Dear editor,
As I listen to my fellow citizens debate the upcoming election, it strikes me that many regard voting and endorsing candidates – or refraining from this – as first of all an exercise in signaling one’s personal moral virtue, or perhaps an exercise in personal absolution. Well, it’s not, and potentially this is a very destructive way of regarding it.
Expressing endorsement or opposition, and voting for or against a candidate is an exercise in contributing to the political decision making process, not an exercise in being virtuous, and it should be undertaken and judged on utilitarian, consequentialist grounds. For example, it is perfectly legitimate to support candidate X, whom one dislikes, if one thinks X is best situated to defeat an even worse candidate Y. It is also completely legitimate to decide that X and Y are both so reprehensible that one instead votes for back-of-the-pack candidate Z, or perhaps refuses to participate in the process at all. All of us should choose our actions on the basis of what we think would get the best results as we see them, and not whether we’ve been faithful to or sinned against some political creed. And we should grant our fellow citizens the same treatment.
I have my own strong opinions on how one should vote in this election, and while I might question the judgement of those who disagree with my analysis, I try to avoid the error of thinking them hypocritical, unvirtuous, or simply bad people for having come to conclusions that differ from mine. I strongly suggest we all try to remember this. Very few Americans are likely to be genuinely happy with the outcome of this election, regardless of what happens, and our country will continue to face serious political problems and disagreements. It would be much better for us all if we remain respectful of each other, and not at each other’s throats. We should debate principles and strategies for furthering them, not each other’s characters.
Sincerely,
Charles N. Steele
Associate Professor of Economics.
