Jiminy Cricket, You Ain't
This election season, voters have two choices when it comes to selecting the next President of the United States: Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump.
That’s right - TWO choices. On January 20, 2017, one of those candidates will be sworn in as our next president.
Now, a lot of people don’t much care for either candidate. Neither fits their notion of what a good president should be. They see both as (at best) flawed or (at worst) evil personified.
This manifests itself in a number of ways. Lazy thinkers tend to lump both candidates together, as if they were exactly the same. These false equivalencies are the simpleton’s way out - an attempt to appear above the fray without actually taking the time or making the effort to determine the truth of the situation. It’s easier to just parrot “they’re both terrible” rather than take a nuanced, informed stand.
It’s my (completely unscientific) opinion that most of these people will revert to form when they face the ballot. Longtime Republicans will vote for Trump, while longtime Democrats will make their mark for Clinton. Their public protestations may spring from a genuine dissatisfaction with the choices offered, but in the privacy of the voting booth a lifetime of beliefs and habits will hold sway.
Another option is to vote for a third party candidate - led this year by the Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party representative Jill Stein. Casting a vote for either of these candidates is presented by their followers as ‘voting your conscience.’
Voting your conscience in this manner is considered a ‘protest vote.’ It means you’re so utterly disgusted with the candidates offered up by the two major political parties you believe your only moral choice is to vote for someone more in line with your personal beliefs.
In this scenario, voting your conscience is also called ‘pissing away your vote.’ Because neither third party candidate has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the presidency. And the people voting for them know it.
I’ll put all my cards on the table: I’m voting for Hillary Clinton because I believe Donald Trump to be a unique and serious threat to the United States of America. Had Bernie Sanders been the Democratic nominee, I’d be voting for him. And if Mickey Mouse had been the Democratic nominee, I’d be voting for HIM. (Hey, he has a much better business record than Trump!)
In other words, I’m voting for the person who has the best chance to defeat Donald Trump on November 8. The man is running on a platform of hatred, bigotry, racial discrimination, criminal activity, ineptitude, xenophobia, sexism, egotism and simple arrogant stupidity. And that’s not taking into account his financial indebtedness to foreign governments like Russia and China, or his praise for dictators like Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and even Saddam Hussein. I believe Trump represents the absolute, bottom-of-the-barrel worst of what this country can be. He’s turned over the rocks of nationalism, white supremacy, and prideful ignorance in this country and allowed those who share his vile worldview to scuttle into the sunlight, where they are energized by his disgusting efforts to normalize and mainstream their hatred.
Like I said - a unique and serious threat. One I think every intelligent, decent, empathetic and truly patriotic American should be fighting tooth and nail to keep away from the office of the president.
So screw your ‘conscience.’ Elections aren’t about you, they’re supposed to be about the good of the country. If you don’t believe Hillary Clinton will be an effective president, that’s fine. But if you think she’s anywhere NEAR the walking disaster area that Donald Trump represents, you’re simply wrong. And if you think either Johnson or Stein has a hope of winning the presidency or having any significant influence on the major candidates’ policy platforms you’re flat-out delusional.
The last time we experienced any significant support for a third-party candidate (with no hope of winning the presidency) was with Ralph Nader in 2000. Faced with two less-than-thrilling choices from the major parties, many people decided to cast conscience-led protest votes for Mr. Nader – ignoring the fact that, were he the nominee of either major party, they’d have found HIM significantly less-than-thrilling as well. And we all remember how THAT worked out for everyone. The largest terrorist attack on the homeland, followed by the Bush administration deceiving us into two wars, followed by the complete crash and burn of our economy. And that’s just the highlight reel.
But hey! All those Nader voters got to walk around for the next eight years smugly asserting that they “didn’t vote for either of them.”
Except they did. By pissing away their votes for Nader they benefitted the Bush campaign by not applying those votes to Al Gore – the only other candidate with a chance to defeat the Republican nominee. Because denying a vote to a legitimate challenger in a two-party race will always, always, always benefit their opponent. Which is exactly what happened – most notably in Florida, where the election was ultimately decided (with a tip of the hat to the Supreme Court).
