Howdy,
This pamphlet is meant to help non-voters and perhaps third-party voters get through the 2016 election season. Welcome.
Because I’m sure this will be read by many voters, let me tell you what this isn’t: This isn’t an argument that YOU shouldn’t vote or an argument about how you should vote. It’s your right, and if it’s something you want to do, you should do it however you please. I don’t seek to take that away from anyone. I’m not an asshole. If you like chocolate donuts, I’m not going to run up to you, slap the donut out of your hand and tell you how many calories it has. I’m not going to do that because that is a waste of a perfectly good donut, and also because more than one thing can be true at a time. Yes, a donut is high in calories. Yes, it’s also delicious and fun to eat. Two things, both true.
I have some things to say that, for me, are true when it comes to voting. These things may not be true for you. Two ideas, both true.
This pamphlet is not for people who are too lazy to vote or who don’t care about politics. It’s for people who actively choose to not vote or to make a voting choice that others might deem worthless.
Voting is a choice. Not voting is also a choice. Voting for a third party is a choice that has meaning.
Throughout, voting third party and abstaining are used in different arguments. This is because I think that abstaining is a legitimate choice, and also because I see arguments against voting third party that tread the same ground as arguments against abstention. In both cases, you’ll be told “You’re throwing your vote away.”
This pamphlet is structured as arguments that others will make, telling you to vote, and responses to those arguments.
Keep in mind, a lot of this is my opinion. You’re 100% right to disagree with and dislike these opinions. I cite sources here and there, but those are to explain where I’m coming from, not to change anyone’s mind, not an attempt to objectively prove that anyone shouldn’t vote.
Because, truthfully, my goal isn’t to change anyone’s mind and convince them not to vote or how to vote. My goal to change some minds and convince them that not voting or voting for a third party can be a thoughtful, reasonable thing to do, even if it doesn’t align with their personal values.
Basically, the problem I’m having is that when you tell people you don’t vote or that the person you’re voting for isn’t one of the top two choices, they freak the fuck out. This may not always be a good way to react.
As one quick note, I’m using Clinton/Trump in here because that’s where we’re at. I don’t endorse either candidate here, and I don’t mean to shit on one candidate or another. Well, okay. Maybe just a light shitting on. I can’t help it.
Let’s do this.
Argument: Voting Is Not Just A Right. It’s your duty.
This is untrue, factually.
Look at the definitions of “duty.” Here’s the simple version from Merriam-Webster:
: something that is done as part of a job
: something that you must do because it is morally right or because the law requires it
That first definition obviously does not provide for voting being classified as a duty. Let’s toss it out.
As to the second, there is no one who will be arrested for not voting. Your workplace can’t fire you for abstaining from voting. These things don’t mean that it’s correct to abstain from voting, but to say that it’s a duty is untrue. It’s not a duty.
Whether it’s a moral obligation is a bigger question, and we’ll get to that as we go further. But first, let’s look at the non-legal, spirit of the truth in this case.
Let’s ask the question, Why ISN’T voting a requirement? It could be. It could be like the census or paying taxes or any number of other legally-required, more complicated things that we Americans do. I just had to get an emissions test, and this was a lot more of a nuisance than voting. The process of emissions testing doesn’t seem that important when it comes to cars that are relatively new. Yet, it’s required. It’s required that you do an emissions test so that you can get those little (required) stickers on your (required) license plate. Why do I need those little stickers? I really don’t know. Other than “It keeps me from being pulled over,” I have no reason that those stickers are important.
My point here is that we are required to do a lot of things that are more complicated, more hassle, more pointless, and more confusing than voting.
So, is there a good reason that voting is not required of all people? And, if voting were absolutely necessary for progress to occur, why wouldn’t it be required of us?
My belief is that voting isn’t required because your vote is an endorsement. When you vote, you are endorsing a candidate. You are not required to endorse something you don’t believe in.
There is a lot of debate right now about a football player who chooses not to respect the national anthem, an act of non-endorsement. My feeling is that people are indeed free to choose what they will and won’t endorse, and the vast majority endorsing a thing does not make it a duty for us all.
