To vote or not to vote
In class we have just finished discussing the Declaration of Independence. In this seminal declaration of not only independence, but American political philosophy, Jefferson makes several bold assertions, perhaps the most important of which is that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
This of course raises the question of the source of government’s unjust powers, which I will leave for another day. I wish to discuss the derivation of government’s just powers.
My class is comprised of mostly twentysomething students. Our discussion of the Declaration, and of this remarkable statement regarding government’s power, did not move them as much as I would have thought. You see, when I read Jefferson, I am moved; there are stirrings within my heart as the power of his language and his ideas resonate within me. I believe Jefferson; I believe that governments are instituted among men to secure the blessings of liberty; I believe that government’s purpose, its just purpose, is to facilitate the securing of inalienable rights, not just for those in government, but for all citizens of the nation—or the state, county, or city for that matter.
But I don’t detect the same stirring in my students. I don’t see them get excited about Jefferson, or about Madison, or about any of the founders. And I think I know why. I think there are two reasons.
First, there has not been one candidate for office in this state (for statewide office, or for congressional district) or one candidate for the presidency that has been capable of showing by action a commitment to the principles of the Declaration. There is much lip service, but no service.
Do you remember Jefferson’s closing words? He writes:
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Where is the demonstration of pledging lives, fortunes, or sacred honor? Kerry’s and Bush’s fortunes seem pledged to the acquisition of an office, but Jefferson pledged his (or so we assume, and must assume) to the support of the Declaration and the principles enunciated therein. In my more cynical moments, I say there is no honor in politics. And so my students observe those in office, or those running for office, and they say to themselves “It is not about the people, it is not about inalienable rights, it is about the naked and consuming quest for power.”
Second, I think that the youth of today have been taught not to question the actions of those in authority to closely; related to that, I think they have been taught that government is too powerful to change, at least by individuals. As I outlined to them the most remarkable of the rights that Jefferson claims, the right to revolution, I could not encourage one person to suggest that this was either a good or a bad thing. The usual response to it was “Oh, the government would never let you get away with that.” Which of course is the point, though they did not see it, or perhaps wished not to see it. If government refuses to allow the right of revolution, the right to change the system, then the government has broken faith with the principles of the Declaration.
For these two reasons, I suspect, my twentysomethings—and even some of the more mature members of my class—wonder at the utility of voting, wonder at the value of participating. But how can I blame them? What choice is before them? And so I must concede the existence of a right not to vote, though I do so with great reluctance.
