The dangers of voter apathy
Since I am such an advocate of not participating in the electoral process in this country, I am often asked my opinion on the fact that many people consider people that don't vote either lazy or apathetic. My usual answer is that I simply don't care what other people think about my not voting. While this is true, I do believe voter apathy is a problem, but not in the manner most people think. The truth is, if more Americans were able to take voting seriously, fewer would stray within a mile of a voting booth.
Nicholas Strakon, a noted libertarian (note the lower case "l") writer says:
"The very fact that many people learn nothing from their first foray into the voting booth but keep coming back election after election, despite betrayal after betrayal by previous winning candidates they've voted for, is sufficient demonstration that they don't take voting seriously at all. They cannot have devoted two minutes' serious thought to voting and its consequences, or lack thereof."
Almost nothing about the electoral process in this country is given to freedom of choice. Look at the current presidential election. Virtually everyone would agree there are only two candidates with a chance of being elected: George Bush and John Kerry, or, as Kurt Nimmo likes to call them, Bush and "Bush Lite."
How did these two people come to be the only two viable candidates? Of course, Bush is the incumbent President. A relatively small number of Republicans, backed by corporate money and special interest groups, decided back in 2000 that he was the man that best served their interests, and the rest of the party went along. Bush Lite went through a similar process this year. A few Democrats, who just like the Republicans that chose Bush, were more or less instructed by the special interest groups and corporations that fund them to annoint Bush Lite as the candidate of choice. The rest of the party subsequently fell in line with what the ruling class told them to do.
This makes things significantly easier for the apathetic voter. Instead of having to pore through pages and hours of analysis and quotes by particular candidates that might represent a myriad of viewpoints, now the apathetic voter only has to choose between two candidates. And to make things even easier, they are virtually indistinguishable! How convenient!
While it is true that none of the carefully selected ruling-party candidates on the ballot would be able to think or move "outside the box" if elected, even if they suffered a mental breakdown and attempted to do so, the ruling class usually permits officeholders some freedom of movement within "the box." For example, we might see more on the healthcare totalitarianism front from Bush Lite than we would from Bush; and more on the corporate welfare front from Bush than from Bush Lite.
These minor differences allow the apathetic voter to have some measure of hope that their vote is meaningful. Even if the apathetic voter doesn't agree with everything their candidate of choice supports, they can rest easy in their belief they are at least choosing "the lesser of two evils." Meanwhile, the ruling class is content in the knowledge that their portion of the apathetic voters are properly and appropriately submitting. To quote Strakon again: "The act of an individual in voting is not meaningful in its consequences for the fate of the regime and its functionaries, but it is meaningful as an act of fealty to that regime."
Voting is meaningful -- horribly so -- for the voter himself and for his moral standing. From the standpoint of the individual, voting is not effective for sanctioning one or another candidate and his future actions, as I've shown; but it is effective for sanctioning the whole apparatus of permanent rule and one's own permanent role as one of the ruled. Habitual voters like to tell conscientious non-voters that if they don't vote, they have no business complaining about what happens later. If anything, the reverse is true.
Sanctioning the regime -- that's the aspect of voting that people ought to take seriously. It's the aspect that the regime itself takes seriously. Those who own the regime never worry about voting being too easy, as they would if voting could in any way threaten the institutionalized oppression, injustice, and banditry of the regime. No, they worry about voting not being easy enough. Every election cycle, the regime goes out of its way to make voting easier, cheaper, more irresponsible, and more painless. In a few years most voters may be casting their ballots by mail, computer or telephone.
The regime exerts itself along those lines because ever more Americans, especially young Americans, are rejecting voting as an empty, unsatisfying ritual and no seemly endeavor for a serious man; but as many as half of those who are eligible do still turn out for some elections. Voting is the only form of citizenship, or apparent citizenship, that most people have been told about, and that's part of what pushes them to the polls. But that push might prove too weak if, in their heart of hearts, they didn't think voting was safe and harmless. The emptiness of the ritual doesn't repel that species of voter -- the "minimalist citizen," let's call him -- for emptiness is exactly what he wants.
Voting doesn't seem to carry the same kind of risk other political acts do, acts such as standing up and bearing witness, spurning leviathan's bribes, telling truth to Power, ostracizing servants of the regime, or unfurling a banner of defiance. We often learn some of the actual costs of government, the cost of war for example, but people should also learn actual costs of voting. Although voting cannot earn the rewards of more honest, full-blooded political acts, it does entail serious risk: risk to the voter -- to their character -- to their self-respect. Voting is an apathetic bow of obeisance to their rulers.
