Voting One's Conscience

[malthaussen]

74. Rather than "more than expected,"

... and a bit beyond the scope of the question. Which is okay by me.

As to the specific point, however, the assertion would then be "It is okay to vote your conscience where there is no tactical reason to do otherwise." Which would then necessitate the question be even more specific: how could a conscience that cannot vote for one candidate nevertheless not vote against Mr Trump when it arguably matters. A fair distinction, and a good one, I think, for those who are really interested in that question.

You're probably aware of the irony that the officer who recommended Mr Hitler for a decoration was a Jew. There were groups of Jewish veterans who supported Mr Hitler. It is true, and part of the answer of "how could they let it happen to them," that many of those the Nazi party set out to eliminate had no concept that they were about to be destroyed, that this good society could possibly enable such a heinous sequence of actions. Mutato mutandis, I'm sure that feeling is present in the US. I am not sanguine that, if Mr Trump has his way, Americans will not be wearing half-moons, and at the risk of being seemingly hyperbolic, I am not sure that we could never see extermination camps. OTOH, I don't consider these things probable, but IMO Americans are not singularly virtuous, so I can't rule them out altogether. It would take an unlikely concatenation of circumstances, but it might be possible, and is more likely to be possible if Mr Trump is elected President. I freely admit, I find him impenetrable aside from the obvious surface narcissism and vitriol. Which of his many rants he believes, and which are just playing to the marks, I do not feel competent to judge (and I wonder if he knows himself). Which policies he would try to enact, what plans, if any, he has or is willing to entertain, remain opaque to me. Therefore, I have to assess him on what he has said, which is bad enough to concern me greatly about what the future will hold if he is elected.

I expect I am clear on the nuance here: I'm talking about highly improbable things. That they may be more probable with Trump in the WH makes them no less improbable, but instead poses a question of arithmetic that each must answer for himself: is the threat, however improbable, posed by Mr Trump greater than the indignity of being compelled to vote for a candidate with whom one has no sympathy? (Or is that threat greater than the threats, different as they are, posed by another candidate) Unlike arithmetic, of course, it is a question with no certain or absolute answer. But when one uses "conscience" in partial or complete defense of their answer, then I wonder what conscience is saying about the various candidates, and how its influence may differ among them.

-- Mal