Argument: What About Making The World A Better Place? Isn’t That Everyone’s Duty?
If we’re going to talk about duty as in making the world a better place for everyone, I think there are lots of ways you can (and likely do) make the world better that exceed the power of your singular vote (more on this soon).
Do you volunteer regularly? Because I think that has more impact on your life and the life of others than your vote. Do you make the choice, every time you get in the car, to leave your phone alone? Because that has far more potential impact on the safety of your community than your vote. 1 out of 4 car accidents is the result of texting while driving. 9 people are killed every day in the U.S. because of an accident involving a distracted driver.
Waiting to send that hilarious tweet about Donald Trump until you get out of the car has a stronger effect on your community than your vote will.
Making the world a better place is definitely everyone’s duty. I think there are arguments to be made about voting being one of the weaker ways in which this is accomplished.
Argument: It Can Be Both. You Can Do Nice Things For Your Community AND Vote.
Yes, I agree with this.
My purpose in bringing it up, I feel that when someone says it’s your duty to vote, they are discounting things you may already be doing in the community or trying to invalidate your care or concern for the world you live in. I volunteer regularly. I feel good about my contributions to the community. If someone were to compare voting once every four years to the…approximately 150 or so hours of volunteering I’ve done over the last few years, I would feel that there’s a mismatch there.
I’m not fuckin’ Ghandi. I’m not Mother Teresa. I’m not someone who has devoted his life to a cause. On the other hand, I’m not a total sloth in the community betterment department either. I make it a point to seek out volunteer opportunities. I make it a point to not text while I drive. Again, I’m not Superman. I’m not expecting a pat on the back. It’s not to say, “I volunteer and therefore don’t need to vote.” It’s saying, “Please don’t attack me with the idea that I don’t care about the community I live in. I clearly do, and here’s the proof.”
Argument: It’s Not About Your Vote, It’s About Everyone’s Vote Piling Up To Mean Something More.
I agree with that. No single vote means a thing.
Isn’t that kind of what I’m saying here? That my vote doesn’t mean anything?
Argument: What If Everyone Was Like You And Didn’t Vote?
That’s a hypothetical that’s untrue. This scenario does not exist. There is nothing I can do that would then spread so widely that a significant number of others will follow me, thereby swaying an election.
If everyone thought like me, we would have elected a third party president a couple times by now. Very few people think like me. This is proven fact.
If everyone thought like me, or if I had the power to persuade others, Pepsi would not exist and Coke would be everywhere. This has not happened and doesn’t seem to be close to happening.
And it’s a damn good thing. I would HATE to live in a world where everyone thought like me. That would be terribly boring, and we would all be shitty at mental math.
I’m talking about the reality of the fact that my singular vote isn’t meaningful, which is a statistically-proven fact. The counter argument being a hypothetical that has never been and never will be true doesn’t do a whole lot for me.
Argument: Rock the vote!
We talk good game about Rock The Vote, the campaign about everyone getting out and voting. But the truth is, in your heart of hearts, if you wanted everyone to vote, the outcome would please you if everyone voted, regardless of what that outcome was. If you really believe that everyone should vote, that means that you believe in the democratic process, and you believe that whoever won, when all votes were counted, that winner of the majority votes was the “right” person.
I don’t think this person exists. The person who thinks that the one who gets the most votes is the right one. I think we all want the person we want in office to get the most votes.
I’m sure someone reading this right now is saying, “I’m that person. I believe that if everyone voted, the outcome would be good.” But I’m also sure that person believes that the person she would vote for is also the person the vast majority would vote for as well.
Consider briefly a world where everyone voted. Consider what you would think if voter turnout were 100%, and how you would feel if that 100% turnout resulted in getting a candidate you loathed.
Or, consider a world where a very minuscule number of people voted. If three people in the entire country voted, if it was you, one person who agreed with you 100%, and one person who disagreed with you, and therefore everything you voted for went the way you wanted…would this outcome upset you? Yes, I understand you would be upset about the low turnout, but would you prefer this low-turnout scenario where you got what you wanted to a scenario with excellent, enthusiastic voter turnout where you got almost nothing you wanted?
