Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
Peter Janarelli’s column “The act of nonvoting is not necessarily equivalent to apathy” is an interesting perspective when looking through a conservative lens. Peter states that he disagrees with representative politics, saying that voting is “an act of consent for the subjugation of my will….”
While I am sure he cannot mean that every aspect of his life is puppeteered by those that he may or may not vote for, I can’t help but wonder if his attitude is self indulging. It seems to me that his argument for not participating in the privilege – not the right – to vote is his way of showing others that he is above the process. I picture some sort of Zen moment where he might levitate off the ground while appealing to others that “voting is just another way of the man keeping you down.”
This may seem like an oversimplification, but remember it is the message that counts, not the vessel. He contradicts his argument when he talks about social reform and the lack of government intervention before being forced to do so.
My question to Mr. Janarelli would be: How do laws become mandated social standards without representative government? I would also remind Mr. Janarelli that not everyone at the stated times in history for his article agreed with the premise of equality. When we talk about political strength, there is an assumption of a majority in social agreement. Until that happens, social change does not come about.
Mr. Janarelli, or anyone else, will be hard-pressed to find a successful utopian environment that speaks for 320 million people. Our government may not be perfect, but we as a people must accept responsibility for the government we have. We accept this responsibility through the privilege – not the right – to vote.
This privilege can be taken away at any time. Just like our right to free speech has been somewhat muted by the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform law, our privilege to vote is somewhat vulnerable as well. I would suggest that if Mr. Janarelli would like his opinion to mean more than a college newspaper rant, he should take the responsibility that all of us have through the Declaration of Independence, to take back our country and run for office. There is one question that comes to mind when suggesting this course of action after reading Peter’s article: Would he be able to vote for himself?
The point that I take away from Mr Janarelli’s column is that he is fed up with the system. That, for whatever personal reason that is undefined in his column, he seems to be disenfranchised. To him and others with similar thoughts, I say that every cloud has a silver lining. If you can’t find that silver lining in the greatest country on the planet, you may be looking in the wrong place.
There is also a caveat to his feeling of despair that I would like to donate. It is only a matter of time until the revolution that he is looking forward to actually happens. I am not suggesting a physical revolution, but a philosophical revolution. A time when politicians uphold some sort of standards, like no longer sleeping with other people when one is married, no longer shoving $40,000 of cash into a freezer then employing the National Guard to get it for you during Katrina, no longer going into airport bathrooms seeking sex and no longer sleeping with male pages.
All of these changes that we seek start and end with us, the people. If we tolerate their actions and vote the same way, we are responsible. If we don’t vote, we are responsible. If we consume ourselves with cable news show phrases like “broken government,” we throw away our responsibility and blame the establishment. This refusal to accept responsibility does not produce change – it stifles change.
This election year may be just like the last, but it could also be a different time as well. A time when politicians actually become what our Founding Fathers wanted, the voice of “We, the People.”
Michael Craft is a conservative.
