We are not barcoded at birth with an indelible political party affiliation: This choice usually comes into focus only after several stages of intrapersonal development have been achieved.
The initial stage is acquiring a rudimentary “sense of self,” followed by the evolution of “common sense.” At a later stage, a robust and encompassing common sense is enriched by the addition of an “internal moral compass.” As adults, in possession of this finely tuned intrapersonal skill set (sense of self, common sense, and internal moral compass) cultivated throughout our lives, the question becomes: What is this skill set really well-suited for?
Well, employ it judiciously when voting! How? During any election, you can now confidently cast your ballot, because you have the skills to adequately assess the claims made by politicians of all parties. However, are these collective skills sophisticated/insightful enough to identify troublesome conundrums?
Say, for example, in the upcoming 2022 mid-term elections, your initial “sole” purpose was to vote for the Republican candidate who vehemently advocated for a ban on all abortion procedures. You later learn that same candidate had once paid for his girlfriend’s abortion and, when questioned about it, lied.
Your moral compass responds. How can I vote for someone who has lied and will probably do so again? Therefore, while your initial “laser-focus” was on supporting a ban on abortion, you apparently lost the ability to identify other important aspects of your Republican candidate’s/party’s platform, including that climate change and vaccines are hoaxes, Social Security/Medicare should be reduced or eliminated, the rich should pay less in taxes, health care and voting rights should be restricted, etc.
Do all these other issues, when added together, outweigh your desire to ban abortions, or do they collectively matter less? Given that these measures directly affect the lives of all citizens, coupled with the fact that these additional measures, if enacted, often go against your own self-interest, would you still support the Republican candidate? Engaging your skill set allows you to reject your initial Republican candidate and, subsequently with good conscience, support another political candidate who champions major issues relevant to your own self-interest, as well as those of all Americans. However, your ability to vote must never be taken for granted. Why?
In light of the Jan. 6 insurrection and efforts by Republicans to suppress voting rights, the mid-term elections of 2022 may herald a watershed moment in American democracy. Why? The Republican Party is supporting “a once-fringe constitutional theory that would give state legislatures (all but absolute control) over elections,” according to The Week magazine (Oct. 14, 2022). If this theory is enacted into law, a candidate with the most votes may not be declared the winner if Republicans’ control state legislatures. Common sense mandates this type of legislative control is wrong. Your moral compass points to it being unjust. What is fair and just may not always be convenient to you on a personal/political level, but your “vote” should always enforce majority will. Voting must be straightforward and simple: The candidate securing the most votes is the officeholder. Therefore, when voting, use your skills to select candidates advocating for and promoting issues of interest to you and the majority of your fellow citizens.
Again, why?
Because, your skill set must always be the controlling factor in deciding issues of significance to the majority of citizens, even when those choices override a single issue of vital concern to you personally. Therefore, the priority in the Nov. 8 election, and in all future elections, must be to support candidates/party platforms that promote the basic cornerstones of a true democracy, like the will of the majority.
Harpswell resident John M. Mishler is a former professor of natural sciences and dean of graduate studies and research at the University of Maryland.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