Nicholas Strakon, a noted libertarian (note the lower case "l") writer says:
"The very fact that many people learn nothing from their first foray into the voting booth but keep coming back election after election, despite betrayal after betrayal by previous winning candidates they've voted for, is sufficient demonstration that they don't take voting seriously at all. They cannot have devoted two minutes' serious thought to voting and its consequences, or lack thereof."
Almost nothing about the electoral process in this country is given to freedom of choice. Look at the current presidential election. Virtually everyone would agree there are only two candidates with a chance of being elected: George Bush and John Kerry, or, as Kurt Nimmo likes to call them, Bush and "Bush Lite."
How did these two people come to be the only two viable candidates? Of course, Bush is the incumbent President. A relatively small number of Republicans, backed by corporate money and special interest groups, decided back in 2000 that he was the man that best served their interests, and the rest of the party went along. Bush Lite went through a similar process this year. A few Democrats, who just like the Republicans that chose Bush, were more or less instructed by the special interest groups and corporations that fund them to annoint Bush Lite as the candidate of choice. The rest of the party subsequently fell in line with what the ruling class told them to do.
This makes things significantly easier for the apathetic voter. Instead of having to pore through pages and hours of analysis and quotes by particular candidates that might represent a myriad of viewpoints, now the apathetic voter only has to choose between two candidates. And to make things even easier, they are virtually indistinguishable! How convenient!
While it is true that none of the carefully selected ruling-party candidates on the ballot would be able to think or move "outside the box" if elected, even if they suffered a mental breakdown and attempted to do so, the ruling class usually permits officeholders some freedom of movement within "the box." For example, we might see more on the healthcare totalitarianism front from Bush Lite than we would from Bush; and more on the corporate welfare front from Bush than from Bush Lite.
These minor differences allow the apathetic voter to have some measure of hope that their vote is meaningful. Even if the apathetic voter doesn't agree with everything their candidate of choice supports, they can rest easy in their belief they are at least choosing "the lesser of two evils." Meanwhile, the ruling class is content in the knowledge that their portion of the apathetic voters are properly and appropriately submitting. To quote Strakon again: "The act of an individual in voting is not meaningful in its consequences for the fate of the regime and its functionaries, but it is meaningful as an act of fealty to that regime."
Voting is meaningful -- horribly so -- for the voter himself and for his moral standing. From the standpoint of the individual, voting is not effective for sanctioning one or another candidate and his future actions, as I've shown; but it is effective for sanctioning the whole apparatus of permanent rule and one's own permanent role as one of the ruled. Habitual voters like to tell conscientious non-voters that if they don't vote, they have no business complaining about what happens later. If anything, the reverse is true.
Sanctioning the regime -- that's the aspect of voting that people ought to take seriously. It's the aspect that the regime itself takes seriously. Those who own the regime never worry about voting being too easy, as they would if voting could in any way threaten the institutionalized oppression, injustice, and banditry of the regime. No, they worry about voting not being easy enough. Every election cycle, the regime goes out of its way to make voting easier, cheaper, more irresponsible, and more painless. In a few years most voters may be casting their ballots by mail, computer or telephone.
The regime exerts itself along those lines because ever more Americans, especially young Americans, are rejecting voting as an empty, unsatisfying ritual and no seemly endeavor for a serious man; but as many as half of those who are eligible do still turn out for some elections. Voting is the only form of citizenship, or apparent citizenship, that most people have been told about, and that's part of what pushes them to the polls. But that push might prove too weak if, in their heart of hearts, they didn't think voting was safe and harmless. The emptiness of the ritual doesn't repel that species of voter -- the "minimalist citizen," let's call him -- for emptiness is exactly what he wants.
Voting doesn't seem to carry the same kind of risk other political acts do, acts such as standing up and bearing witness, spurning leviathan's bribes, telling truth to Power, ostracizing servants of the regime, or unfurling a banner of defiance. We often learn some of the actual costs of government, the cost of war for example, but people should also learn actual costs of voting. Although voting cannot earn the rewards of more honest, full-blooded political acts, it does entail serious risk: risk to the voter -- to their character -- to their self-respect. Voting is an apathetic bow of obeisance to their rulers.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home