Writes Tyrone Slothrop in the comments to yesterday's post "Galumphing toward the apocalypse."
I saw that last night but did not respond. What's different about today?
"Forget about his manners; stop stomping your foot about how crass he is; and for the love of heaven stop holding your nose up high and pretending you’re too good for this: a vote for Trump is a vote for the constitutional republic."
Both Hoyt and Slothrop are saying something about Us the People Who Abstain that might be true of some of us, but is not true of me. And this method of using insults to push people to vote is ugly. Are they doing it because they think it's effective? I don't yield to bullies. Are they doing it to display their own staunchness? Does it feel like humor from their side? It falls flat for me.
Notice how Hoyt and Slothrop contradict each other. Slothrop appeals to my vanity as he insists that I be a good person — not cowardly and neglectful of duty. Hoyt denounces vanity and insists that I not get involved in any sense of my personal goodness. Is this about me or isn't it? I can harmonize Slothrop and Hoyt by saying Hoyt is also appealing to my vanity because she portrays the abstainer as snooty — with her nose in the air, acting like she's "too good for this."
Slothrop is distinctly wrong when he says voting is a duty. No. It is not. Like speaking, like religion, like getting married, like having sexual relations, voting is a right, and a right entails the power to decline to exercise it. It is horrible to be forced to speak, forced to take on a religion, forced to get married, forced to have sex — these are loathsome impositions.
Hoyt is wrong — in my case at least — to attribute a refusal to vote for Trump to taking offense at his personal style — his manners, his crassness. I happen to enjoy his personal style. You can see that if you've been reading my blog over the last 5 years. I love freedom of expression, and I feel that I get him. He's a New Yorker. He's a comedian. He's free and daring. I like all that. I do have some concern about the wellbeing of my fellow citizens who hate him at some instinctual level, but I don't think they ought to be appeased for losing or threatening to lose their minds.
Trump has his style and I have mine. If it makes you want to stomp your foot, go ahead. You can keep "stomping your foot about" how cruelly neutral I am. You're free. You've got your right and I've got mine.
पोस्ट्स
२२४ टिप्पण्या:
224 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»If I felt the way you do, I would NEVER vote. EVER!
...distinctly wrong when he says voting is a duty. No. It is not... voting is a right, and a right entails the power to decline exercise it.
This is the correct view. Voting or not voting are both valid choices. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. That consent can be expressed passively by not voting the bastards out, or it can be expressed actively by voting the bastards out.
Got under your skin, huh?
Okay, Ann then WHY are you not voting in the most important election of your life in one on the most important states?
But I do like the fact that you’ve found a right to sexual relations. There’s a woman Iawyer I’d like to explain that to.
"Like speaking, like religion, like getting married, like having sexual relations, voting is a right,"
Exactly, Slothrop is wrong. I have abstained from voting for a a particular race because I disliked both candidates. It is a free choice.
Hoyt isn't wrong. She just isn't speaking to you. I know plenty of people that she is talking to. I was one of them last election. Not this time. I have chosen a side. It was an easy choice.
I don't think you are really cruelly neutral, but I get that's your brand. However, not voting is perfectly fine. It is 100% American to have a choice of what to do with your vote, including withholding it.
You just cancel Meade's vote anyway. Now it's Trump+1.
Did you intend for your final word to be might or mine?
We had a prayer service in our church last night. Someone mentioned people will not vote for Trump because of his past. Someone responded: "Everyone has a past".
I agree with you, Ann. I didn't vote for President in 2016 and stand by my reasoning. I honestly could not assess which candidate was superior. Both seemed to me to possess profound deficiencies, even if very different ones. After four years of Trump I now have the confidence to vote for him without reservation, his annoying faults notwithstanding.
The lesser of two evils explanation is a bit of a trope. We always choose between two (or more) imperfect candidates. Jesus is never on the ballot. Nor is His Mother. One should always vote for the least imperfect candidate, but there is no logical reason one should vote if one tries but are unable to discern which candidate is superior.
I have more of an issue with folks who are able to decide which candidate is best, but still choose not to vote because that candidate does not satisfy some fabricated idiosyncratic standard. This makes little sense to me. But I still don't think that this violates any duty unless one believes that the inferior candidate poses a genuine danger to the common good. We do have a duty to use reasonable efforts to protect and advance the common good, and the effort of voting is not unduly burdensome.
Well, at least he said he was only going to say it once.
Something I liked from philosophy prof Michael Huemer: Voting: Civic Duty or Immoral Waste of Time? Unsentimental, and a welcome different attitude than just about everyone else.
I just don't get the "let's try to convince people by insulting them" tactic used by Hoyt et. al.
ummm, it's Really quite simple: Not voting for Trump, is voting for Biden
it is a binary choice. To Biden? or NOT To Biden
In Australia:
It is an offence to "mislead an elector in relation to the casting of his vote". An "informal vote" is a ballot paper that does not indicate a clear voting preference, is left blank, or carries markings that might identify the voter.[35] The number of informal votes is counted but, in the determination of voter preferences, they are not included in the total number of (valid) votes cast. Around 95% of registered voters attend polling, and around 5% of House of Representatives votes are informal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Australia
Takeaway: Only about 5% of voters are capable of cruel neutrality in an independent study. Another 5% seem incapable of finding the polling station, even if required.
I am gratified that we are not required to vote in this country for a multitude of reasons.
same source:
In the 2010 Australian election, Mark Latham urged Australians to vote informally by handing in blank ballot papers for the 2010 election. He also stated that he feels it is unfair for the government to force citizens to vote if they have no opinion or threaten them into voting with a fine.[42] An Australian Electoral Commission spokesman stated that the Commonwealth Electoral Act did not contain an explicit provision prohibiting the casting of a blank vote.[43] How the Australian Electoral Commission arrived at this opinion is unknown; it runs contrary to the opinions of Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick, who wrote that voters must actually mark the ballot paper and deposit that ballot into a ballot box, and Justice Blackburn who was of the opinion that casting an invalid vote was a violation of the Act.[41]
Tim Evans, a Director of Elections Systems and Policy of the AEC, wrote in 2006 that "It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions."[44] Yet, practically, it remains the fact that having received a ballot paper, the elector can simply fold it up and put it into the ballot box without formally marking it, if he or she objects, in principle, to casting a vote. However, the consistently low number of informal votes each election indicates that having attended, had his or her name marked off, very few electors then choose not to vote formally.
I thought about posting yesterday to encourage Althouse to vote with reference to those who had fought and died to give us this right but then I decided that I didn't really want to come across all Lee Greenwood and that if there were those who died to give us the right to vote then it had to include the right to decide not to vote.
I am secretly hoping,though, that Wisconsin is an actual,literal tie between Trump and Biden after all the other votes are counted.
Agreed Ann, “shaming” you into voting is silly. Though not clear why seemingly you ended up at pox on both their houses. Kinda understood your amplified, IMO, response to Biden’s “good people” lie. But if you enjoy Trump’s style — something most haters cannot get past — then what gives?
Not voting for Trump helps Biden, just as not voting for Biden helps Trump.
Not voting is a choice.
I’d rather one not vote if the alternative is voting for Biden.
But I’m one of those people who think fewer people should vote.
Bob...I was wondering that also, but was too afraid to ask.
Ann, would you agree that there is such a thing as civic duty? That as individuals we owe something to those who have sacrificed so that we can enjoy the rights we have? Does not being part of a collective in which there are rights also imply that there exist duties?
And if such a thing as civic duty exists, is not the obligation to vote the highest expression of it?
I liked your argument that you could not decide which candidate would do more to minimize the far left. I didn't agree with it, but I feel it has more intellectual validity.
