"What are the ethics of voting? Are they different in a primary rather than a general election? Must a person always be sincere in casting his vote? Or should the process just be seen as a way of getting a point across? Is it ever permissible to vote against something, by way of voting for it's opponent?"
I've honestly been struggling to figure this out. Not that I'm overwhelmed with concern, I'll probably just do what I feel like doing, regardless of the ethics, but it would be nice to know what the "proper" course of action would be. Also, it's fun to try to figure out a puzzle, and this is certainly puzzling (to me, anyway).
My problem is this. I feel an overwhelming need to use any means at my disposal (and I have limited means, being an ordinary guy) to punish the conservative movement, and the Tea Party in particular. I think their ideology is dangerous to our system of government, in that it's both radical, uncompromising, and intolerant of nuance or complexity in our problems. I also think it's very seductive to many disgruntled citizens, who happen to lean right. It's not just about punishment for bad behavior, though. I want to teach them a lesson by showing that while many in the "independent" middle may sympathize with the attitude, they won't support the extreme ideology.
The only way to do that is to give them a crushing defeat. It must be decisive enough to hurt. It must be enough to shake any remaining credibility and send them back into the fringe. If Mitt Romney gets the nomination, that is impossible. Once in a general election campaign, Mr. Romney will reorient himself to the center, and a loss of any kind will be interpreted as a defeat of centrism, not conservatism.
So in a nutshell, when the primaries roll through Ohio, I want to vote for whoever is both nutty-right and has a chance of beating Romney. I must try to nominate someone I hate, to run for the office of President.
HOWEVER
In 2008, I rejected and condemned that motivation. When a mutual acquaintence tried to convince John that "anything less than a vote for McCain/Palin is equal to a vote for Obama", I argued against it. I said that "You cannot support someone that you don't truly wish to see as president, it's dishonest and wrong". And I convinced him. I still believe that sentiment now.
It's the urgency of what's going on now that drives me. I feel like I need to hasten the fall of the Tea Partiers. I feel like the only way to "fix" the conservative movement, which I do sincerely identify with, is to get them into the wilderness so they can do their time, and reevaluate their values. The longer they remain enfranchised, the longer they'll be crazy and irresponsible.
I could try to argue that the ethics of a primary differ from the ethics of a general election, but that's a relatively weak justification, and I don't really believe it anyway. In a primary, the object is to nominate someone that you perceive to be a strong candidate.
On the other hand, when holding a conversation, one might say something that they don't actually mean as an attempt to illustrate a greater point. That's not seen a lying, just rhetoric. Right?
On the other hand, voting isn't holding a conversation. It doesn't have the complexity and subtlety of rhetoric. It's just a yes/no matter. If I vote for Bachman, and through some miracle she ends up as president, I will be accountable to that. People will count those votes as a simple "Yes", nothing else.
It's a pity that we don't live in Ancient Athens where we could hold a negative, "ostracise" vote, to kick someone out of politics. Our system is singularly geared towards a positive vote for a either of two parties. Any attempt to manipulate against a party is working against the intended nature of that system.
So, what to do? For lack of a better reason, I'm forced to conclude that it's probably not right to prop up a nutty-right straw man. I don't like it. In fact, watching Romney win by default is going to be difficult to stomach. So, I'm really hoping that my friends find some persuasive new perspectives on their own blogs. Believe me, I'm ready to be convinced.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Quick Thoughts on the Penn State Controversy
It's been interesting to follow the story out of Penn State regarding assistant coach Jerry Sandusky's child molestation charges and the fallout from all that. Considering the cross blog focus on All Things Catholic between us, it's interesting to have a secular parallel to hold up for comparison. A couple of quick thoughts:
1. The line occasionally used by Catholics - that while it's a serious problem within the Church, the media goes out of it's way to blow up the controversy for the sake of discrediting Her - is shown to be false. The situation here is virtually identical to a Priest molestation case, just lacking the elements of faith, church and clergy. It's every bit as sensational news, and the blowback has got to be at least equal, pound-for-pound, as each individual Priest molestation case.
2. The parallels regarding how this guy positioned himself in such a way as to have access to kids, and also access to the vast resources of a large organization are also startling. He had his own charity that directly involved kids from 4th grade to high school, and he basically had free run of campus resources for years. It really goes to show how people like this are very adept at covering themselves with a cloak of virtue and kindness, expressly for the purpose of gratifying themselves. So adept that they can act so boldly and yet escape justice for years.
3. What's most important, what is most relevant, is the coverup. That's one thing in the Church controversy that Catholics don't always get. It's not so much about the criminals or the crimes, it's the coverup by the authorities within the organization. The lack of a will to take the matter to police, really rankles. When this happens within the Church, it especially offends secularists because the Catholic Church has in the past, maintained it's own clerical law and attempted to protect it's clergy from civil authorities. The existence of the Vatican State allows this to continue (Cardinal Law) sometimes.
But, to be fair, here we have a completely secular case and the exact same thing happened. Why? I can only guess that officials didn't want to disgrace the organization with a scandal. Any rational outsider can see how short-sighted (the eventual scandal was magnified at least 10 fold), and just plain wrong this was. They had to have been aware that children were in real danger, for over 10 years, yet they did nothing besides bar him from taking children onto the main campus. One could argue that Joe Paterno technically did the right thing (in a bare minimum sense) by reporting a known incident to the athletic director immediately. Yet he'll be ending his long and illustrious (I'm told) career under a cloud of disgrace because he did not do everything that he could to see the crime was reported to the police.
