Why Vote? To Save Your Citizenship, for One . . .
Jul 16th, 2008 by Micah Tillman | 10 Comments |
Thanks to Mr. Stevens for the inspiration for this week’s article over at The Free Liberal.
In it I develop the discussion from this post, reformulating some points, adding others, and accusing all nonvoters of being noncitizens (among other things). *grin*
We’ll see what people think. And we’ll see what I think after we see what people think. (It was one of those, “That was fun to write, but I’m not sure what I’m going to think about it in another week, or year” kind of articles.)
So what’s with the gratuitous insults in your article? It’s certainly not the first time that somebody’s called me rude or a loner, but it is certainly the first time anyone’s called me spineless or anything similar.
I have to say that they cause you to come across as desperately trying to rationalize a prejudice.
I’m sorry that they came across as simple insults. They were meant with a grin and wink, in the ironic “American male-culture” criticism-as-sign-of-affection/respect way.
If I could have said, “and you have a stupid face and your mom wears army boots,” I may have been able to make it more obvious how the ad hominems were intended.
Or I could have just put “*grin*” after every insult.
But then the article would have looked too much like a blog post.
PS Just to be clear: each insult corresponds to one of the four “motivations” I list for doing the apparently-irrational thing in voting.
So I hoped the contrast between those motivations stated simply, and the negative (insult-)versions of those motivations would make the insults appear more absurd (and therefore tongue-in-cheek) than they in fact came across.
Also, I hoped that calling voters “dumb” (a double-entendre of the non-sexual variety) and “irrational” in the opening would make me both seem sympathetic to the nonvoter’s position, and make my “names” for nonvoters seem like part of an ongoing exchange.
And I hoped the double-entendre of “dumb” plus the aside about “behaving” in the opening would set a more jocular tone for the rest of the piece than they in fact did.
I didn’t actually take any offense and I noticed the parallelism between the insults and your reasons for voting, so I saw what you were getting at. (Although I object to the idea that not voicing opinions that nobody pays attention to corresponds with “spineless.” That one comes a bit out of left field.)
And indeed that is the point.
People are always praising people for “Speaking the truth” as if it were some kind of achievement which took bravery . . . .
And often no doubt it is. But not really in the case of voting.
Which is why it’s funny.
Or not.
People praise people for “speaking the truth” (presumably hard truths which lots of people will disagree with and therefore are likely to make the speaker unpopular) when they’re actually talking to other people, though, not in a secret ballot which you don’t even sign your name to.
No big deal. For what it’s worth, I can’t think of a better adjective to use which would have suited your purpose.
As for the whole non-citizen thing, I might even be willing to concede that point. Since there is literally not a single practical distinction that can any longer be made between your definitions of citizen and non-citizen, I’m a little confused as to why we should care.
By the way, I assume you’d favor compulsory voting as they have in some other countries (like Australia)?
If by compulsory voting you mean, “People in government shouldn’t treat you like a citizen (but like a resident alien/green card holder, or something similar) unless you voted in (at least) the most recent election,” then yes.
I don’t see how people in government could have a harmonious psyche and not draw that distinction. (After all, their positions depend on the mythology of democracy — that very mythology which says “voter” and “citizen” are coextensive terms.) But cognitive dissonance is something politicians don’t seem to have much trouble with *grin*.
I’ve never heard of “compulsory voting” before, though, so I don’t know if that’s what it would mean. I don’t think anyone should be forced at gunpoint to vote, if that’s what “compulsory voting” means.
If you don’t want want to play the democracy game, then why should the people with guns (I mean, “people in government”) care? Presumably a noncitizen has fewer entitlements, and therefore will cost them less money.
Well, personally, I think you’re making a number of artificial distinctions so I don’t think there’s any real cognitive dissonance going on here.
Compulsory voting is when voting is required by law. I believe not voting is punished with a fine. (You’re not actually required to vote since it’s a secret ballot, but you must show up at the polling place on election day or face a fine. The fine is waived in the event of illness.)
A fine? That’s harsh.
I like the waiver for illness bit. *grin*
Shows you one of the many complications a strategy like “mine” would force the people in government to deal with.