As this current presidential campaign is nearing completion, a multitude of social media posts are appearing about why we should vote for a particular candidate or, to phrase it more accurately, how you as a moral or rational person can’t possibly be considering voting for a particular candidate. Going against Epicurus’ wise dictum to escape the prison of politics, I’d like to suggest to my fellow American citizens a reasoned nonpartisan approach to deciding for whom to cast their vote.
Simply put, we should base our ballot in favor of a candidate based upon two factors—the person and the policies. I don’t include the third “p,” which is the party, because that basis is either because of the party’s policies or because it’s just easier.
“Person” generally means the character of the candidate. We want him or her to be a good person—honest, fair, caring, law-abiding, etc. No doubt we would like all our presidential candidates to be good people, however there are at least three complicating issues, and they have to do with the necessary distinction between the candidate’s character as a private individual and as a politician. Let me explain.
In the spirit on non-partisanship, I’ll use as examples Jimmy Carter, a Democrat and President from 1977-1981, and Mike Pence, a Republican and Vice President from 2017-2021. Unless there is something I don’t know about either one of them, both are men of good private character, faithful and responsible husbands and would probably make good neighbors. I imagine that you could trust your daughter with them and so on and so forth. As individuals they are good men. However, if you strongly oppose the policies that they are going to attempt to implement, then you would quite likely not vote for them. So policy can be a more important factor than the person’s private character.
There are two other factors that come into play in the vote-for-the-person argument. One has to do with competence, the other with character as a politician.
Let’s look first at personal competence. Political candidates have policies that they want to become law. The work of a politician is not simply to advocate for a position but to have the political ability to get legislation passed into law. To accomplish this the politician must possess the ability and finesse to get other politicians on board with his or her program. This is not always an easy job and often involves the willingness to compromise and the wisdom to take half a loaf rather than none. For the voter, the only way to know a candidate’s political competency is to evaluate what he or she has accomplished in office. Success in getting policies accepted and implemented that you agree with is a strong reason to vote for the person. Failure to do so reveals an incompetence as a politician and is a compelling reason not to vote for that candidate or to vote in the hope that the party and his or her assistants will do what he or she is incapable of doing. Not a happy prospect.
Character as a politician is very important, but it is not precisely equivalent to private character, as I mentioned above with the examples above of President Carter and Mike Pence. There are two key character factors in evaluating a presidential candidate as a politician and they both have to do with political honesty.
The first has to do with the oath of office. At the inauguration, the elected candidate makes the following pledge. “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Office of the President, which is sworn to be executed, is to execute the laws of the United States. This is why the President is the head of the executive branch. The second phrase relates to the United States Constitution. This pledge reveals the crucial importance of the United States Constitution to our nation. The Constitution is the supreme law of our country. It is the basis and judge of the legitimacy of all our laws. The President in his oath of office recognizes the nature of the Constitution and, more than any individual policy, swears to “preserve, protect, and defend” it.
Since the oath of office outlines the main functions of the President, our vote should consider a candidate’s commitment to those functions. If the candidate shows a disregard for laws passed by Congress, either by disobeying them or refusing to execute them, he or she cannot honestly take the oath. If in the campaign, candidates state that they have no intention of enforcing federal laws or of following the Constitution, then they cannot honestly take the oath of office. Any candidate then who takes the oath without the intention of keeping it is a dishonest politician. Of course, for us as citizens and voters it is incumbent upon us to know what the Constitution says. If we don’t, we cannot be competent voters.
The second key character factor in considering a candidate as a political person is the promises made during the campaign. If candidates make promises that obviously cannot be fulfilled, have revealed in their career a penchant for changing their policy positions, or essentially refuse to give a clear idea of what their policies are or will be, then it is reasonable to distrust them as political leaders.
We have already seen that disagreement or agreement with the policies of candidates is a crucial factor in determining our vote. Let me mention why in certain cases for some people it is essentially the only factor. For some people there may be a single issue so important that you’ll vote for candidates even if you believe that they are bad people. Probably some felt that way about slavery in 1860. Today the issue of abortion is similar. In fact, voters may feel that a candidate cannot be a good person if he or she does not hold their view on abortion. If this is the case, a voter’s view is that he or she cannot vote in good conscience for a candidate with the opposing view.
Well, that’s it. My desire is for two outcomes for my readers. First, that they will have the tools to reason better about their voting choices. Second, I sincerely hope that they will see the complexity of deciding for whom to vote and, realizing that complexity, be more tolerant of those who differ with them and avoid extreme claims that a person must be immoral or irrational to vote for a particular candidate.
I shall now return to my Epicurean Garden, but with a very non-Epicurean wish that God would bless you all.