Rock the Vote is the slogan, but it should be Rock The Vote As I See Fit.
Argument: Not Voting For Clinton Is The Same As Voting For Trump.
I don’t agree with that. I think that’s rhetoric used to scare people into voting for a specific candidate. In this case, Hillary Clinton. In other elections, other candidates.
Voting third party or not at all is not the same as voting for Trump. We’ve set up this false dichotomy, the idea that it’s one or the other. Which it is. The President will be Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. But that doesn’t mean you must endorse one or the other. It doesn’t mean you have to believe in one or the other.
It’s a false dilemma. When one sets up an argument such that there are only two possible answers presented, when in reality there are multiple answers. This is creating a false, hyped-up, black and white choice when the truth is that the question is far more nuanced, as are the possible answers.
I’m going to lay it out like this. I was part of a hiring team for this internship program at my job. We had candidates selected for us by the internship program, and we got to interview those candidates and select the one we thought was best. Which worked out great, but one of the caveats I asked about was whether we were obligated to hire one of the candidates once we got to the interview stage. In other words, if we didn’t find a candidate that was suitable, did we just have to pick the one that was MOST suitable?
The answer, of course, was No. If we didn’t like ANY of the job candidates, we could elect to interview another pool or forgo an intern.
This is how these types of processes should work. We are not obligated to pick from what we find to be an unsatisfactory pool. We can ask for more options or simply abstain. And this is how it works for a single high school intern at a smallish company. Should we not also be up to that standard for arguably the most important job in the country?
To me, not voting for Clinton is not the same as voting for Trump. And I think this is a scare tactic. And I refuse to be scared into making a fear-based decision as I don’t think fear-based decisions often turn out to be wise ones.
Argument: If You Don’t Vote For Hillary Clinton, It’s Probably Because You’re A Sexist. Many Of The Arguments Against Her Are Rooted Deeply In Institutionalized Sexism.
I’m not a sexist, but you can believe what you’d like. I DO think that we too often try and dismiss the opinions of others by making these broad assumptions. If we label someone a sexist or a racist, then we don’t have to listen to anything they say anymore. It’s a very simple and convenient way to win an argument, but without ACTUALLY winning an argument or having a discussion. In fact, it’s a classic demonstration of an ad hominem attack, a method by which, rather than arguing a point, you attack someone’s character. Even if someone’s character is suspect, the truth of the matter is that you haven’t won the argument. In this example, even if you prove I’m a raging sexist, you still haven’t proven that voting for Hillary Clinton is a good choice. You’ve just proven I’m a sexist.
Plus, Jill Stein.
Argument: Not Voting Is Lazy.
Disagree. If I stood in line, waited to vote, and then stood in the booth and abstained on every ballot item, how different is that from voting for every candidate with the little (D) or (R) next to their name, filling in the sheet with no regard for anything other than party affiliation?
Abstaining can be lazy. It can be people who just are lazyasses. But if you look at your options, are dissatisfied and choose not to select one, I fail to see how that’s lazy.
This is the important distinction I see between people who don’t vote and people who choose not to vote. If you’ve looked into it, found the candidates not to your liking and chosen not to vote, that’s not the same thing as ignoring the campaigns entirely.
Argument: People Have Died For Your Right To Vote. People Have Suffered For What You Take For Granted.
This is true. And to paraphrase Chuck Klosterman, It’s a brave choice, but not necessarily a good one.
Also, if we’re being honest, this is a gross oversimplification of both military service and civil rights movements.
If we were going to talk about these movements and duties this way, then we’d also have to talk about a lot of other things that way. If I accept the premise that someone fought and died for my right to vote, then I also must accept the premise that someone fought and died for my right to own guns. I do not personally subscribe to the idea that because people have died in military service, I must own guns or at the very least, believe fully in the 2nd amendment. With all due respect to anyone who has made a sacrifice for my rights, I do not own guns and do not believe fully in the 2nd amendment. This is a view that I can express thanks to the 1st amendment, which I DO believe in wholly.
