Posted by Benjamin on: 03.21.2007 /
I recently had the opportunity to visit a Church of God in Christ Mennonite congregation in California. It was a fascinating and enjoyable experience. The men all sat on the right hand side of the church, they all wore clean, long sleeved, button down shirts and dress pants, and they all had short hair neatly parted on the left and neat, well trimmed beards. The ladies all sat on the left side of the church, and they all wore pretty, modest dresses with long sleeves, high necklines, and similar puffy shoulders. They all had shiny black head coverings which covered the back half of their hair and their neck.
They could sing! No accompaniment–just voices in harmony.
Even after the service, the segregation continued, and I enjoyed a half hour of interesting and open conversation with 3 of the guys. It seemed to me that they enjoyed an experience of very tight community which I have often longed for and never really found. On the other hand, they very much lacked the enormous … freedom/mobility at the individual level which I have very much experienced and sometimes enjoyed. It seemed to me that if one of them awoke one day and realized they *didn’t* any longer believe all the things they have agreed to believe, they would either have to deny their new reality, or else experience a really catastrophic loss of community in their life.
Anyway, one thing which intrigued me and made me think a bit was the fact that they choose not be involved in the political process at any level. So they don’t vote. I got to thinking about this.
According to this wiki article, voter turnout in the U.S. for congressional elections during presidential election years between 1960 and 1995 was 54% (and some 10-15 percentage points *lower* in midterm election years). This turns out to be one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the world.
One thing I find compelling about this particular branch of Mennonites is that at least they are not voting on purpose, for well thought out and deeply held reasons. I suspect some largish percentage of those who are eligible to vote and choose not to just don’t care.
But back to the original question. Is it evil to not vote? What responsibility do those who choose not to vote bear for the evil decisions of those who win elections? It seems to me that this touches on the broader question of how we use the power we have. One of the things I’ve begun to learn from others here on JaC is to think about the world and my interaction with it in terms of what power I already have, and how I am using, or not using, that power to MTWABP.
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Deryll
1 03/21/07 8:51 AM | Comment Link |MTWABP?
Sorry, but I’m just a dumb farmer. I need a translation.
Comment by: Rachel
2 03/21/07 9:00 AM | Comment Link |Great question, Deryll. MTWABP stands for “make the world a better place.” It’s an abbreviation that developed over on Conversation at the Edge and migrated to the other Off the Map blogs.
Comment by: HereandNow
3 03/21/07 9:29 AM | Comment Link |These days voting at the federal level seems to be a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. If you do, you have to live with the implications of your having elected power hungry politicians to represent you and your neighbors in Washington. If you don’t, you have to live with the implications of your neighbor having elected power hungry politicians to represent you and your neighbors in Washington. If you assess the situation along the banks of the Potomic, is seems that the overwhelming majority have interests other than mine and my neighbors at heart when they go about their daily business of legislating. We’ve elected too many people who run on platforms of campaign reform and PAC group reform who change their minds about the prudence of those things once they get elected, so the increasingly cinical me fails to see the moral imperative behind voting at the federal level.
Comment by: Staci
4 03/21/07 6:10 PM | Comment Link |Hm, evil? Webster’s first definition for this is “morally reprehensible.”
I’ve always thought of voting as a civic duty, a term I’ve never thought to define. But, Webster’s definitions for these two words leads me to define this term as a moral or legal obligation relating to a citizen, a city, citizenship, or community affairs.
Since voting isn’t required by law in the US we have no legal obligation to vote in this country. The question then is do we have a moral obligation and if so, is not voting so bad as to be considered reprehensible?
Comment by: benjamin ady
5 03/21/07 11:25 PM | Comment Link |Staci,
I see that you approach things in a similar manner to me, in one sense, in that you like to try to get at what the words we are using *mean*.
Was Hitler’s government voted in? I guess I should know the answer to this question.
Are the actions of George Bush reprehensible? I guess it depends on how you define reprehensible.
My friend Weldon Nisly said that the reason he went to Iraq during the first week of the invasion, four years ago, with a christian peacemaker team, was because he and those with him felt that if this war was going to be waged in their name, they wanted to stand with those who were being victimized. That makes sense to me, and seems to be morally excellent. Would what they did make sense if they had chosen *not* to vote in the ‘00 elections? Perhaps not quite as much sense.
Just some thoughts.