Rather than repeat the too-often quoted trope "power corrupts", I'd say that this is evidence that power messes with ones priorities. It changes your perception of right and wrong. Every one who is under scrutiny at Penn State had a chance to do the right thing, but put the image of the school ahead of the safety of innocents. Much the same as the Catholic Church, in past and present. The major difference between the two is that public scrutiny following criminal charges has been much quicker and more efficient in holding those individuals responsible, than the focus on the Vatican over the past several years. Penn state is reacting immediately to popular condemnation. The Vatican continues to obfuscate investigates, and issues nothing but double-talk statements, apologising but offering no real accountability.
1. The line occasionally used by Catholics - that while it's a serious problem within the Church, the media goes out of it's way to blow up the controversy for the sake of discrediting Her - is shown to be false. The situation here is virtually identical to a Priest molestation case, just lacking the elements of faith, church and clergy. It's every bit as sensational news, and the blowback has got to be at least equal, pound-for-pound, as each individual Priest molestation case.
2. The parallels regarding how this guy positioned himself in such a way as to have access to kids, and also access to the vast resources of a large organization are also startling. He had his own charity that directly involved kids from 4th grade to high school, and he basically had free run of campus resources for years. It really goes to show how people like this are very adept at covering themselves with a cloak of virtue and kindness, expressly for the purpose of gratifying themselves. So adept that they can act so boldly and yet escape justice for years.
3. What's most important, what is most relevant, is the coverup. That's one thing in the Church controversy that Catholics don't always get. It's not so much about the criminals or the crimes, it's the coverup by the authorities within the organization. The lack of a will to take the matter to police, really rankles. When this happens within the Church, it especially offends secularists because the Catholic Church has in the past, maintained it's own clerical law and attempted to protect it's clergy from civil authorities. The existence of the Vatican State allows this to continue (Cardinal Law) sometimes.
But, to be fair, here we have a completely secular case and the exact same thing happened. Why? I can only guess that officials didn't want to disgrace the organization with a scandal. Any rational outsider can see how short-sighted (the eventual scandal was magnified at least 10 fold), and just plain wrong this was. They had to have been aware that children were in real danger, for over 10 years, yet they did nothing besides bar him from taking children onto the main campus. One could argue that Joe Paterno technically did the right thing (in a bare minimum sense) by reporting a known incident to the athletic director immediately. Yet he'll be ending his long and illustrious (I'm told) career under a cloud of disgrace because he did not do everything that he could to see the crime was reported to the police.
Rather than repeat the too-often quoted trope "power corrupts", I'd say that this is evidence that power messes with ones priorities. It changes your perception of right and wrong. Every one who is under scrutiny at Penn State had a chance to do the right thing, but put the image of the school ahead of the safety of innocents. Much the same as the Catholic Church, in past and present. The major difference between the two is that public scrutiny following criminal charges has been much quicker and more efficient in holding those individuals responsible, than the focus on the Vatican over the past several years. Penn state is reacting immediately to popular condemnation. The Vatican continues to obfuscate investigates, and issues nothing but double-talk statements, apologising but offering no real accountability.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Idea for Blog Event
I've got a topic - a sort of dilemma - that I want to throw out. I've been wondering about the ethics of voting in a primary. I've been thinking about this for a while, since the GOP campaign started.
My dilemma is this. One would think that the ethical way to vote is to vote for best candidate for the office in question. Right? But I keep finding myself rooting for someone like Herman Cain, or Michelle Bachman. I want to support a candidate for the GOP nomination, who is not only bad, but is well loved by the Tea Party. I want this person to go on to the general election and lose a brutally one-sided race to Obama. I don't want to see some plastic, generalist candidate like Romney get nominated. If he were to lose, the Tea Party (and establishment) would simply conclude that he wasn't sufficiently conservative, and they'd go on with the current insane course of action.
I want a ridiculous Tea Party cartoon candidate to get brutally raped by the American People in a landslide loss. I see it as the only way of killing the political movement that's grinding the system to a halt.
But is it ethical to do that? If I did that with Palin (were she running), and she ended up winning because of an unfortunately timed double-dip depression, wouldn't I be guilty?
My topic is this. What are the ethics of voting? Are they different in a primary rather than a general election? Must a person always be sincere in casting his vote? Or should the process just be seen as a way of getting a point across? Is it ever permissible to vote against something, by way of voting for it's opponent?
Let me know if you think you'd want to write on this. If we're all in agreement, I'll set a date (maybe a week out).
My dilemma is this. One would think that the ethical way to vote is to vote for best candidate for the office in question. Right? But I keep finding myself rooting for someone like Herman Cain, or Michelle Bachman. I want to support a candidate for the GOP nomination, who is not only bad, but is well loved by the Tea Party. I want this person to go on to the general election and lose a brutally one-sided race to Obama. I don't want to see some plastic, generalist candidate like Romney get nominated. If he were to lose, the Tea Party (and establishment) would simply conclude that he wasn't sufficiently conservative, and they'd go on with the current insane course of action.
I want a ridiculous Tea Party cartoon candidate to get brutally raped by the American People in a landslide loss. I see it as the only way of killing the political movement that's grinding the system to a halt.
But is it ethical to do that? If I did that with Palin (were she running), and she ended up winning because of an unfortunately timed double-dip depression, wouldn't I be guilty?
My topic is this. What are the ethics of voting? Are they different in a primary rather than a general election? Must a person always be sincere in casting his vote? Or should the process just be seen as a way of getting a point across? Is it ever permissible to vote against something, by way of voting for it's opponent?
Let me know if you think you'd want to write on this. If we're all in agreement, I'll set a date (maybe a week out).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)