Voting can be a duty, yes, but it's not a sacred act
Maybe we need to revisit our idea of the sacred
As our idea of the sacred dwindles in America, with religion being drowned out by ideology, the political has stepped up to take its place.
The less devoted to religion the crowd — for instance, the Democratic Party — the higher the rhetoric. “Our sacred democracy” is a phrase much used by them. “My fellow Americans, I’m speaking to you tonight from behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. In this sacred space…” Joe Biden said, as he spoke to us about resigning from the campaign. “I revere this office,” he proclaimed. “But this sacred task of perfecting our union is not about me…”
You get the idea.
However, all this transcendence is misplaced.
Voting can be a duty (it is not always a duty, though). It is often important (I would argue it’s more important the more local it is). It’s important to have integrity; it would be wrong to sell one’s vote.
It is not, however, a matter that reaches the necessary purity of, say, a truly sacred action, such as giving God true worship; it’s not a moral act the way fulfilling one’s vocation in religious life or as a spouse or parent is.
In fact, voting is often quite strategic. It can even become downright tactical. If a candidate is wrong on many issues that will never be part of the actual duties of his office, that he will never act upon, but is right about an issue that forms the main part of his job, then strategically, a person aiming to achieve that goal can vote for him.
If one is a member of one party, the candidate of which will lose, but has the opportunity to vote in the primary of the other party, one of the candidates of which will be significantly less bad than the other, then tactics require he vote in that primary.
The vote is one of the tools a citizen has to reach certain ends. It’s a worldly good. It’s not sacred.
Anyway, after our podcast last week in which we discussed the upcoming presidential election, a listener challenged Phil on whether it’s a good thing to vote for a third-party candidate.
Since Phil once ran for the US Senate in a third party, against Ted Kennedy, he thinks it can be a good thing! He writes about it here to follow up on our discussion and answer that question, and I recommend reading it.
When the two major parties present unacceptable candidates and/or unacceptable platforms, a third-party challenge, however quixotic, may be the only option for someone unwilling to compromise important principles…
…But for anyone voting in a contested state, the costs of choosing option 3 or 4 could be dangerously high.
I saw a meme recently—Your vote is not a love letter, it is a chess move.
I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who was discomfited by Joe Biden calling the Oval Office a "sacred space."
As a genuine patriotic history nerd, I can be moved by the importance or resonance of a space. However I agree that elevating government to a religious experience is deranged, dangerous, and contrary to the attitude of the Founding Fathers, who saw government as necessary, but likely dangerous.