Comment by: benjamin ady
6 03/21/07 11:26 PM | Comment Link |Deryll,
are you really a farmer? I’d love to hear more about that. Of course I understand if you were just using it as a figure of speech.
Comment by: benjamin ady
7 03/21/07 11:28 PM | Comment Link |Hereandnow,
Yeah, I can identify with your cynicism–that damned if you do damned if you don’t thing. Hard to maintain hope in light of current conditions in D.C.
Again and again, though, I find myself falling for the hope, in spite of my best intention to remain cynical and avoid further disappointment. For instance, I find Obama’s candidacy enormously exciting, although it seems that by this point in my life I’d know better. Ah well.
Comment by: Elaine
8 03/22/07 6:30 AM | Comment Link |For me, voting is my responsibility and right as a citizen. I have only missed a few local elections.
One of the things I have come to understand is that everytime I remain silent when I see or hear something that does not align with my morals or ethics, I am colluding with those I disagree with. I am abdicating my power to others.
Today, I am taking back my power. How? By becoming involved in community, supporting others, not remaining silent, engaging - acting act my citizenship in this amazing country. (see http://www.asmallgroup.net is doing in Cincinnati)
Here is a quote from Margaret Mead:
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
Read John McKnight’s work - he is from Northwestern University and an amazing advocate for community. I heard him speak last summer and he is excellent. He is one of the guru’s of community (I think he is in his 80’s).
He recommended a book to help understand the early years of our democracy. It is Alexis DeTocqueville’s DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. Alex (from France) was blown away when he discovered the thousands of associations in America (1850s). He said (this is not a quote) that he realized that America’s power resides in the citizen created associations - that is what made our democracy different from the democracy in France. If citizens saw a need for a new school, they came together and made it happen. They did not wait for the politicians to make it happen.
He also said that he now understood why the people voted unintelligent men to power - so they wouldn’t interfere with the associations.
Today, we have given politicians and institutions our power and wait for them to fix things.
Politicians and institutions were created to serve the People. Today, we, the people, serve them.
Let’s take back our country by becoming engaged citizens!
Comment by: Staci
9 03/22/07 11:58 AM | Comment Link |I love that Margaret Mead quote, Elaine.
As I said above, I think it is our civic duty to vote and from that perspective I believe it is my moral obligation to do so. (So I suppose I would say it is “evil” not to vote, though I don’t like to use that word since it has been so co-opted.) There are times when a person might choose not to vote on a particular occasion because they do not perceive an appropriate option or, despite efforts to understand an issue, they are not able to understand it. In those cases, perhaps the civic evil would be to vote anyway.
I do not, however, think not voting is immoral (or evil) from a religious perspective. I have heard religious leaders (usually seeking political power) making this argument, but I see no basis for it. Religion does not have sole ownership, if you will, on morality, but since so many people automatically make this association I wanted to be sure and draw a distinction in this case.
Comment by: Staci
10 03/22/07 12:06 PM | Comment Link |I’ve decided not to give in to feeling guilt and/or shame for actions taken by others. Whether I vote or not and how I voted does not determine the choices of others. Even if I hadn’t voted in the last two elections or if I’d voted for our current President, his choices would not be my fault.
Comment by: John Lamoreau
11 03/22/07 12:42 PM | Comment Link |There is an old story about voting that comes out of the early days of Pennsylvania involving the three historic peace churches - the Quakers, Mennonites and Brethren.
The Quakers founded Pennsylvania. They believed it was okay to not only vote but also to hold office. The early Mennonites tended to believe that government was in the hand’s of Satan and because of that they would not run for office or vote. Supposedly the Brethren would not run for office but would vote as long as the vote was cast for a Quaker.
I like to vote and I am a Quaker. There have been two Presidents who have identified themselves as Quaker: Hoover who is blamed for the Great Depression and Nixon of Watergate fame. Hmmmm…. maybe the Mennonites had it right.
Comment by: joeturner
12 03/22/07 3:09 PM | Comment Link |In all recent elections, I have stood before the ballot paper and struggled with my conscience. I don’t want to take the gifts of freedom that my forebears fought for lightly. On the other hand, I cannot vote for anyone listed on the paper.
Hence, I spoil my paper, waiting for the day when someone puts a ‘none of the above’ box for me to register my protest vote - after all, anyone who wants to be a politician is by default an inappropriate person to be a politician….
