Open Letter to BWErs
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:47 pm
July 26, 2016
My Fellow BWErs,
I am writing this letter not to change your mind, persuade you one way or the other or to profess any virtues about voting. Not even to convince to vote. I am just writing to urge you to check and balance all the perspectives and make whatever the decision you might make.
It’s been a very interesting election cycle to say the least. Accordingly, some people are happy about their respective candidates, some are visibly unhappy that their candidate did not get nominated, and more are understandably repulsed by the system and not happy with any candidate in the fray.
But as the US constitution says, for a citizen, voting is just not a right, but also a responsibility. As flawed as ‘Democracy’ is, it the best one we have got. You all know all too well, the other forms of governing and how bad they are and how bad they can be. So for this reason alone, I urge my fellow BWErs to not just participate, but participate fully in the process.
I know at times, the pendulum of democracy swings too much from righteous path to that of corrupt one, serving not equally to all. But only we can bring it back and prevent it from wandering too far. I understand some of us are disillusioned to the point that they do not want to participate in the process. But I think it is the goodness in you that you want goodness for all people, and when you see the current electoral and political process, you are so repulsed by it that you want out of it.
But I want you to look at this way.
1. Out of the two nominees, if one is better than the other, it’s a no brainer. You should and would vote to pick the better one, lest it will spell trouble for the country.
2. If both the candidates are good, still you would want to pick the best, thinking that the country would fare better under one administration than the other.
3. If both the candidates are bad, or if you have serious reservations about either candidate, then why would you want to sit out? How would it help in sitting out?
Let’s explore the third one a bit in depth.
There are two democratic processes the way I see it. The top level is presidential electoral level. The second level is the nominee election level. Some on BWE say that the nominee election is so rigged and undemocratic and we should clean the house. Yes, we should. But how do we do it? By sitting out in protest, resulting in presidential election loss thus prompting the house purge you are hoping for? But at what cost? You cleaned your house, but now the whole street stinks because the worse candidate won. It’s like throwing baby with the bath water. So it seems to me that the better option is to pick a better candidate while striving hard for the change at the same time.
Now the question becomes who is a better candidate? Every voter has the right to determine who is better among the two bad choices. So I will leave it at that. But I will say this. There is personal/moral character of the candidate and administrative capability of the candidate. Both are needed in some instances and one or the other is needed in other instances to judge a candidate. Some suggested that both are equally bad. But we can always look at the pressing issues for the next 4 years or the issues that are relevant for you and see who is bad in what and to what extent.
There was also a suggestion that the country will pick itself up once it reaches so low. But I have reservations about it. It might pick itself up, or worse, it might become the new normal. For one thing, once the wrong (or rather perceived wrong) candidate wins, the candidate might not go so low to warrant the country to pick itself up. But surely would have gone low enough to part with some of the progress we made so far.
Other suggested that ‘not voting for one candidate is not voting for the other’, and does not want to be responsible for either of the bad candidates. I understand the clean conscience of such people, but I have a different perspective about voting responsibility per se. As a citizen, my responsibility is not toward picking either of two bad candidates, but my responsibility is toward making progress, making better opportunities and better future. So if progress is to be made, is it not imperative that one cannot allow the clock of progress to be turned back? Just as the saying ‘penny saved is penny earned’, so is ‘progress saved is progress earned’, however small. In a losing scenario, as a lawyer wouldn’t you try to minimize the damage to the client, as a physician wouldn’t you try to lower the pain to the patient, as a trader wouldn’t you try to cut your losses?
Therefore, for me it’s clear that abstention is not an option.
Lastly, I sometimes wonder about Colin Powell, SOS in the Bush administration. As much as I know him, he seemed to be a nice guy, served the country honorably and upright. If not, I will stand corrected. I don’t know if he was pushed out or left as SOS on his own. If he was disgusted with what he was seeing in the administration and left because of this, then it is a sad story. If he had been there as SOS, he would have served as a moderating influence in a hawks filled policy making room, however small role he might have played. No doubt, it would have been a great consternation for him, but his small help would have tweaked the policy for better if not outright changed it for better.
So, I urge my fellow BWErs to reevaluate the issue from several angles and perspectives, and then make the decision. And, I am also willing to listen to the arguments for the case of abstention.