This is getting complicated.
We have ways of life, and those ways of life have been protected and expanded because of the work and sacrifice of many. However, that doesn’t mean those ways should stay the same forever. It also doesn’t mean that those who made the sacrifices necessarily want what you want. They may or may not feel very strongly about who should or should not be in office. They should feel strongly. They’re people.
Which is really the core problem with this mode of thinking. Veterans are people, but they have been used by politicians for a long time, on both sides. As if their sacrifices weren’t enough, they’re hauled on stage to stump, sometimes with stumps where limbs used to be, for candidates that have done very little to improve their circumstances when they come home. They’ve done very little to prevent the deployment of others.
And when a veteran takes the stage for a candidate, they’re being abused. They are being used as a stand-in for “the military.” This guy was in the Army, he supports me, therefore, if you support our troops, you should support him by voting for me.
And rights, the beauty of them is that they are there when we need them. I have the right to an attorney. I’ve never used that right, but that doesn’t mean it’s unimportant to me. That doesn’t mean I’m not damn glad it exists.
I mean no disrespect to anyone, and I have respect for the fact that the sacrifice of many means that I have the right to make my own choices. They may not be good choices, they may not be the same choices those folks would have made, but by actively choosing not to vote or to vote for a third party, I think I’m exercising my right, just in different, non-traditional ways.
Argument: Must Be Nice Not To Care About Stuff Because You’re A Straight White Male. The Rest Of Us Have A Stake In This.
Don’t get me wrong. I have a stake in it. If you’d like, you can dismiss me this way and assume that all of this discussion comes down to “I don’t give a shit, I’m white. I go on my yachts and party.”
The truth is, in my opinion, I have stake in the outcomes. Maybe you don’t agree with that, and if that’s the case, then I think you’re making the argument for me. If the outcome is meaningless to me, if it doesn’t have meaning either for me personally or meaning for me because I can see how outcomes affect others, then voting seems like a pointless exercise.
But if we can allow that I just might have stake in the outcomes, that still doesn’t mean that voting is the path to realizing those outcomes. Because, to me, the outcome isn’t who is elected, it’s what happens after that.
I’m more lefty than Barack Obama on 90% of issues. And Hillary Clinton. Obviously, I disagree on Trump when it comes to most everything. I still don’t understand what the deal is with Republicans and navy suits.
I think Affordable Health Care doesn’t go far enough. In fact, the way this works at my workplace, my company has decided to not go by the rules of the ACH and instead pay the penalty every year. So, my healthcare is no more affordable than before, and a company with the money can just lazily get around it, and I STILL think this is a force for good, that insurance companies are a prime example of capitalism’s failings, and that medical costs are completely outrageous.
I think all people should be allowed to get married. I think the death of the middle class is evident in so many ways. I think Guantanamo Bay should be closed.
And it’s not.
One of Barack Obama’s initial acts, he said, would be to close Gitmo. And it’s currently operating. As of this writing, there are 76 detainees still held there. As of 2009, 4 detainees died in custody there. [https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/gtmo-by-the-numbers.pdf]
I understand, I get it, it’s hard to do things as President. My point is that the outcomes sometimes work, and sometimes they don’t. Sometimes we close a Gitmo, and sometimes we don’t. Sometimes we put in AHC, and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.
Even when we get the President we want, we don’t get the outcomes we want.
And that’s a problem. It’s problematic that elected officials are not held to a standard of getting promised work done. I can’t go into work, promise a boatload of huge things, and accomplish very few of them.
I want outcomes. I want more. But I don’t think either of the primary candidates is progressive enough for me. They don’t share my top goals. And I don’t think voting is getting me what I want.
To perhaps put this another way, I feel like finding creative ways to demand things like the closing of Gitmo will have more impact than electing a candidate who promises the same thing.
Or, to put it in a more defeatist way, I genuinely believe that if you could prove to the candidates that a certain action would guarantee them two terms, they would do it. Even if they felt that it was against their beliefs or proposed work, I think that if they knew somehow that a single act would clinch the job, they’d do it.
