February 11, 2008

Why I Ought Not to be a Bad Loser in the Primaries

Lately I've heard a lot of discouraged talk suggesting that people not vote in presidential elections, or send a message by voting for a favored candidate who is no longer running. There has been much bewailing the fate of the major political parties as these disappointed persons conclude that their ideas are no longer represented or even respected in their parties, since the politicians who championed them have not gained the success their supporters thought they deserved.

I quite understand the feelings expressed here, as several of my favored candidates have ended their presidential campaigns. Nevertheless, I must exhort myself and others not to despair, but instead to remain involved in the political process. The practical arguments in favor of continued engagement have been made elsewhere, and I have nothing to add to them. I shall therefore concentrate on two other arguments I have made to myself, having not heard them elsewhere.

My first argument is that we ought to be gracious, and encourage graciousness in our politicians, even when they have been defeated. It is difficult enough for them to be gracious as they have to voluntarily set aside their hopes of the presidency. We should not add to their cares by stubbornly insisting that we will still vote for them, or refusing to vote for anyone at all with a huff, or turning away from their party in a fit of pique. They need good examples and support from us just as much as we do from them.

Some may complain that the race was unfair, or that their candidate was shut out by the media, or that their candidate represents a marginalized group, or that their candidate didn't deserve this fate. None of these represent a reason why candidates and their supporters cannot still be gracious. Indeed, grace has its fullest meaning when it is undeserved.

The second major argument is that disagreements ought to increase our political activity, not lead to aggrieved apathy or haughty disdain for opposing candidates. Our country was founded on the idea that people can differ politically but still remain involved in the political process because everyone's rights are protected, and everyone has the ability to monitor their leaders. To stop being involved politically means a reduction in strength of our body politic, as we lose the input and vigilance of citizens ensuring that rights are upheld and that our leaders make good and fair decisions.

If we do not support a candidate's position on some issues, then we should watch that candidate all the more closely. If that candidate should be elected to an office, a voter with different opinions ought to be continually contacting that leader, making it known that they differ in position from that leader, and that they will watch what the leader does and remember it in the next election.

We may still wish that a candidate with different views had won. That then means we should learn from this election and plan for the next. It is ungracious, unfair, and dangerous to insist that if our candidates are elected, then everyone else must abide by the results, but if our candidates lose, we are free to abandon the system. It is vital for us to continue interacting with our politicians even, perhaps especially, when we disagree with them. That is the only way our positions will be advanced when we have leaders who disagree with us. More importantly, it is the only way to ensure that our government looks at all sides of an issue and makes an informed decision with, as our Declaration of Independence puts it, the "consent of the governed."

We must not let our pride tempt us to declare ourselves more wise or righteous than our fellow Americans who disagree with us. Instead we must humbly accept their legitimate votes- and start making plans and donations for the next election cycle.