OPINION & EDITORIAL
Voting far from ‘absolute’ injustice
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Jason Smathers:
- Fix division, not location (February 11, 2008)
- No middle way on juvie switch? (February 5, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Hillel rejects Horowitz (October 18, 2007)
- Clueless (December 9, 2001)
- Democrats slow to fight for progress (November 15, 2006)
- Don't let Nader cloud judgment (February 5, 2008)
by Jason Smathers
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
“Power corrupts absolutely.”
When speaker Wendy McElroy chopped off the first part of that clichéd Lord Acton quote, she would have done well to hold the term above her head like an anarchist’s halo for the entire lecture. Unfortunately, anything absolute becomes corrupted in an environment of reality and Ms. McElroy’s premise soon fell apart, albeit with some pertinent points.
Ms. McElroy was brought by the Center for Study of Liberal Democracy to provide controversy to the ever-plodding idea of voting.
That idea? Voting is immoral.
Now, while one might immediately scoff, shout or hurl something at the woman given the sometimes reactionary nature of this campus, the idea should not be discounted. Certainly, the nearly 75 people packed into the tight Law School lecture room had open enough minds to be swayed.
Now, while Ms. McElroy may have come into this with the banner headline of immorality, her initial arguments were based on rationality — your vote doesn’t matter, and you’re unlikely to be the deciding vote in an election.
Of course, Ms. McElroy soon prefaced her claim with the caveat, “I’m talking about the vote that gives your personal sanction to the person you pull the lever for.” And that’s the rub. For Ms. McElroy, voting is the individual giving his or her power to a politician to control his or her life. It allows some person (usually referenced in this vein as George W. Bush) to operate control over your life. In her mind, voting in a democracy is not freedom; it is voluntary servitude. Since voting gives them consent to do this, the only reasonable thing to do is to not consent.
If you vote, the politicians have won.
I have some ground to make, given limited space, so I’ll make this as concise as possible.
You’re not absolutely wrong, but you’re wrong nevertheless.
If voluntary servitude is against human nature, as Ms. McElroy claims, then let me categorize human nature as incessant confusion and self-destruction. In the earliest days of man, perhaps individual anarchism was bliss. However, under today’s system, we live in a network of highly organized social networks, contacts and state societies. What she terms “voluntary servitude,” I call “trust.”
You put your trust in the state because it filters out complexities of life you either cannot manage on your own or see no need to. Why do people obey unjust laws? Because — for the majority, in most cases — it’d be a whole lot more problematic and chaotic without the system there. I may recognize that a war we’re involved in is unjust, but I don’t attempt to overthrow the government because the state simplifies my life in ways that more directly affect me. Morals matter, but practicality is king. It may not be pure human nature, but nothing really has been the same since the Agricultural Revolution, now has it?
Ah, but it’d be too easy to practically assault anarchism. This is about personal philosophy — it’s about morality. At least, that’s what she says. But questioning proves problematic. A student next to me raised his hand many times and finally had his say: “So, what would be your ideal situation?”
Ms. McElroy responds with the idea of all government existing on the local level, a “Constitutional Republic.” Of course, the notion of a despotic ruler goes out the window. How could we lower ourselves to that again?
So, we have no executive, but what happens if we’re attacked, the boy asks.
Here she flares up, stating it’s just an “Orwellian notion, fear of the other” that prompts this idea that we’ll be attacked. If we left Iraq, and kept our nose other people’s business, we wouldn’t be attacked!
Strike one. Tell that to Poland, Sicily and a range of other regions that tried that policy. And you’re a historian?
At some point, another student asks how voting can have an impermissibly coercive effect if the act has been deemed irrelevant and useless as she previously stated?
Backtracking. She isn’t actually convinced by the practical argument she just gave; she says she follows more moral principles.
Strike two. Why use logic you don’t wholly believe in?
Then comes the defining blow. Someone asks her who she would vote for.
“In my whole little anti-war heart, I hope Barack Obama gets in.”
For a woman who doesn’t believe in voting, she sure seems pretty invested in who ends up in that seat of immoral “coercive power.”
Her reasoning? She just thinks it would be “so great” to see a black man in that office.
And she’s out.
While Ms. McElroy’s logic ultimately fails, there is one point to be taken from her lecture: Voting is a moral action. For those who shuffle to the ballot boxes hoping their crush on Obama is still hot by the time they pick up their pen are turning a “moral obligation” into an immoral farce. The argument that voting is coercive in itself is true, but as professor Harry Brighouse made clear after the lecture, coercion is sometimes moral, especially in the case of the state.
Furthermore, voting is not consent to run rampant. In the case of an incumbent, perhaps that is the case — after all, you’re voting for the status quo. But when placed in an election, such as the one we have now, there is a choice between diverging paths. Not voting is a choice, but it’s one that casts all other paths into a void. If you believe there is no candidate who matches your moral concerns, perhaps it is the right choice. Of course, one must consider that one day the choice between two evils may be one between suffering and total oblivion.