Deciding not to vote for either of the top two candidates is not a decision made by shrugging shoulders and saying, “Meh, screw it.” It’s a decision made by weighing the options and the issues and seeing that neither of the top candidates feel somewhat the same way you do.
Argument: How Can You Abstain When It Takes 5 Minutes?
It does not take 5 minutes. It takes 5 minutes to fill out the ballot. It takes ages to figure out the truth about the people on that ballot.
Following political news is nearly impossible. People will tell you “You just need to find the right sources,” and then follow with a list of sources that are beloved by people with their same political viewpoints. I’ve been directed to Nate Silver several times. Though I think he’s a good writer, he’s clearly picked a team. Al Jazeera. NPR. Fox. ABC. NBC. I’m sorry, but they’ve all picked a team, and it’s one of two teams.
This might sound lazy to you, and so be it. I don’t have 30 minutes per day in the months leading up to an election to devote to ferreting out the truth about candidates. Which is what I think it would take. I don’t have time to hear a quote from a candidate cited 20 times and spend the 20 minutes to trace it back and hear the ACTUAL quote in context. The number of times this has happened in this election, I don’t have time for that bullshit.
And if you bristle at that and want to disagree, I would ask how many of you slept 8 hours, exercised 20 minutes, and ate 3 good meals 4 out of the last 5 days. Probably not many of us.
The point being, it’s very easy to tell someone else how they should spend their time and how to find this time in their schedule.
Argument: With A Mail-In ballot, There’s No Excuse.
I’m so glad you/I brought that up.
For all the times you’ve sent in a mail-in ballot, how many times have you gone to the trouble of confirming that your ballot arrived and was counted? Secondary question: Did you even know that was a thing you could do?
Hey, it’s only, allegedly, one of the most important things people do. Surely it’s impossible that your ballot would not arrive at its destination. Why even check? You voted! You’re done! Obligation complete.
While you’re celebrating what a good person you are, a couple facts: Did you know that there are several common reasons that mail-in ballots are rejected, which, in 2012, resulted in over 250,000 ballots not being counted?
And did you know that the government is not obligated to make you aware that your ballot was not counted?
And for your edification, what are the top 6 reasons mail-in ballots were rejected in California in 2012?
▪The voter forgets to sign the ballot envelope, as required.
▪The voter sends the envelope back, but forgets to include the ballot.
▪The voter uses the wrong envelope.
▪The voter already voted in person.
▪The voter’s signature on the ballot envelope doesn’t match the one on file.
Yes. If your signature doesn’t match the one that’s on file, your vote may be rejected. Do you
remember when you signed your voter registration? How old were you? How many years ago
was that? Is it possible, even highly likely, that your signature has changed?
Ask yourself honestly: Did it even occur to me to check whether my mail-in ballot was received
and counted? Because if it hasn’t, I question the importance of your vote to you. I turn this right
back around. If my grandma sent me $20 bucks in the mail, you better believe I was waiting for
that envelope, ready to tear it open. Every day it didn’t come I was composing letters to the
postmaster general. Which I couldn’t send because I didn’t have the damn $20 for complaint
mail stamps.
I think most people would balk at the idea that their vote was worth less than $20. And yet…
It seems to me that the mail-in ballot is an easy way to check the mental “I Voted” box. And
what’s interesting to me is that not voting causes such a stir, and yet mail-in voting and NEVER
checking on your vote is standard practice. Choosing not to vote, on purpose, is somehow lazier
than putting something in the mail and never following up.
Argument: So You Just Don’t Care Who Is President?
Let me tell you the tale of the 2000 Presidential election in which Al Gore ran against George Bush.
George Bush won the election after getting 543,895 fewer votes than Al Gore. Why? Because of the electoral college.
For those who don’t know, the quick explanation is that the electoral college is a group of people who ACTUALLY decide who the President will be.
How is this acceptable? How are we okay with the fact that the will of the American people was blatantly ignored? Half a million people who voted didn’t count. And absolutely nothing about this system has changed in the 16 years since.
