To Vote Or Not To Vote

Supporting a political candidate will always involve some type of compromise. It is unrealistic to ever expect to totally admire and agree with a candidate. Consider how rare this is even with friends or family!

Elections cause much anguish among progressives. Whether local or natíonal, primary or general, elections always raise disconcerting questions for progressives about whether and how to participate.

The Democratic presidential primary offers an array of choices. Do you support Brown because of his direct assault on the political system, Harkin because of his populist values, or Clinton because the party leaders and media claim he has the best chance to beat Bush? Or do you abstain and wait for the next third party effort?

Many progressives are overly influenced by two poles of thought on electoral politics. The cynic argues that the political system is totally corrupt, that it is designed to block good people from even running - let alone winning or governing - and that therefore any participation whatsoever is a sell-out. The realist counters that, regardless of the system's corruptness, politicians make decisions that have major impacts on people's daily lives and to effect change one should always support the "less evil" candidate with the best chance of winning.

Both the cynical and realistic views are partially valid, yet neither is a sufficient guide for progressive involvement in the electoral process. The following principles are more valuable tools to determine one's role in an electoral campaign.

Principle one: Supporting a political candidate always involves some type of compromise. lt is unrealistic to ever expect to totally agree with a candidate. Consider how rare this is even with friends or family! The issue is not whether to compromise (you must) but how much you are willing to compromise. Sometimes supporting any candidate may involve too much compromise and it is appropriate to abstain.

Principle two: It is reasonable to have "litmus tests,", i.e. issues about which you feel so strongly that you cannot support a candidate with whom you disagree. Having too many litmus tests conflicts with the fïrst principle and precludes supporting anyone.

Narrowing the number of litmus test issues is difficult for those with strong opinions on a broad range of issues. On a policy level, issues such as choice or war are natural litmus tests for many people because of the underlying values that they entail. Your emotions can also help identify litmus test issues- if you are so repulsed every time you see or hear a candidate even when she or he doesn't mention the issue about which you disagree, then that issue clearly means a lot to you. Many people consider Clinton's support for the Persian Gulf war or Harkin's support for Israel as litmus test issues. Likewise, a clear commitment on specific affordable housing proposals would be necessary for many progressives to support a local candidate.

Principle three: Losing can sometimes be more valuable than winning. Objectives such as public education, voter mobilization, and coalition building can be more important in the long run than whether a particular person is elected. Barry Goldwater's Republican presidential campaign lost badly in 1964 but laid the foundation for the right-wing takeover of the Republican Party and the ultimate ascendance of Ronald Reagan.

Jesse Jackson's unsuccessful Democratic presidential campaigns in 1984 and 1988 also yielded important benefits. Ideas generally excluded from the mainstream media were articulated. Millions of newly registered voters helped the Democrats regain control of the Senate in 1986 and defeat Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court. Jackson's failure to build the nationwide grassroots Rainbow Coalition as an organizing force independent of his electoral campaigns does not negate these gains.

Principle four: There is a "hierarchy" of electoral choices including non-participation, voting, giving money, and volunteering time. In reality, voting is a pretty inconsequential act: simple, quick, and confidential. For people who can afford it, giving money is the next level of support. A donation is also simple and quick, but may require a willingness to make one's support a matter of public record. For many of us, becoming a volunteer is the greatest sign of commitment as it takes considerably more time and typically involves a clear public endorsement. This hierarchy of choices suggests that it isn't just a decision of whether or not to support a candidate, but if so, to what degree to support a candidate. You might even decide to support more than one candidate in different ways!

So how do these principles fit together? With respect to the Democratic presidential primary, if you don't see much difference between the candidates, then you can simply "sit it out." Someone will win the nomination anyway and you can reevaluate for the general election. If one presidential candidate seems a little better than the others, you should take an hour on March 17 and vote in the Michigan primary. There is also an upcoming Ann Arbor election on April 6 where the Democrats will defend their City Council majority. If one candidate seems much better, don't just vote, but volunteer money or time as well. If defeating Bush is a top priority, you might vote for the candidate that you believe has the best chance to win in November but send a donation to a different candidate who is articulating issues that are most important to you.

Given the stranglehold that the powerful and wealthy have on the current political system, it is ridiculous to consider voting to be the "sacred responsibility" that is touted in high school civics classes. But participating in the electoral process is still one of the few ways that people can make their views known. As with other issues in life, think through all of your choices, take personal responsibility for your decisions, recognize that others whom you respect may choose differently, and view elections as one element of a long-term strategy to bring about meaningful social change.