Sincerely,
CV
My Fellow BWErs,
I am writing this letter not to change your mind, persuade you one way or the other or to profess any virtues about voting. Not even to convince to vote. I am just writing to urge you to check and balance all the perspectives and make whatever the decision you might make.
It’s been a very interesting election cycle to say the least. Accordingly, some people are happy about their respective candidates, some are visibly unhappy that their candidate did not get nominated, and more are understandably repulsed by the system and not happy with any candidate in the fray.
But as the US constitution says, for a citizen, voting is just not a right, but also a responsibility. As flawed as ‘Democracy’ is, it the best one we have got. You all know all too well, the other forms of governing and how bad they are and how bad they can be. So for this reason alone, I urge my fellow BWErs to not just participate, but participate fully in the process.
I know at times, the pendulum of democracy swings too much from righteous path to that of corrupt one, serving not equally to all. But only we can bring it back and prevent it from wandering too far. I understand some of us are disillusioned to the point that they do not want to participate in the process. But I think it is the goodness in you that you want goodness for all people, and when you see the current electoral and political process, you are so repulsed by it that you want out of it.
But I want you to look at this way.
1. Out of the two nominees, if one is better than the other, it’s a no brainer. You should and would vote to pick the better one, lest it will spell trouble for the country.
2. If both the candidates are good, still you would want to pick the best, thinking that the country would fare better under one administration than the other.
3. If both the candidates are bad, or if you have serious reservations about either candidate, then why would you want to sit out? How would it help in sitting out?
Let’s explore the third one a bit in depth.
There are two democratic processes the way I see it. The top level is presidential electoral level. The second level is the nominee election level. Some on BWE say that the nominee election is so rigged and undemocratic and we should clean the house. Yes, we should. But how do we do it? By sitting out in protest, resulting in presidential election loss thus prompting the house purge you are hoping for? But at what cost? You cleaned your house, but now the whole street stinks because the worse candidate won. It’s like throwing baby with the bath water. So it seems to me that the better option is to pick a better candidate while striving hard for the change at the same time.
Now the question becomes who is a better candidate? Every voter has the right to determine who is better among the two bad choices. So I will leave it at that. But I will say this. There is personal/moral character of the candidate and administrative capability of the candidate. Both are needed in some instances and one or the other is needed in other instances to judge a candidate. Some suggested that both are equally bad. But we can always look at the pressing issues for the next 4 years or the issues that are relevant for you and see who is bad in what and to what extent.
There was also a suggestion that the country will pick itself up once it reaches so low. But I have reservations about it. It might pick itself up, or worse, it might become the new normal. For one thing, once the wrong (or rather perceived wrong) candidate wins, the candidate might not go so low to warrant the country to pick itself up. But surely would have gone low enough to part with some of the progress we made so far.
Other suggested that ‘not voting for one candidate is not voting for the other’, and does not want to be responsible for either of the bad candidates. I understand the clean conscience of such people, but I have a different perspective about voting responsibility per se. As a citizen, my responsibility is not toward picking either of two bad candidates, but my responsibility is toward making progress, making better opportunities and better future. So if progress is to be made, is it not imperative that one cannot allow the clock of progress to be turned back? Just as the saying ‘penny saved is penny earned’, so is ‘progress saved is progress earned’, however small. In a losing scenario, as a lawyer wouldn’t you try to minimize the damage to the client, as a physician wouldn’t you try to lower the pain to the patient, as a trader wouldn’t you try to cut your losses?
Therefore, for me it’s clear that abstention is not an option.
Lastly, I sometimes wonder about Colin Powell, SOS in the Bush administration. As much as I know him, he seemed to be a nice guy, served the country honorably and upright. If not, I will stand corrected. I don’t know if he was pushed out or left as SOS on his own. If he was disgusted with what he was seeing in the administration and left because of this, then it is a sad story. If he had been there as SOS, he would have served as a moderating influence in a hawks filled policy making room, however small role he might have played. No doubt, it would have been a great consternation for him, but his small help would have tweaked the policy for better if not outright changed it for better.
So, I urge my fellow BWErs to reevaluate the issue from several angles and perspectives, and then make the decision. And, I am also willing to listen to the arguments for the case of abstention.
Sincerely,
CV