to help catch those who have been screwed by the system? No. I believe in a minimal safety net. But a net that captures all is not one for safety but for fishing.

The other danger in altruistic presidents comes when they start believe the ends justify the means. That the rules are in place for other people, but that because their mission is so important, they can bend the rules and it will be okay. It's how we get the NDAA, Guantanamo Bay, drone strikes, the PATRIOT Act, extra judicial detention, executive orders, outrageous congressional compensation, and more.

Will our economy survive another Obama presidency? Probably. Will the integrity of the Constitution? Less likely. Will Romney be able to reverse the tide of social change when it comes to the major issues today? Probably not. Will he likely continue eroding the freedoms our nation was founded to protect? Almost assuredly.

The Problem with the Two Party System

The second problem is with the two party system. I can't tell you who will win in November, but I can tell you it will be a Republican or a Democrat. A Republican or a Democrat will also win in 2016. And probably in 2020. We have been limited to only two options for the entire history of the United States, and while they weren't always Republican or Democrat, they did divide along roughly similar ideological lines: conservative and progressive. 

Therefore it's easy to draw lines in the sand. 

"You're either with us or against us." 

"You should vote against the other guy. At least our guy isn't (a homophobe/a socialist/a misogynist/a communist/out-of-touch/a Nazi/out to destroy America/etc)."

"A vote for a third party is a vote for the other guy."

"A vote for a third party is just wasting your vote."

Often that last one is actually true. Usually there's no other viable choice. Any third party offerings are usually so radical that they could never appeal to the mainstream, middle-of-the-road American. They offer things up as single issues, trying to sway the two parties to support as part of their platform some new idea that they feel passionately about.

This year is a bit different. The Libertarian Party has offered up a legitimate candidate who has experience on the national stage, who has worked across both party lines, and who has an actually decent set of policy positions. In fact, I might agree with almost everything he supports. 

I could go on at length about why I'm voting for him specifically, but you've read almost enough already. If you want more, go read what my friend Jacob had to say about the Johnson/Gray ticket. Also, I've met Judge Gray a handful of times, and if any man deserves your respect, it's Jim Gray. 

The Problem with the Vote

Finally, I think there is a huge problem with the significance of the vote, at least as they have been reflected in analysis and research and the media. 

Every time a candidate is elected of late, they are said to have a mandate from the people to act on the platform on which they campaigned. If they campaigned on lower taxes, decreased regulations, clean energy, and no marriage equality, once elected they believe that they are supported in all of their platform because they have the people's mandate. Nevermind that the majority of people voted only for the first three reasons and abhorred the fourth. It was part of his platform and therefore he will see through "the will of the people."

Or the other guy who runs on a platform of ending the war, improving infrastructure, abolishing the 14% sales tax, and instituting a 90% tax on anyone making over $100,000 a year. Every time he will push through that 90% tax on the "rich" because he now has the people's mandate. Nevermind the fact that the people just really hated that 14% sales tax and wanted the potholes on Main Street fixed up.

Every time we vote for the bastards in office, they are imbued with more power to keep doing what they're doing--the good and the bad. Every time we elect someone new with a message full of vim and vigor, we get the vim along with the vigor.

I know a lot of you are voting for Obama because you support his social message. You believe that Romney will roll back the progress we've made in vital areas and that his influence as president will threaten many of our dearly held social causes. Nevermind what Obama will do with the capital gains tax or the rights of terrorists; more important things are at stake.

I know a lot of you who are voting for Romney are terrified about what Obama will do with health care, with the economy, and maybe with foreign policy. You fear that Obama will bury innovation in regulations, that his pursuit of clean energy will make gas and cars even less affordable, and that his healthcare policies will leave us all as wards of the state. Never mind what Romney does to gays in the military or how much he opens our government to corporate and money influences; more important things are at stake.

Yet a vote for either one of these guys for the reasons you want him is (in our current system) a vote for the reasons you don't. I can't support either of their policies with any conscience because the things that I don't agree with them on are that much worse.

So I will be placing my vote and my voice and my small shred of electoral power in someone who supports the things that I do, that recognizes and regularly vocalizes his understanding of the limitations of government, and who isn't beholden to the moneyed power behind the throne that is the two party system.

I'm voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray in November, because it's a vote I can stand behind.