I feel like many of us have the idea in our heads that whoever gets the most votes wins. You know, sort of like the team that scores the most points in the Super Bowl wins, or the way that the person who crosses the finish line first in a 100m dash wins.
Can you imagine the level of outcry, the magnitude of the fuck-up that would need to happen for the winner of the Super Bowl to be the team that scored FEWER points? What would it take? The only possible way would be cheating on a level that the entire outcome was in question.
Coming back around to Presidents, how different would the world have been if we’d had Al Gore instead of George Bush? It’s all speculation, but I don’t have a problem saying that I think George Bush will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents we’ve ever had. And if he doesn’t, it’s simply because of a massive forgetting and convenient remembering of select facts, kind of like what we see with Reagan today.
I do care who is President. And so do millions of other people. But did we care SO MUCH that in 2000, or any of the years since, we actually demand that our decision is respected? Eh. Did we care enough that, in the 15+ years since, we’ve done something about this? Meh. Is there a reason that, in what seems to be a very tense election, we’re not talking about what we’ll do if we get the same result as we did in 2000? Feh.
I care. But only as much as anyone else.
Argument: But That Only Happened Because Ralph Nader Screwed It Up For Al Gore.
This is another thing that we’ve been told, I believe, to scare us off for voting third party.
Ralph Nader, Green Party candidate, received 2.74% of the vote, which was a good showing. He received 0 electoral college votes, as did all other third party candidates.
Gore already won the popular vote, and Nader voters almost certainly would have voted for Gore had they not voted for Nader. But Gore didn’t require their votes. They would have done him no good. Gore lost the election despite winning the popular vote, and I propose the premise that it’s impossible to definitively and accurately answer the question: What margin WOULD have been enough? How many more votes did Gore need over Bush, exactly, to win?
If Nader hadn’t existed, would Gore have won Florida and won the election? Possibly. I’m not being coy with that answer. This is a matter of harsh debate by people a lot smarter than I am. It’s not impossible that Gore would have won that election if people had voted for the candidate they didn’t actually want. It’s impossible to know for sure. However the fact of the matter, again, is that we also have to reconcile the aforementioned fact that the candidate who won the popular vote lost the election. We have to say to ourselves, “In a situation in which it’s close, we must not vote third party because the wrong person could still win because the true winner did not win by a wide enough margin, which is undefined.”
The fact is that the majority of Americans voted for a candidate, and because of an outdated, outmoded system, they did not get the president they picked, and somehow the blame for this is on Nader. Not the electoral college, not the people in the electoral college, not the American people, who took this decision and just let it slide. Nope, it’s Nader’s fault for having the audacity to try and become a third party President. To run a losing race.
I say no to the notion that third parties should not get to play. I think this is, in essence, telling third parties to shut the fuck up. To which I hope they say No as well.
Nader had every right to run, voters had every right to vote for him, and although this is the election we often use to demonstrate the “damage” caused by voting third party, I remain unconvinced.
Argument: Okay, Fine. Screw The Presidential Election. Forget That For A Second. It’s The More Local Stuff That Counts. Look At The State Level.
I count 2 third-party senators, 1 third-party member of the house of representatives, and 1 state that has a third-party governor.
There is an abysmal lack of doctors and scientists in congress.
I have voted almost exclusively third party in the past. For doctors and scientists. And it has made no difference. The people I vote for aren’t even listed in the results on the news. They have that slim a chance.
I’m a believer in playing a losing game to the finish, but I’m also a believer in watching out for times when you’re being placated.
This is where I sound totally nuts, so hang in there.
I really think a big part of voting, as it currently functions, is to make us feel like we’re doing something. To give us the illusion of control. To make us think that our voices matter.
The way I vote puts me in a category where my voice does not matter. Statistically, it does not.
I hear both celebrities and people close to me tell me that it does matter, and I need to get out there and vote. But when I see the results, I can say that my vote does not matter. It does not even get into fractions of percents. The statistical margin of error is higher than the total votes received by most of the candidates I’ve selected. They don’t win, they don’t run again, and I never hear about them again.