Get over yourself. Nine out of ten of us could care less what you do.
I can understand why those admonitions wouldn’t work.
I’m curious about the reasoning behind your decision to abstain though and hope that you’ll share it. I think most people assume that Trump’s personality and style are the turnoffs for non-Trump voters, but if it’s not that then I find it hard to understand why the extreme corruption of the Democrats (not to mention the illiberalism of the progressive ideology that’s taken hold with them) wouldn’t drive a person to support Trump.
Slothrop is distinctly wrong when he says voting is a duty.
True, but Slothrop is not wrong in saying that choosing not to vote is cowardly.
Voting is your way of giving voice. It is your one way of directly contributing to political discourse. It is your one way of having your thoughts matter on the direction of the country for the next four years.
When you choose not to vote, you are muting yourself. Worse, you are allowing someone else (who may not represent your views at all) to speak for you.
Frankly, I can think of nothing in a political sense that is more cowardly than that.
To quote a great modern philisopher, "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."
Don't listen to these people telling you to vote, Althouse. Don't vote. Don't even think about it. One less Biden vote.
Not making a decision is actually making a decision, so Althouse's decision not to vote for president is actually a vote. In this case, her'no vote' in WI is actually a half a Trump vote. Okay by me. It's a right, not a duty or a requirement.
If I'm remembering correctly, Meade votes 3rd party. I'd look it up, if I knew how to.
I love reading Althouse everyday, and she can do whatever she wants. I live in Australia at the moment and as the resident American often explain (to barely concealed laughter) that refusing to vote is the same as voting.
But this post is hilarious. I agree with MayBee - I find the “cruel neutrality” schtick to be mostly a lame branding exercise. And the abstaining from voting comes across as a means to strengthen Ann’s “brand”, unfortunately at the cost of a bit of credibility.
and to think this woman has been educating lawyers! Ann Althouse is about the dumbest lawyer I have encountered. I quit reading the blog for a long time, then today, I thought, lets see where she landed.
She didnt land.
I agree with your right not to vote for either, and no one should try to shame you for your choice, but when the choice is between a Constitutional Republic or a Socialist shit-hole, I would hope you could bring yourself to vote in defense of the Republic.
If I felt the way you do, I would NEVER vote. EVER
Early on I learned to vote for policies over people. I'm not sure I would have never voted if I wanted to vote for a Presidential candidate.
At some point within the next twenty-four hours, I hope to raise a glass in toast to four more years of President Donald Trump, breaking away from my weight loss program long enough to savor the sweet victory. Sadly, three of my four adult children will be angry and continue to call me a racist in spite of the life I've lived to the contrary.
I agree that voting is a right, Nota duty. I am very curious why you have chosen not to exercise that right this election. Especially since, as you say, it's not that Trump's communication style bothers you.
You think you’re being bullied now? Put on a Trump button if you want to really experience bullying. But your neutrality is a luxury I literally pay for with my financial support to politicians fighting to keep you from being banned. If they lose the fight, see how long your blog and videos stay up.
It’s not about you.
The wimpy middle position is voting by mail for Jo Jorgensen.
Hoyt is an immigrant from a socialist nation. Immigrants from socialist nations hate socialism a little too much and don't really understand the limitations of the US government. Whoever wins, your life won't change very much.
Nobody is entitled to your vote, you are free to vote for anyone or no one and nobody gets to say boo about it.
I find Sarah Hoyt off putting. Do what you think is right.
Yep. Funniest comment I’ve seen in 12 years of following this blog came on the post you put up a few months back called “ I did something today I’ve never done before. Can you guess what it is?” (Paraphrased)
I’m afraid I can’t recall just who was the commenter, but when I read the guess “Admitted you were wrong?’ I literally sprayed my coffee not only on my computer but on Mrs Squid who was seated opposite me at the table.
I guess that day just ain’t never gonna come.
"It is your duty"
False. You have a right to vote but no obligation or duty. I would prefer that people who are uninformed or do not like any of the candidates abstain from voting.
Not voting for one of the candidates offered is in fact a vote of protest.
I am biased as I have not voted for President since the 1992 election. My reasons varied but generally speaking I was protesting.
I will be voting for President this cycle. My vote today will also be a protest vote, against the other candidate.
Your neutrality. Let’s hope the rest of us don’t consequently suffer the cruelty that could come.
What Darrel said.
The older I get, the less political I get. Ironically, the older I get, the more political arguments I get into because the people around me are incensed that I'm not a Trump hater. It drives them nuts that I'm not desperate for a Biden presidency.
I went into the voting booth in 2016 fully intending NOT to vote for president. But, I thought Trump had very little chance of winning, so I just did it. I knew my sister, my niece, and my son were going to vote for him, but in states where it made no difference.
I have to say I'm happy he's been POTUS these 4 years. I'm not doubting my vote for him this year. I completely misjudged how insane the media would get. I didn't really misjudge how insane normal Democrats would get, considering they did a lot of this to Bush 43.
But I like no new wars, no piling up of regulations, no apologizing for what the media says must be apologized for. I like young men not becoming ever more under rape accusations at college under Title IX or insane "affirmative consent" laws. I like producing our own oil and gas through fracking. I like bipartisan prison reform.
So I'm happy to vote for Trump again. But I completely understand not being able to bring yourself to vote for either.
I agree with you. Your decision not to vote is as legitimate as anyone else's vote. If someone compels you to vote, that's worse.
Not making a decision is actually making a decision
remember those bumper stickers, that said: Don't Blame ME! I voted for the other guy
???
i think our Professor wants a big bumper sticker, that says:
Don't Blame ME! I didn't even Vote!
which, Does sound pretty cowardly
I think Ann will find that watching election returns is not nearly as exciting as they are when you have voted. For me, I've got beers, and expect to do lots of hootin' and hollerin'.
She goes on at some length here and tells us she is not refraining from voting for Trump because of his style. We waited with baited breath for her tell us then why is it she is not voting for Trump, but alas, we wait in vain.
Well, I am voting to protect speech rights. And border control. Anyone who has spent a lifetime seeing academia close up should be very concerned about the fascistic leftist speech suppression that has spread from the academic class to the media, social media, workplaces, kindergartens, and all through public and private life.
But of course you can choose another issue, or no issue at all. For now. If Biden wins, making choices about political issues probably won't be on the ballot next time.
And remaining vocally neutral about political issues probably won't be a choice you're allowed to make either. That's how these revolutions inevitably go. So maybe this is the last time you can choose neutrality. I don't actually see this as cruel.
http://ace.mu.nu/
Read "The Morning Report" by J.J. Sefton at the above link
It’s not a right and it’s not a duty. It’s a privilege and you should cherish it.
You're free. You've got your right and I've got might.
A typo? A leap into poetry? Or is there some secret force you have that you aren't telling us about?
You can see in this tweet that breaks down donations by occupation that college professors don’t vote like truckers and electricians. It’s kind of fascinating to see it broken out graphically, even if it tells us what we already know. The Democrats are the party of the rich.
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1323433732108218369
I respect your decision. It's just not mine. I think the US will be considerably worse off if Biden wins, so I will vote for Trump. Kind of hate to cause there are so many things wrong with him. But either he or Biden is going to win.
The published viewpoints of a "cruelly neutral" non-voter may be more persuasive than a person who announces her preference.
I don't care if or how Althouse votes.
I believe in God's greatest gift, and greatest curse.
Freedom of choice.
Voting is a right? I missed that in the Bill of Rights.
THEOLDMAN
It's still a free country and your choice. That's fine with me.