Now I know ‘conscience’ voters will find a few flaws with that last paragraph. First, they’ll claim the election, because it featured Nader, was not a ‘two-party race.’ Bullshit. Just like this year, one of the two major party candidates was always going to win, making it a two-party race. Look at it this way: If the 100-yard dash was run featuring Usain Bolt, Justin Gatlin, and me – well, I may TECHNICALLY be participating in that race, but for all intents and purposes it’d be a two-man contest. And anyone who bet on me simply because they didn’t like the other runners? That person would be pissing away their bet.
The other supposed flaw that will make ‘conscience’ voters holler is the assertion that Nader votes cost Gore the state of Florida, and as a result, the election. I’ve seen so-called progressives tie themselves in knots coming up with complicated mathematical formulas that prove Bush would’ve won regardless. None of which has convinced me in the slightest. What convinces me? Common sense statements, like this one from Gallup: “Nader received almost 100,000 votes in Florida in 2000, a state George W. Bush won by 537 votes over Al Gore. Gallup's pre-election polls as well as exit polls showed that Nader voters were more likely to support Gore than Bush. If Nader had not run that year, it is reasonable to assume that enough of a majority of Nader votes would have been cast for Gore, giving him Florida's electoral votes and the presidency.”
“Reasonable to assume” is an understatement.
But this isn’t about being reasonable! This is about being rebels! This is about not conforming! This is about speaking truth to power! This is about rejecting the corruption of the two major parties! But mostly, this is about CHANGE!
Again – bullshit.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m for change. I think the system needs a serious overhaul. But I also know that you don’t achieve such massive, groundbreaking change by only getting involved every four years and expecting your demands to be instantly and completely met. And you REALLY don’t achieve massive, groundbreaking change by threatening to withhold your vote from the only candidates who, at the end of the day, will actually be placed in a position to try and implement such changes. What THAT gets you is nothing.
Or worse. In 2000 it got you President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. And in 2016 it could get you President Donald Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence. Both of those scenarios qualify as ‘worse.’
I think it’s safe to say the majority of ‘conscience’ voters planning to vote for Johnson or Stein lean more Left than Right. (As with Nader voters in 2000.) A great many were and are followers of Bernie Sanders, who made a remarkable run at the Democratic nomination campaigning on a platform of ‘revolution.’ His message of change struck a powerful chord with voters tired of politics as usual, and sent shockwaves through liberal political circles. Sanders’ followers were dedicated and passionate, believing their candidate to be the only truth-teller on either side of the race – a man of integrity and, well, conscience.
So where does Bernie’s conscience tell him to cast HIS vote? I’ll let him tell you...
“We have got to do everything that we can to defeat Donald Trump and elect Hillary Clinton." - Bernie Sanders
Or how about...
“I think the issue right here is, I’m going to do everything I can to defeat Donald Trump.” – Bernie Sanders
Or from just this week...
“I intend as a United States Senator, between now and Election Day, to do everything I can to make sure Donald Trump does not become the next President of the United States." – Bernie Sanders
Now THAT’S how you vote your conscience. Because if you were REALLY ‘voting your conscience’ as a liberal or a progressive – or as a decent human being with morals and perspective – you’d cast a vote that stood the best chance of helping defeat the candidate who represents the single greatest threat to our country in our lifetimes.
And yeah, smartasses, I’m talking about Donald Trump.
But here’s the deal – I don't think this ‘voting your conscience’ thing is about conscience at all. Not even a little. Lemme tell you a story...
A few months back I made a crack online about Nader voters swinging the election to Bush in 2000. I was immediately raked over the coals by a progressive friend who was furious that I’d made such a slanderous claim. He denied that his (and others’) votes for Nader had had any negative impact on the outcome of the election – ESPECIALLY in Florida. He indulged in some of that complex math I mentioned earlier in an (unconvincing) attempt to make his point.
But the point he made wasn’t the point he’d intended.
In arguing that his vote hadn’t had any negative impact, he was actually making the argument that his vote didn’t have ANY impact. He admitted full knowledge that Nader had no chance to win the presidency or influence policy, yet he voted for him anyway.
His BEST defense was that he had had NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER. He’d consciously voted for a candidate who would, at best, be a footnote in the history of this country.
Because he wasn’t voting for that candidate. He wasn’t voting for ANY candidate, really.
He was voting so he could take the high road for the next four years. So that he could maintain his self-image as a lone righteous voice crying out against injustice. He was voting to insure his place on the pedestal of ‘I told you so.’
He was voting to avoid responsibility.
So don’t tell me you’re voting your conscience.
You’re voting your ego.
Which means you're voting for Trump.