I don’t want to call others self-important. What I’ll say is that I think I have a realistic sense of how much my voice matters. Just in terms of math. Not in terms of me speaking or getting something off my chest. Just in the math.
And when I look at the numbers, I can’t say my vote is remotely statistically significant.
Argument: Abstain Or Go Third Party In A Different Election. Not This One. This One Is Important.
They’re all important. Aren’t they?
An important election is the MOST crucial time to vote for what you believe in, or not as the case may be.
I’m not a big believer in the efficacy of the two-party system. It seems to work okay most of the time, but I’d like something better. I’m demanding that way.
Might it take a hard loss by a Democratic candidate due to votes that moved third party to get everyone to wake the fuck up and stop voting based on party lines? It might. I honestly don’t see how else we’ll ever get a third party candidate as President in my lifetime. The last time it was even close was in 1912, and that only counts halfway as the candidate in question was Teddy Roosevelt, who switched parties and likely brought a lot of voters along with him when he made that switch.
Do I want four to eight years of Trump. Fuck no. Do I want something to happen that forces us to consider that there’s a problem with the current black and white nature of politics? Yes.
The more important an election, the more important it is to me that I do what I think is right.
Argument: Don’t You Want To Set A Good Example For The Youth?
Yes. And I do.
I used to coach high school athletes, and I found out, years after I’d quit doing so, that there was a rumor amongst some of the athletes that I would have athletes in my home and let them drink beers. And when I heard this, I was immediately upset. I wanted to know who had said it, what the context was. Because this was 100% untrue. I never provided alcohol to minors, and I rarely drank myself in this period. Because I wanted to set a good example.
But sometimes, I had a drink. With adults. Never with minors, extra never with athletes I coached. When amongst adults, in a legal and appropriate setting, I had a beer now and then.
There’s a line between being a good example and pushing bad habits and ideas on children. A thick line. It’s a line that allows for engaging in behaviors you choose to engage in as an adult, ostensibly aware of the consequences.
I drink a beer now and then. I don’t think kids should drink beer.
I have sex. I don’t think kids should have sex.
My thoughts on voting don’t really account for kids because they don’t have to.
And let me reassure you, I’m not going to be standing outside your polling place, screaming about how you’re a slave to the system or some crap like that. You’re not going to have to explain me to your child.
Children cannot vote. I suspect this is because they are easily influenced by forces like their parents and peers. Not that adults are a whole lot better.
I don’t really engage in political discussions with kids. In fact, I’m pretty comfortable saying I never engage in political discussions with kids. I barely do this with adults.
I would not encourage kids to think voting is lame or square or for L7 weenies. I would encourage kids to think for themselves and not be afraid if they find that their ideals don’t fall within one of two predefined political parties.
If I were someone who kids looked up to, a large number of kids, yes, it would be a more difficult question. My endorsement might mean something. But I am not. As much as I try to influence the world of fashion and popular music, I don’t have a big impact on the youths.
This argument would, potentially, hold more water for me if I were in a position where I was conveying my message to kids or was someone looked up to by kids, who might cause kids to follow simply by acting. But I’m not. I’m just not.
And even if I were, I think I’ve carefully considered my political position here, and I am willing to back it. Clearly.
Argument: If You Don’t Vote, You Can’t Complain.
Surprise! I disagree!
First of all, I hate when you ask how it’s going and someone says, “Can’t complain.”
Well, that’s great. You must just not be paying attention or must not be very creative because I could complain about the best day of my life.
The thing is, my complaint really isn’t with the process of voting. It’s with the democratic system. I don’t really believe in it. I don’t think it works all that well. Voting is like asking me which football team is my favorite. I don’t like football at all, on the league level. Therefore, I don’t have a favorite team. Yet, I can still complain about football. I can talk about how the NFL is a tax-exempt organization, which is mind-blowing. I can talk about the fact that most major cities pay for their stadiums with tax money as opposed to letting this organization/business fund itself. I can talk about traumatic brain injury. I don’t have to pick a favorite team to do that. I don’t have to watch the Superbowl to do that. I don’t have to be able to name the last 5 Heisman winners to do that.