Wisconsin Democrats do not appear to be hitting their vote-by-mail and in-person early voting goals, an analysis of the early vote by "The Dan O'Donnell Show" has found. Despite a massive push for early voting across the state, the 12 counties won by Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016 are badly trailing their early vote percentage from four years ago.
As of Monday morning, the day after in-person early voting concluded in Wisconsin, the 12 Democrat counties--Ashland, Bayfield, Dane, Douglas, Eau Claire, Green, Iowa, La Crosse, Menominee, Milwaukee, Portage, and Rock--accounted for a total of 743,829 votes; 39.4 percent of the 1,886,533 cast statewide. In 2016, those 12 counties accounted for 50.4 percent of the statewide early vote (336,533 cast out of 666,846 total early votes).
Maybe Althouse not voting is a good sign insomuch as it reflects larger trends:
Dane and Milwaukee Counties--Wisconsin's most populous and most overwhelmingly Democratic--account for 29.8 percent of the 2020 early vote total, down a full percentage point from the 30.9 percent share of Wisconsin's early vote in 2016.
This indicates that voters in the 60 counties President Trump won in 2016 en route to winning an upset victory in Wisconsin are dramatically overperforming in the state's early vote this year. Based on this, L2 Data is projecting that President Trump may well be leading Wisconsin's early vote.
https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/alternate/amp/2020-11-02-democrats-appear-to-be-struggling-in-wisconsin-early-voting/
You voted for the Dems Affirmative Action candidate, Obama, and now you refuse to vote for the Dems Mentally Challenged candidate? But I tell you it's a storybook Man!
I was so bummed by not just McGovern's loss but it's extent that I didn't vote again until 88.
What the hey, they picked the jury pools from registered voters. One election this guy ran for
the state house and lost by like 2 votes. Sad. Than my aunts going on about how this guys mom, who's a family friend, should go down and check the whatever and be pissed at the friends who didn't bother voting. Hmmm, I hadn't thought about that. Shouldn't the secret ballot idea also include not making it too easy to find out if someone voted or not.
Vote. Don't vote. Whatever. It's your choice, not a "right". But I do have a "right" to criticize your choice if it helps elect the Democrat. Just my opinion. You can't be "shamed" if you are shameless. Lots of shameless behavior the last four years and 99% of it was from The Left/MSM.
Works for me, A-House.
I don’t think women should vote at all. I personally appreciate your restraint! 😆👍
Half a vote maybe, but no way will I give a full vote. There, now I am more stubborn than you are.
Well, I disagree with you. If there was ever an election that was consequential to the future of our country, it's this one. More than even 2016, which I didn't think at the time would be possible. But I won't argue with you. It's your blog.
I watched Biden's final speech last night, in Pittsburgh. He started walking off the stage at the end, and then his wife stopped him. He actually seemed annoyed. He went back to stand with his family. He tried to say something but the music drowned him out. It was really pathetic.
Earlier, Biden gave two speeches in Ohio. I listened to most of them. It was virtually the same speech as the one he would give in Pittsburgh. He couldn't even do this correctly. He mangled and slurred his words. He got lost, and sounded perpetually angry. I wouldn't want him to be the president of a local club, if I was a member.
Just as in 2016, and now after recovering from the coronavirus, Trump exudes energy, stamina, and love for his country. He accompanies that with good humor. I won't go into all of his accomplishments, which are truly amazing. In fact, considering the forces opposing him, they are mind-boggling. I would simply say that a vote for Trump is a vote against something. There have been times where I voted for Democrats on a local and state level, while voting Republican at the national level. Not this year. I'm voting a complete Republican slate, and I don't care who these people are. The entire Democratic party needs a time out. They need to go thru the wilderness. Anything less than a massive defeat across the board will enable them to continue their treasonous and pernicious behavior.
I really respect you, Prof. Althouse. I hope you will reconsider. At the very least, as a former law professor, please vote against lawlessness. Vote against an ideology that would gladly cancel you out for hosting a free-thinking blog such as this one.
I agree with others. Don’t vote. We don’t need another vote for Kammy Harris.
Careful there Odi - this is an American election, so using Canadian quotes could be construed as foreign interference in the election. Especially if you post that on Facebook. /s
I assumed it was because of shame for voting for Hillary. Anyway, if the other Althouses would follow suit...
Voting is a right...and as others have pointed out, a decision. Deciding not to participate or vote is also a right.
If one decides not to vote on something....even something as trivial as Prom Queen....then that is your right to abstain. HOWEVER, you have no right to then dispute, discuss, bitch about, or have any other opinion about the decision that the rest of the voters have made.
You have put your right to 'not' do something as your priority. You have, then, lost the right to further opine about the consequences from which you abstained, which, UNLIKE Prom Queen, may have some real and lasting effects upon you.
Life is not a mental exercise in academic jousting, or a thought game where you show off your agility. You may find this out sooner than later.
Ask Elvis
“You know I can be found
Sitting home all alone
If you can't come around
At least please telephone
Don't be cruel to a heart that's true
Baby, if I made you mad
For something I might have said
Please, let's forget the past
The future looks bright ahead
Don't be cruel to a heart that's true
I don't want no other love
Baby, it's just you I'm thinking of”
That's a lot of word salad BS. There is a vast difference between the direction Trump would take the country and the direction Harris would take the country. It's a clear choice. If you don't think that's important, that's your mistake.
I think everything you say about yourself is true, Ann. But - I don't understand the conclusion. Judging by an overall take on your posts for the last four years, it is pretty obvious that you should vote for Trump.
I have no thought of moving you. And I could not think less of you.
But for the record, since I missed it, can you restate why you are not voting this election? (And are you not voting for lower offices too, or only for the top line.)
I read this, and identified with it. I’m less interested in who is the best, but in which choice would stop the current strife in our country. I know who I blame, and like Althouse, I do not wish to give into bullies. That said, blaming the correct party doesn’t stop it. It might make it worse. I don’t know.
But I don’t have to make that choice. In fact, I can’t -my state isn’t even on the other party’s wish list. There's nothing even close to a competitive race here. No point.
Yet, I’m standing here in the freezing weather, for some reason, I guess. I haven’t even decided who to vote for yet.
Stomping our feet? We're clogging here!
John Borell: Not voting for Trump helps Biden, just as not voting for Biden helps Trump.
But Althouse is not voting for Trump and she is not voting for Biden, so who is she helping?
I don’t care how you vote, or even if you vote.
You be you.
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
If this topic is of interest to you, head over to Reason, and read Ilya Somin's take on a "moral" obligation to vote. Take a look if for nothing but the comic value. Agree or disagree with our host, her logic is orders of magnitude better than Ilya's tortured prose.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/11/02/is-there-a-moral-duty-to-vote-in-an-election-where-the-stakes-are-unusually-high/
I agree that Ann has no duty to vote. I’m working on an argument that if she doesn’t vote, she has a duty to write both a “How Biden Lost Me” essay and a “How Trump Lost Me” essay. So far, I’ve established that that is my wish.
Biden is so bad that even a woman vice president won't induce Althouse to vote. Just take the Althouse vote as default woman's vote. It's not a question whether she would ever vote for a structure-oriented man.
The people who tell you that you *must* vote are children.
Not voting in this awful election is perfectly rational and I do not begrudge anyone that choice, even if it is not my choie. I voted and frankly feel horribly dirty for it. I understand the arguments for all sides of the 'duty' issue but at the end of the day, most people talking about your duty to vote just want you to vote for their candidate and will not respect you more for choosing to vote but voting for the other guy (or lady). The same people railing against people who choose not to vote for reasons out of disgust with the choices (vs. say, raw laziness) will be the same people railing against you if you voted 3rd party and how you 'threw away your vote.'
