I will not be voting for any federal
candidate and will probably be writing in third parties for local
elections, if I even step into the voting booth.
There is a strong heritage among some New Yorkers—both aristocratic
WASP Republicans and ethnic progressive liberals—that voting is a civic
duty that cannot be avoided, even if you prefer none of the candidates.
Try as I might, I cannot make any sense of this position. If you
believe that none of the candidates presents an attractive option, why
vote at all?
In this election, we face choosing between a “maverick” with a penchant
for militarism who has been part of the Washington power structure for
over two decades, and an inexperienced figure who wants to save us from
ourselves, or, as my friend Gene Healy puts it, “the Messiah vs. the
prophet of doom.” The only thing they agree on is that Washington is
where the power is. Add to that a supine Congress busy giving away its
war-making power to the executive, what’s left of the economy to the
Treasury secretary, and the decision over any controversial issue to
the courts. It is hard to see why voting for one rather than the other
would make any discernible difference.
To say that this system has nothing to do with the original
constitutional order is a laughable understatement. The candidates
trade talking points, but their common assumptions about the
centralization of power, the omnipotent power of the president, and the
use of American power abroad remain unchallenged. The philosopher
Alasdair MacIntyre once wrote, “when offered a choice between two
politically intolerable alternatives, it is important to chose
neither.” That advice is well worth taking.
Recent Comments