I hate the players, AND I hate the game.
I’ve never paved a road. I can still complain about potholes.
Not voting as a conscious choice is not the same thing as ignoring politics entirely. Choosing to not vote is kind of the opposite of saying, “More of the same, please!”
How Did You Get To This Point?
Part of what has really turned me off of politics is what I see as a lack of empathy.
I feel that people who dislike Trump, for the most part, refuse to believe a non-racist, non-sexist, good person might vote for Trump. This isn’t something I agree with.
I feel that people who dislike Clinton, for the most part, refuse to believe that someone who is financially conservative, middle-of-the-road on social issues, has business sense, and is also a good person, might vote for Clinton. This is also something I disagree with.
People are really fucking complicated. And I can’t say that I know more or make better decisions than most of them.
Part of the problem is that I feel very saddened, as well, by the way this election has been engaged with by my fellows.
I’ve been left, too far left, for a long time. And while I understand that things are heated and opinions run hot, I’ve been very disgusted at what I’ve seen online. I follow mostly lefty people online, and I’ve seen attacks on Trump that I don’t think we would tolerate if they were on any other person. But because he’s said things that are undeniably racist and sexist, it’s open season.
And that grosses me out. It makes it feel like everyone, deep down, still wants to be an asshole. A jerk. A bully. And instead of picking on a helpless nerd, we’re using that energy on someone who we think can take it, and we feel okay about it because he opened the door. He deserved it.
If we talked about any other candidates appearance the way we do Trump’s we’d all be total dicks.
It’s my thinking that we’re all being total dicks.
I also have become very sickened by what I see as media outlets preying on the election story. Garnering clicks and comments, driving up ad revenue, by writing story after story about Trump. Meanwhile, giving him free press, simply driving his haters to read more articles that confirm what they already know about the man. This faux journalism is not presenting compelling facts or trying to win hearts and minds. It’s marketing masquerading as news.
All of this assholery, it’s the same thing that I always hated about conservative politics. I found conservative politics to be humorless. To attack opponents in crude ways. To stick to a few issues so staunchly and oddly that conservatism seemed to almost reject new members. If you don’t think abortion is bad and gay people should stay unmarried, we don’t want you!
But now, I see the other side doing the same things. If you don’t want to make fun of Trump with us, you’re not really one of us. If you don’t agree with us on all points, we don’t want you!
Both sides have become so black and white, so divided, that I don’t feel like I remotely belong on either side.
The sad part, to me, is feeling the change in myself. From someone who cared deeply about these things to someone who feels like one group is trapped in the stone age, and yet the other is equally mean and unapproachable, just with a more modern twist.
I obviously care. I wrote all this shit. This isn’t the effort of someone who doesn’t care. But it’s definitely the expression of feeling like a man without a country. Without a group of like-minded people. It’s caring, and yet feeling very alone.
How Did We Get Here?
I think we’ve lost the ability to disagree with each other. Or we spend a lot of time avoiding disagreement and the views and opinions of others who disagree with us.
When we disagree, we don’t listen. We don’t think with empathy, we don’t think, “That viewpoint doesn’t work for me, but perhaps for the situation this other person is in, that’s really how things are.”
We don’t engage in thinking that allows for more than one answer to be right. We don’t allow for some people to be right about some things and wrong about others.
All this to say, you might still totally disagree with me. And that’s fine. I’m okay with that. I recognize your right to exist as a person who does not think and feel as I do.
I like to end these things with book recommendations. These are a lot better than my shit, and the impetus for this whole thing is contained in recommendation number two on this list.
If you want to know more about how we’re treating candidates online, I recommend reading Jon Ronson’s So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed.
If you want to know more about how stupid we all are, I really recommend Chuck Klosterman’s But What If We’re Wrong?
If you’re curious how I’ve formed my opinion on Hillary Clinton, I recommend Snowden by Ted Rall.
If you’re curious how I’ve formed my opinion on Donald Trump, I recommend reading the following sentence: I have a brain and ways for input to enter that brain.