The problem is that we have a very wooly idea of democracy - which generally boils down to validating a particular candidate amoungst a bunch of bland candidates every five years. I don’t know what it is like in the USA, but in most UK constituencies, the winning candidate wins with a large majority.
Hence most people think that their vote doesn’t make any difference, so most don’t bother voting.
Comment by: benjamin ady
13 03/22/07 6:25 PM | Comment Link |joe,
that’s fascinating. In Australia, from what I understand, they require everyone to vote, and the penalty for not voting is a fine that is just stiff enough to make people go to the trouble. That makes enormous sense to me.
I often ruin my ballot voting for write in candidates–on our ballots there is generally a place for you to write in candidate of your choice. So I tend to write in someone who I know and trust who isn’t at all running for office, and hence more or less throw my vote away. Oh well.
Comment by: Rachel
14 03/22/07 9:00 PM | Comment Link |Well said, Staci! I am liberating myself from election guilt as well! I DO regret some of my past votes. But to borrow a phrase from Benjamin, I refuse to beat myself up with an “oughty-should hammer.”
Comment by: Laura M.
15 03/23/07 5:46 AM | Comment Link |Staci and Rachel, I’m not sure I agree.
I seem to recall a statement from Bush after the last presidential election about how the results proved he had a ‘mandate’ from the American people. In other words , he seemed to be able to justify the choices he made -regarding the war and other of his administrations policy decisions- due to the votes he’s recieved.
There also seemed to be an attitude and behavior adjustment on his part as a direct result of the last congressional elections.
Comment by: Helen
16 03/24/07 10:38 AM | Comment Link |In the past I’ve abstained from voting when I wasn’t sure who to vote for - at those times I preferred to vote for no-one than regret who I voted for later.
(Which doesn’t mean I would vote the same way, if I could go back in time and re-vote, every time I did vote, by the way)
Generally I do my best to decide beforehand who to vote for, then I can go vote on the day. At least for the ‘major’ roles; I don’t necessarily vote for all those judges, etc.
It seems unfair to blame those who don’t vote when the person we didn’t want to win the election wins. Surely the people who voted for that person contributed more to their winning than those who didn’t vote at all - thinking mathematically.
But whoever is ‘to blame’, I like the ‘let’s not be guilty about our past votes’ approach to life. What’s done is done. Let’s just do our best in the future.
Comment by: Elaine
17 03/28/07 2:50 PM | Comment Link |Hmmm. What you all have said is ineresting and I can understand how you might have arrived at your decisions. I too have felt apathetic about voting at times.
(And as far as Bush having a mandate from the people…well, considering how contested the race was in Ohio (my state) and how small the margin of victory was in both of his elections…he does like to spin things.)
But, maybe we are focusing on the wrong end of this. What I was rambling on about in my earlier comment - is that by the time we get to the polls to vote - a lot of decisions have already been made by the parties about who is running. Hence, I too have voted “against” someone vs. voting “for”.
What I have come to realize is that as I become an engaged citizen - I can have an influence on who gets on the ballot - then maybe I could actually have an opportunity to vote “for” a candidate.
I think if I were going to label anything “evil” - it is the environment that creates in me a sense of powerlessness which leads to dis-engagement.
So, how I experience it, is the more unattractive they make politics and the more mudslinging that goes on - the more good people don’t want to run - and I have to vote “against” someone and evil wins again. (please don’t take that to mean that every politician is evil)
To quote a friend of mine, “Complaining is interesting, but it has no power to change the future.” (or as Helen said, “what’s done, is done.”)
What am I doing today to create a different tomorrow?
Comment by: benjamin ady
18 03/31/07 12:26 PM | Comment Link |Elaine–I love the way you approach this. I rather like the idea (very Carl Roger ish) that evil resides largely in institutions, in the communities and relationships we create, rather than within an individual per se.
Again–such an empowering way of seeing things. I wish I had been taught/challenged to think along these lines when I was much younger.
Comment by: Elaine
19 03/31/07 1:34 PM | Comment Link |Thank you, Benjamin. I like hearing that.
As far as learning it when you were younger, it’s not too late. I’m 59.
While I may have felt these things for a while - I could not articulate them before.
I did not have language to help me “name” what it was I felt. (which is what I think happens when I ramble - I’m trying to name something and can’t find the words.)
Working with Peter Block and learning Appreciative Inquiry have given me language to “name” what I sense.
Now, that I have language I can pass it on to other’s who have this feeling.
So, pass it on Benjamin!