Ok, I read Althouse every day and somehow missed she has chosen to NOT vote for a presidential candidate. How do I feel about that? In 2016, I chose a third party candidate instead of choosing between Trump and Clinton knowing my vote would not matter. I tried to find the least whackadoodle to vote for but, as it turned out, picked probably one of the worst. How was that better than not voting for that office at all?
A frustration of mine is the lack of knowledge (or lack of caring) about American history and/or civics on the part of politicians, general populace and especially TV pundits.
Is this election important? Of course it is, but doubtful more important than the one immediately following the Civil War. In 2016/17 a oft seen pundit - who was advertised as being a graduate of an Ivy League law school - gave the opinion that were Trump were to be impeached, Pence would also be taken out of the picture as well and a new election would have to be called. Hillary would then win. No one pushed back on her statement. So she was either lying or not very bright.
We survived Gerald Ford - we can survive whatever the day brings.
Strictly speaking, voting on an individual level doesn't matter. You increase Trump's vote total by one, and the odds of that mattering are too nearly zero to matter, versus the considerable cost of voting.
But, if you can instead of voting persuade one Biden person to vote Trump, you have made a difference of two votes your way. It would have been 0 to 1 and now it's 1 to zero, a change from -1 to +1, a difference of 2. So persuading is more powerful than voting.
Persuade a hundred and you're starting to matter, with a 200 vote difference, and all without voting.
Of course if everybody thought that way, it wouldn't work. But they don't.
If you really loved the country, you'd vote Trump. Persuading women.
I would say Althouse makes far more of a positive difference writing this blog than any single vote could make. Maintaining a reputation for "cruel neutrality" is important to that effort. It makes it more likely readers who can still think will pause and reflect on what she has to say. It makes it much harder to pigeon hole and dismiss her. This blog is an oasis.
The closest I've come to cruel neutrality was when I was a kid and I indiscriminately turned my magnifying glass on red ants and black ants alike.
Is this about you?
No-
It is bigger than you.
Slothrop is right: abstaining is neither courageous nor principled.
As the circuitous non-rationalization shows. Don't insult me! Don't play to my vanity! Me, me, me!
No argument, as far as I can tell, about what's best for the country. No argument, as far as I can tell, about why anything Trump has done or is likely to do is wrong. No argument, as far as I can tell, about the balance of power in DC that would work best.
Hoity toity
Voting is the act by which you earn the right to complain. While it would be interesting to see you try to spend the next four years in a cruelly neutral world of staunch analysis without condemnation, you can always just write-in yourself. Or Meade. Or Laslo.
I get it. You have deranged friends that would probably never speak to you again. You live in Madison so you have to worry about your personal safety. I just won’t take you seriously as you grumble about the inevitable leftist push towards fascism over the next 4 years should Democrats win.
Anytime a liberal Democrat doesn't vote is a good thing. First, do no harm, I say.
Tie goes from the Loser
Ann, I think you are mis-reading or mis-understanding Hoyt, maybe due to not understanding her background. She has seen first hand where the "Biden" road leads. She fled that. She does not want here to become that which she fled and she can not help but see it coming. Hoyt is imploring anyone that does not want Cuba or Venezuela or China to NOT sit out and to vote for the option which will not run headlong down that path. She is not trying to insult anyone "sitting out" but instead is imploring everyone to realistically view the two paths before us and pick the one that is more likely to preserve this republic.
I'm actually not voting for a person but a party. The Democratic Party is so hopelessly left that the choice of voting all R is very easy for me during this and election. This being the case, I don't have any dilemma when it comes to particular candidates. This is how I deal with the dissonance. In 2016, I voted Libertarian in Mississippi but I knew that Trump was going to easily win. Still, I enjoyed NOT voting for Trump as an individual perk. I'm now in Texas and some think that it might be close here this year so I wasn't able to weasel out of a Trump vote this time. I don't believe Biden can win Texas without major vote fraud but I also believe that Congressman Shelia Jackson Lee from Houston probably has the most corrupt vote harvesting operation in the USA so fraud is within the realm of possibilities. It will be interesting to see how her district votes.
Didn't abstain this year, but I did back in 2016, so I sort of understand the sentiment. Given my profession (lawyer), obviously my self-interest was mostly aligned with Clinton, particularly as Trump's signature policies on trade and immigration were pretty much all cost, no benefit, to people in my economic niche. And while I was in favour of stricter immigration enforcement, I was not in favour of abandoning the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations or NAFTA. And as I've commented here before, I actually kind of liked Clinton (although the agony of defeat in 2008 and 2016 has kind of driven her off the rails).
But I didn't feel I could responsibly vote against Trump given what I was seeing and hearing from less fortunate Americans, and their sense -- correct, I think -- that the professional classes who stood to gain from a Clinton victory had utterly abandoned them.
I thought yesterday calls to get you to do anything (vote in this case) are counterproductive.
But you had better hope Trump wins or the mental health about which you worry will not be that of some other person.
It will be yours, as you begin to realize what living in a totalitarian society does to you and all those you know and love.
Hoyt knows what that is like already.
Thanks for the 1/2 vote for Trump in Wisconsin today. Hopefully the other plausible deniers in Dane County, La Crosse, and Milwaukee will do the same.
I do know a few white women that wanted to vote for Biden but voted for Jo Jorgenson. It allows them to say they voted for a woman, while still washing their hands of making any kind of decision.
I guess I just don't understand why you're not voting. You've voted in past elections, what's different about this one?
120 to 150 Million Americans will participate in today’s historic election. Some who will not just don’t care, others are too lazy. Some will pretend to rise above the fray and not vote at all.
Blogger jaydub said...
Get over yourself. Nine out of ten of us could care less what you do.
I, OTOH, couldn't care less.
Persuasion is an unruly beast, but it is really what politics (and law practice) is all about. Donald Trump is a persuader of a certain type. If it doesn't work on you, well, that is your decision.
I don't think Joe Biden or the Democrats have made a very good case for electing them, but millions disagree with me. The question is, who is most effective in persuading at the margins?
Since I started voting in the early 1980s, I've wanted a None of the Above option on the ballot. I think it would be telling to see how many voted for None of the Above.
This issue has been done to death. Every presidential election it is a dead horse to be beaten. Vote or don't vote, whatever. Just stop talking about it.
I didn't vote in the 2016 primary. Voting for Trump was out of the question: he didn't seem serious, or presidential, or even informed enough. But I also couldn't vote for any of the other candidates - Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Clinton, Sanders - because I agreed with much of what Trump was saying. I did vote for Trump in the general election, mostly because I thought he would lose and didn't want it to be a blow-out or (as the current phrase seems to be) a bloodbath. It doesn't seem to me that not voting in the primary was any more a dereliction of civic duty than actually voting for Romney or McCain was.
I voted for Trump this time, in large part because of the media. When you hear over and over again "Trump falsely claims" or "Trump lies" and then learn that he said something that was largely true or at least debatable, while all of Biden's dubious or false claims go undisputed past the "fact checkers," it's hard to take the anti-Trump rhetoric seriously. Also, Trump has done a surprisingly good job as president. I tend not to pay too much attention to the candidates though. Too much time spent watching and listening to any one of them raises my blood pressure. If I had to watch every rally I might abstain, too.
I value your freedom of conscience, to do as you see best in this situation as a very great good that shouldn't be manipulated, but respected.
I have no issue with Althouse not voting in the Presidential Election, but I would have thought you would want to vote in local elections and leave the Presidential line blank. I've done that before.
