We hear a lot about the people's "duty to vote". We are urged to get out and cast our votes on election day, even if it's raining. Even if there's a big game on TV. Even if...
Some folks speak with approval of laws that make voting mandatory, and punish those who don't get out to the polls.
Do we really want the votes of those who can't be bothered to make a minimal effort to get out and vote? Anyone who doesn't care to make the effort to cast a vote probably doesn't care enough to have studied the issues.
A more fundamental problem, however, is that voting is not just individual self-expression. It is choosing the people in whose hands this nation's destiny will be placed. That is an enormous responsibility at a time when Americans are in greater peril than even during the nuclear standoff of the Cold War. After all, the Soviet Union could be deterred by our nuclear weapons but suicide bombers cannot be deterred by anything. And it may be only a few years before they have nuclear weapons. Choosing leaders in a time like this as a matter of self-expression may be the biggest, and perhaps last, self-indulgence in a self-indulgent age. We are not choosing politicians for style or rhetoric. We are deciding who has what it takes to confront our enemies and deter nations who would give aid and sanctuary to those enemies. Those who vote on the basis of what the government can do for them are especially shortsighted during a war against worldwide terror networks. What good would it do to get free prescription drugs forever if your "forever" is likely to be cut short by more attacks like those of September 11, 2001?
No comments:
Post a Comment