A post I saw yesterday:
Thoughts for disgruntled and disillusioned non-voters: When you chose to avoid voting you're not only letting down yourself and your loved ones but also every vulnerable person in your community. Waiting for the perfect politician or the perfect political party is foolish and shows an immature mind because no one and nothing in life is perfect. We can and should always strive for better but expecting perfection is a fool's goal and waste of energy. #'Voting—it is your duty.
I respectfully disagree, because I consider that post not “thoughts for” nonvoters but “thoughts about” (or “thoughts against”) nonvoters. I am not including the name of the person who posted those thoughts to reduce the chance that my disagreement is mistaken for, or transforms into, a personal attack. We've all seen how often that happens online!
I respect feelings. My goal every moment is to feel good. Respecting myself and others equally is an important element of that. So when I disagree with someone it means that I feel differently than they do. I can take a silent moment inside myself to verify my feelings. If I continue to disagree then what? Does this disagreement cause harm? Do I need to understand it? Do I feel that I need to comment?
I'm commenting on the above because I have decided to write reflections on the current US elections. I agree with the principles expressed in the above post, except the way that it treats nonvoters. So I agree with everything about that post except its existence. Why? I do not believe that it is an appeal to nonvoters. I read it as an attack on them, a shaming. I do not believe shame elicits good results.
There are two points of view here for me to respect. First the poster. I believe this post is an expression of fear and hope. Someone with strong belief in community posted this. They seem to feel angst towards those who do not share in their view of community. I respect this view & this person's reasons for having these feelings. As I've said their opinions are close to my own. Further away are the people this post claims to be speaking to, the nonvoters. I do not agree with their behavior nowadays but I have been a nonvoter in the past. If someone had come at me hard, telling me that it was my duty to vote, I probably would have pretended to agree to get them to go away, and then still not voted. And I would have felt angry, that people communicating in that way are trying to control others. At that time, when I felt so disconnected, I wanted to be listened to. It takes more time and effort to listen than it does to tell someone what they must do.
I say all this as someone who has been on every side of such communications. I’ve been the disaffected and I’ve been the preacher. I now believe the only way to encourage change is to model it. The only way to advance freedom is to give it.
Since I said that I largely share the sentiments in the original post, here's how I might express them (longer, of course!):
If you are a disgruntled and disillusioned nonvoter, I get it. I was once one myself. All journeys are different so I won't say that I know what you think. I know what I felt — disconnected and cynical. Those are justifiable feelings in the US. I did not believe the “lesser of 2 evils” was enough to make things better for myself, my loved ones, or the most vulnerable. Sometimes I still don't. Improvements are marginal. The most significant improvement I've experienced is inside myself. Now I am willing to believe that I can be in community with fellow citizens. It isn't about candidates or parties but each other. I still disagree with most of what my country stands for in its past and present. I vote for the viable candidates most likely to nudge things towards a future that I want. I vote because I reject violence. Voting is the easiest way for me to support positive change. Looking back, there have been positive changes. And if a few voters who sat out had participated there may have been much greater improvements. The Supreme Court is causing great suffering because Trump appointed one-third of it. Two other extremist justices, including the powerful chief justice, were appointed by W. Bush. In the 2000 election I voted for Ralph Nader, in Florida. Gore wasn't left enough for me, and I didn't like his personality. Not only the Supreme Court would be better if Gore had been president, but the country would have started working towards fighting climate catastrophe. I have voted in every election since then.
I think I may go post that right now ;)
I believe that arguments as stated in the original quoted post are to convince oneself. And they may be effective in that. I have spoken on this before and I will again.
I am currently choosing this spot for my politically-inspired writing that does not fit into previously defined categories. I am working towards establishing one site to compile all my content, the way an internet profile should be able to do. The closest that I have right now is the link aggregator https://rmiddleton.art
By Rob Middleton who can be reached @[email protected] on Mastodon