The one election I really cared about today is my Town Council election. It's the guy who runs the local gas/oil company vs. some accountant. I want the gas/oil guy to win. We've had a lot of issues with power outages and storms, and he would be a good resource to have. Our town supervisor is a retired engineer, and he's been great with dealing with the power company in outages.
The elections you as an individual can influence the most are those small, local elections.
Now, for all I know, your local elections are actually next year, not this year, in which case never mind. But I generally encourage people to pay attention to those local elections. They're really important. If you get a town council that doesn't know how to plan for, say, plowing the snow of the streets, you can have a tough time.
I've intentionally "not voted" in a presidential election twice. My thought was that my vote was signaling approval of a candidate and I didn't approve of any of the options. The problem with that line of reasoning is that someone is going to be elected president whether I approve of them or not. It's a binary choice. The place to affect change is in the primary. Which is why I constantly harp on primary engagement. At this point, however, either Trump or Biden is going to President. You would prefer one of them, even if by the smallest of margins.
Well it is not just for the candidate but the people he brings with him, and Trump has lost the folks who put country first and surrounded himself with a new swamp of corruption which will only get worse. But I suppose the Althouse stance will allow her to throw more chum to her right wing followers.
If you are not part of the solution, you are the precipitate.
Trump may not get Althouse's vote, but he won the coveted Lil Pump endorsement.
Rapper Lil Pump said he'd move to Colombia if Trump is not re-elected.
“If Trump does not get elected, I’m moving the fuck out of here! Nigga, I’m going to Colombia. Fuck it!”
The rapper cited higher tax rates as one of the reasons he does not support Joe Biden.
“All I gotta say is Trump 2020 bitch! Fuck, I look like I'm paying a extra 33 in tax for Biden? Bitch ass nigga. Fuck sleepy Joe … Trump 2020 bitch.”
A good time to link Saki's suffragette story:
Hermann the Irascible
The Story of the Great Weep
The suffragettes organize mass public weeping about their denial of the vote, so King Herman
("In many ways he was the most progressive monarch who had sat on an important throne; before people knew where they were, they were somewhere else.")
gets a law passed that makes women's votes mandatory, with elections weekly.
This victimhood narrative is faux and you know it. No one's trying to "force" you, and no one's suggesting you have any sort of legal duty. People are just criticizing you for exercising your right to abstain for what they see as foolish and frivolous reasons.
Up here in the ever coldening north, where it is a first past the post party-focused parliament, a co worker of mine used to lament where his ballot was always a waste of time where they lived in an area that voted the same way for decades.
The scheme we concluded needed done one year long ago, when the monkeys named as possible Reps/candidates for us in Ottawa was particularly egregious, (including the “incumbent” party member) was that there should be on each ballot a box that says “none of the above” and if the number of ballots for that beat the ticks for the actual monkeys, none of the candidates would be allowed to re-offer and some other monkey would have to step forward.
The thought being that if you didn’t want to vote for the lesser of two useless tools, because you concluded surely to good god there was a better person among the 50000 you could send as a rep, there you go. Over time I expected such a check measure might get rid of 2-3 really lousy political reps each election. Not a big change, but it may lead the parties to reflect on who they have in their ranks, rather than be lazy about it.
Have to say, I've come to respect Althouse's position, though I don't think she articulates the reason well.
It would be great for a small number of professional moderators in the media to remain neutral, to encourage open, honest debate, without having a paper trail of votes or political donations behind them that would suggest hidden bias. That is the best way to maintain integrity and respect from the audience.
Sadly, that's been completely lacking from almost all moderators this political cycle. Ann's maintenance of "cruel neutrality" keeps her above the fray, and allows all commentators the confidence to post their (legitimate) views with the knowledge they will be fairly considered.
No one's perfect, But I've come to understand her position, and I think its best for the blog.
Does not voting remove your right to protest? In other words you are accepting whatever ruler comes into power and therefore whatever rules they decide to invoke. Plato wrote the Crito with an examination of this very theme. Is an appeal to emotion bullying?
I can understand why people don't vote. Understandable reasons: 1) No trust in the system. That is, a system so corrupt your vote wouldn't count anyway. 2) No knowledge of the candidates 3) A belief that both candidates are basically the same so it wouldn't matter who won.
Every year for our birthday my father gave each of us a new privilege geared to how old we were. With it also came a new responsibility. You didn't get one without accepting the other. Becoming old enough to vote grants us a privilege denied to many around the world and through time. To accept that privilege is also to accept the responsibility to use it. When you registered to vote, you accepted the privilege. If you aren't going to vote, that's fine, but unregister yourself. Give up the privilege if you won't accept the responsibility.
I think not voting is the morally correct position if both options are bad. I don't believe that's true in this case, but I also know lots of people who do think it's true and I really respect them, and you, for that.
What I'm interested in is your position that a right to something excludes a duty to exercise that right. I think that's false. In general I think a right to something is always joined to the responsibility to exercise that right responsibly. The right to bear arms implies the duty to bear arms responsibly. You will say, that's true if I chose to excessive that right, but I don't have to so choose. But I don't think that's true. I think if the situation were calamitous enough, your right to bear arms would become a duty to defend your self and your country.
I'm not totally sure of myself here, so I'm interested in your responses. But that was my first thought.
So, it’s crumbs then. Not voting for this office means one less vote for Biden in Althouse’s case. It’s weak tea, but better than nothing and certainly better than the shit sandwich served with a Biden victory.
Smells like sanctimonious horseshit to me, Ann.
You have an obligation as a citizen to vote.
Not necessarily to vote for or against anyone in particular. Not for Trump or Biden.
You can vote for a third party. You can write in a name. You can vote for "none of the above". If you have legitimate (paper) ballots as we do, you can even make one big X, spoiling the ballot.
I've done all of the above over the years. I'm probably going to write President Trump in for gov. (Puerto Rico does not vote for prez)
Do something, but vote. You have no legitimate claim to be a citizen if you don't. Especially in light of having taught Constitutional law all these years. You have no excuse. Not only should you know better, you do know better. If you truly don't, you whole career has been a lie.
Shame on you.
John Henry
But you can't
Blogger Mark said...
Got under your skin, huh?
Mark teh Mook is already dreaming of skin suits...
Given Trump’s accomplishments with the economy and jobs creation, foreign policy, immigration, the VA, the military and the judiciary (if you favor originalism), etc, and given the Democrat enabled corruption of the media, federal law enforcement, the impeachment process, and the disruption of the public peace by their Brownshirts added to their disdain for the First and Second Amendments, refusing to vote is not “cruel neutrality” it is an endorsement of evil even for a moral relativist.
Add in Biden’s grifting, his destructive platform*, his obvious mental decline as illustrated by innumerable videos on YouTube and Kamala’s inexperience and temperamental unfitness for the job and “endorsement of evil” becomes too mild. “Embracing evil” is more apt.
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”
–Edmund Burke, Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents 82-83 (1770).
Alternatively from Burke, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” - Letter to Thomas Mercer.
*Biden’s pandemic hysteria is a nonstarter for intelligent people. Presidents don’t cure acts of God (or acts of nature if you prefer). Even so, as of yesterday Statista.com reported that the US Covid death rate was 51st in the world.
I can respect that in a general sense, but this year?
Staying on the sidelines in 2020 is tacit approval of chaos, rioting and looting. More specifically, of “leaders” that refuse to control it while they lie to us about who is responsible.
I think the proper term for this argument is "rationalization".