Of course, if a Hitler-esque candidate led to that conclusion, Ms. McElroy did have a solution: political assassination.
Let’s be honest, nothing is so absolute.
Jason Smathers (jsmathers@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in history and journalism.
Anonymous (February 26, 2008 @ 1:13am):
Serious argument: how do we stop asteroids? We need an international set of defense forces to prevent world extinction.
Policy debate is the r0x0r
Anonymous (February 26, 2008 @ 1:48am):
Don't just (not) vote: ORGANIZE!
Voting for a lesser evil gives your full consent to that candidate's entire platform. As much as I may like a few of Obama's stances, many others I think would be disastrous. Should I vote for Obama and lend my support to those other policies I don't agree with?
Unfortunately, this speaker poorly represents the substantial anarchist community in this country and others. Many of us would suggest voting if one thought it would be effective. BUT: diversity of tactics is key. Voting in an oligarchic system may be self-defeating, but with real organization and action between elections, it can be more effective than direct action itself. Or, if one chooses not to vote, one must engage in other tactics. In short, either way, direct tactics are necessary.
Further reading (better than this trite):
http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/atoz/beyonddemocracy.php
http://www.crimethinc.com/tools/downloads/zines.html
http://infoshop.org/page/Voting
Anonymous (February 26, 2008 @ 7:52am):
So... 3-0 against McElroy?
Anonymous (February 26, 2008 @ 9:25am):
I don't trust any of the candidates. If I could, I'd move to Vancouver, BC.
Anonymous (February 26, 2008 @ 10:01am):
I sure hope that more Obama girls will not vote.
Anonymous (February 26, 2008 @ 11:25am):
think about if no one decided to vote. I think that would be some direct action and maybe, just maybe we'd get rid of this 2 party system that's killing everyone's ideal democracy where everyone is supposed to have a voice...
Anonymous (February 26, 2008 @ 5:39pm):
"coercion is sometimes moral, especially in the case of the state"
Coercion is not moral. We only believe coercion is moral because it is inevitable. We cannot eliminate it, but we should aim to minimize. We must instead eliminate the largest and most violent coercer: The State. Coercion will exist in a perfectly free market (the absence of government), but it would exist at much smaller levels.
Anonymous (February 26, 2008 @ 10:41pm):
It was 4-1, I think the 1 judge voted on her moral imperative in the 2AR overview. It was a totally new argument. wtf.
Anonymous (February 27, 2008 @ 12:52am):
I'm glad when anarchists get these little forums, it gives them something to do other then dwell on their irrelevance.
Charles Johnson (February 28, 2008 @ 3:59am):
"You put your trust in the state because it filters out complexities of life you either cannot manage on your own or see no need to."
I don't know who this "you" is supposed to be. Perhaps Jason Smathers is using "you" to mean "me." But if so, he really ought to speak for himself. I certainly do *not* put my trust in the State and I find that the government and its endless reams of arbitrary laws make my life much more complicated. I'd really like to know, for example, what in the world the IRS is doing to filter complexity out of my life.
"Why do people obey unjust laws? Because â for the majority, in most cases â itâd be a whole lot more problematic and chaotic without the system there. I may recognize that a war weâre involved in is unjust, but I donât attempt to overthrow the government because the state simplifies my life in ways that more directly affect me."
Well. I, for one, am certain that if I were an Iraqi child, I would be happy to die, in order that Jason Smathers might live a simpler life.
Anonymous (February 28, 2008 @ 7:39am):
"but as professor Harry Brighouse made clear after the lecture, coercion is sometimes moral, especially in the case of the state."
Er, this is not being "made clear" - it's just being asserted, apparently without argument. It may very well be true that coercion is sometimes justified (I think it is, in cases of say, self-defense), but if one is going to claim that a particular organization (the State) has a greater moral entitlement to utilize coercion against the rest of the world - well, that's a claim that needs to be substantiated.
Anonymous (March 2, 2008 @ 12:56pm):
Jason Smathers appeals to authority:
>>"The argument that voting is coercive in itself is true, but as professor Harry Brighouse made clear after the lecture, coercion is sometimes moral, especially in the case of the state."
But of course he does. He needs authority figures in his life to feel complete. Argumentum ad vercundiam. Informal logical fallacy.
>>"Why do people obey unjust laws?""
I have no idea what this means. Suppose you were required (by law) to inflict harm on someone else. Like a little idiot, you'd do what the law required, even though it was unjust? Goodness. Nobody would want you for a neighbor!
Or perhaps you just mean that people obey unjust laws which hamper them slightly, but do not significantly harm them. If so, learn to think clearly.
The following is very poorly written:
>>"Ms. McElroy was brought by the Center for Study of Liberal Democracy to provide controversy to the ever-plodding idea of voting. That idea? Voting is immoral."
Poor writing is evidence of poor thinking. She *provided* controversy *to* and *idea*? Whatevs.
Student papers that include this line invariably earn themselves a "C" or worse:
>>"Now, while one might immediately scoff...
While you are, of course, entitled to try try to think for yourself, I can't say I recommend it very highly.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