I am fine with people not voting. I don't have any idea why Ann is not voting. It is her business, not mine. The only bottom line for me is that not voting is also a kind of voting in its consequences. Someone does not get your vote, which they could use. So you are still participating, whether you vote or not. I see a lot of reasons to vote for Trump, a few not to, and a HUGE set of reasons to keep the current Democratic Party as far from power as possible. It's got absolutely nothing to do with ME or my pride or guilt or vanity or any of it. But I do hope others take my advice and vote as I will.
TheThinMan said...
If they lose the fight, see how long your blog and videos stay up.
If I recall, she is already having problems in this regard.
And all she is willing to actually do about it is whine.
Still using Blogger. Still using Google for search.
She is obedient.
John Henry
Understandable reasons: 1) No trust in the system. That is, a system so corrupt your vote wouldn't count anyway. 2) No knowledge of the candidates 3) A belief that both candidates are basically the same so it wouldn't matter who won.
4) A basic grasp of arithmetic to understand that one's vote does not matter. People vote because of how it makes them feel. If you don't feel like voting, then why would you? Your vote will not change the outcome of the election.
I don't blame Althouse for sitting out the POTUS election. Regardless of who wins it is a good sign that all liberals are not reflexively voting Democrat his time.
It may not matter that the media has vilified Trump and carried Biden over the finish line. I sense a trend wherein people are rethinking their tribal alliances, like Dave Rubin.
If Biden wins, we may dodge a 2024 bullet because the Republicans will benefit from the DNC fucking things up. If Trump wins and the economy roars back, people will think they can afford 4 years of Democrat shenanigans and incompetence in 2024. That's not to mention that Republicans will get to choose among the RINOs that run the party.
I may wind up supporting Brett Weinstein's Unity Party in 2024 if the popular demand for a Dan Crenshaw-Tulsi Gabbard ticket holds.
I don't blame Althouse for sitting out the POTUS election. Regardless of who wins it is a good sign that all liberals are not reflexively voting Democrat his time.
It may not matter that the media has vilified Trump and carried Biden over the finish line. I sense a trend wherein people are rethinking their tribal alliances, like Dave Rubin.
If Biden wins, we may dodge a 2024 bullet because the Republicans will benefit from the DNC fucking things up. If Trump wins and the economy roars back, people will think they can afford 4 years of Democrat shenanigans and incompetence in 2024. That's not to mention that Republicans will get to choose among the RINOs that run the party.
I may wind up supporting Brett Weinstein's Unity Party in 2024 if the popular demand for a Dan Crenshaw-Tulsi Gabbard ticket holds.
I am having a difficult time working through the argument our hostess makes. Putting aside entirely whatever view she might have about the candidates themselves, isn’t it fair to say that certain policy events will take place if one wins rather than the other? It’s not hard to make a list of likely outcomes. Cruel neutrality cannot reasonably be deployed in the assessment of the net effect of such a list. Either building a wall is a good thing or not. Either staying out of foreign armed conflict is a desirable result or it isn’t. Either support for state supplied medical care is a valuable goal or not. Either support for critical social justice theory is or is not a worthy goal. Either low or high tax rates is preferred. Abortion rights. Racial preferences. NLRB. Economic vibrancy. Crony capitalism
Surely, somewhere in there a preference emerges, and without expressing that preference, one lets others make that choice and take you with them. I don’t see the virtue in that. Particularly in a swing state. My vote in California on those preferences is as close to worthless as it can possibly get, but that choice will not be made here without a fight ...pitiful though it may be. I would dearly love to cast my vote where it counts for something.
Cruel neutrality in this situation is merely abdication of personal responsibility. It’s hard to see it any other way.
- Krumhorn
- Krumhorn
You have no legitimate claim to be a citizen if you don't.
If Ann votes in the midterms can she reclaim her citizenship? What type of paperwork is involved in this process? Does she have to wait on the other side of the wall until 2022? Or does she have to wait until the next presidential election?
I was 100% on board with Ann on this one, but I'll be honest, I had not considered the citizenship angle.
Hey, I think you'd normally be a Biden voter except for his disqualifying Charlottesville lies.
So I'm cool with your abstention.
You're right, you have the right to abstain.
But if you do, you lose the right to bitch. I don't want to see one post moaning about the election results, or a post for the next four years attacking the president or his actions.
Take it easy on Althouse. If you want to see a real bum, check out Patterico. The man’s certifiable.
historyDoc: yes, it is temporarily best for her very enjoyable blog until her willingness to tolerate a diversity of opinions gets her moved to the front of the line for the next bus tire facial.
You know history, right?
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”
–Edmund Burke, Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents 82-83 (1770).
This is the essential plot of many a Western.
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”
–Edmund Burke, Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents 82-83 (1770).
This is the essential plot of many a Western.
Your vote, freely given, would be appreciated by Trump supporters this time around.
Your vote, demanded at the point of their guns, will be expected by Biden supporters forever.
Your choice, not so neutral as you think.
Carefully reading her post for the “dog that didn’t bark” I can only say that Althouse’s abstention comes from (sotto voice) R v W combined with a distaste for drinking vomit precluding her from voting Biden.
It's not an insult, but a simple fact to say that if you throw away something so valuable that millions have died to get the right to it, then you lack a deep level of gratitude and sense of duty. All the dancing around attacking those who remind you of it doesn't change that. It's not about what we think of you. It's about you and what you think of us, and that's all I intend to say about it.
Just out of curiosity does your cruel neutrality extend beyond the Presidential race? Presumably there are other offices to be filled in WI, and there are clear choices to be made.
In the Presidential race there are many differences between Trump's policies and Biden's, some of them vast, portending enormous changes in direction for the country and even the world as a whole. I would hope you have some opinions about this. Voting is more than filling an office; it is a declaration of what direction you wish the country to go.
The election in WI is likely to be close. Your vote could actually be decisive. (I live in a state where the outcome is not in doubt.) It seems to me to be a missed opportunity to abstain.
Althouse is one of those women on the internet who isn't doing cam-show porn.
Occam's Neutrality.
I am Laslo.
Just out of curiosity, how does voting for Obama and Hillary, but not Trump, illustrate cruel neutrality?
I respect anyone’s decision to not vote. I actually would prefer people to abstain if they either don’t know enough about the candidates or don’t have a clear opinion about who would be better. My personal opinion this year is that the Democrat party and the media need to be shown exactly how off course they have gone by a resounding Republican win across the board. If that doesn’t happen..perhaps it’s a case of people having to have the worst happen to them so that they finally understand. One half of the country has clearly understood that the powers that be will stop at nothing to gain more power..maybe the people voting for Biden today have to learn that lesson themselves the hard way..they come for everyone eventually. I’m hoping we still have enough people who are anti corruption to win the day but we shall see
It is your duty, which you appear to wish to neglect, to decide which candidate is less bad than the other and cast your vote.
The only duty a citizen has is to think seriously about about an election. If, after considered thought, the decision is to abstain, then the duty is fulfilled.
I'm sure folks have noticed by now that the more of a fuss they make about Althouse's decision, the more obstinate she becomes in maintaining it.
It's part of her wayward charm.
I would rather our hostess vote, but keep her vote to herself.
I rather suspect that is her plan. She doesn’t strike me, in any way, as a non voter. The rest of this is evanescent persiflage.
- Krumhorn
Not voting is a right, as well. You aren't forced to make a choice. Make a decision.
However, it opts you out of the right to have an opinion on the consequences of not voting.
In small things as in big things. If you don't chose an option when offered to you for dinner, or for what color to paint the house...that is fine. You don't get to complain later though.
I'm voting against corruption.
The Biden-Clinton-Pelosi family fortunes were made using our tax dollars and international grift.
UnAmerican.
I would say Althouse makes far more of a positive difference writing this blog than any single vote could make. Maintaining a reputation for "cruel neutrality" is important to that effort. It makes it more likely readers who can still think will pause and reflect on what she has to say. It makes it much harder to pigeon hole and dismiss her. This blog is an oasis.
Now explain how it is possible to remain "cruelly neutral" after voting for Obama and Hillary, but not Trump.
In the famous words of my great French manager, Louis Vatel, "You can do that, but it will be wrong."
Elie Weisel has something to say to you, too.
Not voting is perfectly fine. You don’t owe either your vote or an explanation to anyone. The only duty you have is to not vote without thought, and that will be transgressed mightily today.
I should add, you have a duty not to vote for Birkel. Obviously.
“ I liked your argument that you could not decide which candidate would do more to minimize the far left.”
I missed this argument somehow. If Biden wins, the short term damage from the far left may be minimized—fewer riots, less looting—but the long term damage will be worse. Welcome to your reconciliation session!
“ I liked your argument that you could not decide which candidate would do more to minimize the far left.”
I missed this argument somehow. If Biden wins, the short term damage from the far left may be minimized—fewer riots, less looting—but the long term damage will be worse. Welcome to your reconciliation session!
It's not an insult, but a simple fact to say that if you throw away something so valuable that millions have died to get the right to it, then you lack a deep level of gratitude and sense of duty.
Oh bullshit! Fuck that! Half Ann's readers are voting because they *honestly think* they need to stop an international pedophile ring. The other half because they *honestly think* they need to stop a Nazi resurgence. It is not your duty to vote. Please stay home! Your grampa that stormed Normandy will understand.
This one post sent me into two different meaning/etymology rabbit holes. One, the meaning and etymology of "vanity" (wondering whether commitment to a virtue such as 'courage' could be properly described as 'vain'). Two, the difference between abnegate and abdicate, as in, 'Did she abnegate her duty?'.
It occurs to me that I am at the right blog. I would dig deeper into the etymology of 'vanity' but I would rather go and vote.
Just to be clear, I would STRONGLY oppose any law requiring me to vote.
Voting, even casting a nine of the above, blank or spoiled ballot, is a moral, not a legal obligation. It should never be a legal one.
John Henry
The question for Biden voters is "Do you hate Trump more than you love your fellow man?"
If I had a high media profile and lived in a place with violent and prejudiced neighbors, I might take the same tack.
There is something discomforting about comments here assuming that a “course correction” will be possible in the future if Democrats sweep this election. I think too many people assume that despite Democrat promises rendering correction unlikely and media corruption creating the likelihood that any Democrat action, however shameless or oppressive, will be lauded by the mediaswine.
Some of the threats/promises:
Packing the Court
Confiscate “assault” weapons
Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico creating a permanent Senate majority
Prohibit online gun and ammo purchases
Continued corruption of federal law enforcement
Confiscatory taxation to pay for Biden’s “programs”
Green New Deal
Bernie’s healthcare
Kamala’s Presidency
Open borders and “11 million” New Democrats
Abortion on demand
Soros prosecutors
Trump’s business experience, courage and perseverance have allowed him to have unlikely successes against Democrat corruption, but we will not see his like again, nor are the days when Republicans are able to match Democrat campaign spending likely to recur. Also, swamprats abide in the Republican Party.
This is it!
If a person has a loving husband who is a strong Trump supporter, and a loving only son who is a strong Biden supporter, what else is there to do but to abstain from voting?
“This blog is an oasis.”
If this blog is an oasis, it is because of the commenters including Althouse when she deigns to comment. Otherwise, she is just the hostess and provocateur.
tcrosse at 7:30 - hats off to you, sir.
Give Althouse a break, people. I personally wish a lot more feather-headed white suburban women would likewise not vote.
Oh, and repeal the 19th amendment.
As in 2016, I did not vote for president. Dan McLaughlin, formerly the blogger "Baseball Crank," explains the choice more clearly than I can myself. If my fellow Americans vote for "good and hard" my only hope is that some lessons will be learned. I'm not confident.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/i-was-never-trump-in-2016-im-still-a-conservative-heres-how-im-voting/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=fourth
There are probably 100 or more "issues" that could matter to a person, and often there are just one or two that trump (no pun intended) most all others. However, even with those key issues, we take for granted that other issues are "given". Not unlike Maslow's hierarchies.
If air water, food, shelter and clothing are all there, you don't put much priority in them. and you attend to other important things instead. If you see no threat from their loss you won't put forth energy to maintain or obtain them.
The question here might be, does Althouse believe the Democrats truly are a threat to core issues that she takes for granted.? Her abstention may be such that she does see the threat but not strongly enough to over-ride other issues, but just strong enough to give her pause. She may have reached the tipping point and cannot support the threat but cannot support the people who threaten her key issues.
I say this not as an analysis of Althouse. I could guess at possible key issues, but I think people are too complex to easily box them in. My guess though, since people will want to know is: LBGTQ rights and pro-choice. Never get between a mama bear and her cub.
BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
I'm voting against corruption.
The Biden-Clinton-Pelosi family fortunes were made using our tax dollars and international grift.
UnAmerican.
11/3/20, 8:42 AM
Same. Biden wins, and they all continue selling us out. Period.
"I do not wish to give into bullies."
I bet there has been more glass broken in Portland or Chicago than was broken on Krystallnacht. One thing I am sure of is that if Beiden wins RNC and in particular never Trumps will get little support. Some day I hope to be rich enough to become a Democrat.
AA's providing daily thought-provoking commentary and a place for people to express themselves is more than many of us do to Make America Great Again.
and a loving only son who is a strong Biden supporter
She has two sons, but one doesn't blog politics.
You have no obligation to vote. I wish it were not so easy, for various reasons. Mostly so that it is taken more seriously by those that do.
Voting should be one day, in person, with photo ID, and you get a stained finger when you are done.
I am also in favor of there being a test before you can vote. You should know basic civics AND who your current President, Vice President, your congress critters, your Governor, and Mayor are. If you don't know that, you don't take your civic duties seriously enough to have earned the right to vote. Please stay home, watch TV, maybe read the NYT.
"Trump has his style and I have mine."
The key to the riddle. It's about style.
Many of us here care about political principle or about policy or about balance of power or about party.
But Althouse has her style. Which matters most.
Which is not a criticism, simply an observation about a fundamentally different outlook on life. Topic for another day.
Hopefully African Americans as a “community” will follow your lead and display their might. Just this once.
Ann seems to assume that in all cases having a right does not entail a duty to exercise that right. This is true in some cases, but not in all. Parents have a right to teach their child to be a truthful person and not lie. At the same time, they have a duty to exercise that right.
Due to alienation and/or laziness, I didn't vote all that often when I was younger. Just as well. I was wrong about most things back then. Nowadays I'm seldom wrong about anything, and I vote more often. In such a way does our democracy survive and endure....Life doesn't make sense. You would think that a guy with Trump's marital record would be the one to raise a dissolute playboy son, but that's not how it worked out. You'd think that someone with Biden's dietary discipline and trim waist would be the candidate to project stamina and vitality, but, again, that's not the case. Also,it's kind of sad to see that despite the heroic efforts Joe Biden made to retain his hair, Trump stands out as the candidate with the most hair....My subversive thought about this election is that it's not the most important one in the history of our nation. Still, I'm going to vote for Trump
I will give you partial credit for your answer. You are correct that you have an absolute right to decide how you should vote or whether you should vote. If we don’t have the freedom to make our own decisions we are nothing more than slaves to the state. However, where you lost points is in your logic. Unless you believe that it will make absolutely no difference to you who wins the election, then by abstaining you are making a decision that is not in your best interest.
This reminds me of the old comedy routine:
You can call me Ray;
Or you can call me Jay;
But ya doesn't have to call me Johnson.
So we don't have to call Althouse a slacker, just cruelly neutral.
There's nothing wrong with being an outlier, assuming you really are one. The problem starts when too many people are outlier's. As someone once said: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".
mtrobertslaw said...
Ann seems to assume that in all cases having a right does not entail a duty to exercise that right. This is true in some cases, but not in all. Parents have a right to teach their child to be a truthful person and not lie. At the same time, they have a duty to exercise that right.
-----------==============
now do serving on juries - how are they different from law class rooms after tenure
Personally, i think non-voters have a lot of nerve. Although it galls me to write it.
Where I live a good number of the electorate do not register to vote. Why?
They don't want to be summoned to jury duty.
(eaglebeak)
Sometimes detachment, or sublime indifference or cruel neutrality or whatever we're calling it, really means a defect in the capacity to empathize. However, I don't mind your not voting because at least it keeps you from voting for Biden.
You could argue that it's none of my business, and you'd be right--except, since you want to tell us, you make it our business, or you invite us to have reactions to it.
Your line about your style and Trump's style amused me because it reminded me of a famous Elvis dictum that I always liked. When in December 1970 Elvis showed up at the White House (unannounced) and succeeded in getting a meeting with Nixon, on the spot, more or less, in the course of their very friendly chat Nixon elbowed Elvis and said "You dress kind of strange, don't you?," Elvis replied, "Well, Mr. President, you got your show and I got mine."
Sebastian said, "Slothrop is right: abstaining is neither courageous nor principled."
No, Slothrop is wrong.
If there is duty in voting it is to vote wisely. This is extraordinarily difficult to do, especially in a national election in a nation remotely the size of the United States. Does any of us really know enough about "what is going on" to vote wisely? If not, then to abstain is easily a principled decision.
Additionally, abstainers retain their rights to complain. If none of the choices advances their ideas about "what is best", why vote? Kamala Harris beat fellow Democrat Loretta Sanchez for the US Senate in the general election in 2018. There was no Republican on the ballot. No way I would vote for either of those clowns. And it doesn't mean I must remain silent about Kamala.
Most of the Althouse commentariat is just disappointed Althouse is not voting for Trump.
Me, I wish there were ten million Althouses voting for Trump. But wishing does not make it so.
Q : are elections periodic snap quizzes by Uncle Ben >>> can you keep a Republic?
What say you to Uncle Ben ? law professora emerita
I don't know why anyone would be giving Althouse a hard time on this. It's one less vote for the Dems candidate in Wisconsin.
does it really make a difference in deep blue dane county, I felt almost as bereft when I lived in broward county,
I vote in those elections in which the choice has sufficient information and some reason to think that my exercise of the vote, if mimicked by the similarly situated, would improve things more than abstention would. I don't vote in uncontested races unless I like the candidate. I don't vote in races between party hacks and complete unknowns, or between two socialists. Lots of reasonable bases for abstention generally. But Trump v Biden in a battleground state? That's a form of neutrality that's cruel to you, kiddo.
"You've got your right and I've got might."
Ah..
I think uninformed people should not be encouraged to vote. In prior workplaces, I always hated memos or signage reminding people to vote. If you need a reminder, don't vote.
In this case, I think the abstaining is less cruel neutrality, more fear of being somehow responsible for results.
Hands clean!
@Krumhorn, Churchy: It occurred to me, too, that Althouse could really be a shy voter rather than a non. Just as she doesn’t have a duty to vote, she also doesn’t have a duty to disclose her vote, or even to disclose whether she voted, to the likes of us. Last time, she tried to keep her vote to herself, and her commentariat kept trying to wheedle it out of her and accusing her of making the worst possible choice. If Althouse lies to us about whether she voted, we kinda deserve it. And honestly, I’d rather believe she’s lying to us than that she is unable to form a defensible preference.
Abstaining because there are very fine people on both sides.
It's Prof's vote to use or not use, or "throw away" by voting for a third party. I have done enough of that over the decades to know that anyone who insists that you MUST vote is almost guaranteed to criticize your choice if it happens not to be theirs.
I cast my vote this time knowing full well that it's barely more than a ceremonial remnant and my own will be swamped by the votes of the ignorant and shallow.
Narr
Bring back literacy tests!
"I do have some concern about the wellbeing of my fellow citizens who hate him at some instinctual level,"
"instinctual"? They hate Trump at some instinctual level, the way teen-aged girls loved the Beatles in 1964. That is, all their friends were doing it.
You certainly have the right not to vote. Voting was originally restricted to male property-owners, and it was regarded as a responsibility, rather as if they were serving on a Board of Directors. They were expected to turn their attention to the issues, and to make the best decision for the community they represented. Just as the legislators they elected were expected to do. But those days are long gone. Anyway, no one can know whether you voted, or how. They can only know what you tell them. Voting is the last, the very last, sacred mystery.
Todd said...
Voting should be one day, in person, with photo ID, and you get a stained finger when you are done.
As we do in Puerto Rico.
Not just a photo id but a photo id issued by the state electoral commission.
Off with wife and daughter to vote as soon as my wife finishes getting ready.
John Henry
Dear Professora emerita
Please extend your argument that you could not decide which candidate would do more to minimize the far left.
May I suggest - start with defining by describing left and far left.
and if you can arrange in order P and VP candidates on this scale >>> if even one of them falls on the spectrum you design to define >>> what then?
Tammy Metzler: [her campaign speech] Who cares about this stupid election? We all know it doesn't matter who gets elected president of Carver. Do you really think it's going to change anything around here? Make one single person smarter or happier or nicer? The only person it does matter to is the one who gets elected. The same pathetic charade happens every year, and everyone makes the same pathetic promises just so they can put it on their transcripts to get into college. So vote for me, because I don't even want to go to college, and I don't care, and as president I won't do anything. The only promise I will make is that if elected I will immediately dismantle the student government, so that none of us will ever have to sit through one of these stupid assemblies again!
[the student body erupts in huge cheers. They start chanting "Tammy! Tammy!"]
Tammy Metzler: Or don't vote for me! Who cares? Don't vote at all!
[they all rise to give her a standing ovation]
If Peggy Noonan can decide not to vote for a president, I think we are double dog dared not to overstep and criticize such a decision. One of the few times I neglected being in the Trump swamp the last few years and came up for NPR air, they had a Black Professor of religion from Princeton I think who had a book published in 2016 that recommended that the appropriate thing for his minority to do was to withhold their vote for the Democratic candidate until they came up with something really useful for them. Don't know how much influence that had on the Milwaukee vote. In Texas this cycle the Democrats are expecting a 'plantation march' while electing a radical Senator buy out of state money when the party could have had a moderate black candidate, Royce West. So not voting has its uses. Off topic Peggy Noonan's last column, usually available free through Drudge, Raucous 2016 Gives way to Subdued 2020, is apocalyptic in the original sense of attempting to be revelatory and in our more recent sense.
I have long believed you can vote for whoever you want, or not vote at all if that’s your wish. But I don’t say this out loud anymore for fear of being lectured.
"I would rather our hostess vote, but keep her vote to herself.
I rather suspect that is her plan. She doesn’t strike me, in any way, as a non voter."
Obviously, if Althouse wants to vote, and not tell us how she voted, or not even tell us that she voted, she is at perfect liberty to do so. One thing I do not believe Althouse could do, is lie about it. So, she is a coward, after all. "Thus doth conscience ..."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा