Vote on Values?

I consider myself a generally tolerant person, trying to appreciate another person’s perspective. That said, something that tends to get my blood boiling is when I hear someone say “I vote on values,” or likewise, when people will vote for politicians based on one isolated factor, such as abortion, gun control, religion. On a separate post, I will delve into if values even have any place in government (short answer: No), but the current topic is values as a basis for voting.

It is no surprise that a value-based decision process delivered us George W. Bush, arguably the most incompetent president in US history. Value-voting also nearly brought us within a heartbeat of President Sarah Palin (phew!). Call me crazy, but could we perhaps vote people into office based on their competence, being the best and brightest our country can produce, rather than if they are the kind of person we’d like to have a beer with?

As we are now staring down the barrel of the current global recession (maybe depression), wouldn’t it be great if our elected leaders who we are relying on were actually our country’s best and brightest? “Value voters” are so focused on their representatives matching their values, they seem to not mind (perhaps prefer?) an equivalent match in terms of their rudimentary grasp of economics, history, foreign policy, etc. Now that’s representation! I do not have a degree in history, or a PhD in economics. But I would like my government leaders to have such relevant expertise. Our elected leaders have immense responsibility and power. That being the case, I WANT them to be intellectually superior to me. We don't send children or the elderly to war, because they are incapable of being soldiers. So why do we send incapable representatives to Washington?

That said, I will empathetically speculate that many people vote on values because of the potentially overwhelming spectrum and complexity of politics (in part due to the self-contradicting Republican and Democrat platforms). Therefore, value-voters choose one issue to focus on. But I’m going to stop my sympathy there. If you are a person who can’t manage to educate yourself even a little beyond one myopic issue, perhaps you should reconsider if you should be casting a vote at all.

Value-based Government

Somewhere along the way, many people got the idea in their head that democracy was about a values popularity contest (organized religion is the prime suspect for this misguided concept). The “winning” value system could then be subjected upon the entire populace, including upon those who disagree. Let me first admit that such a form of democracy is possible, if a democracy chooses to function that way. But that certainly isn’t the spirit in which American democracy was founded, by a people fleeing oppression and seeking individual liberty.

That said, here is why value-based government is a very bad idea… ready…? VALUES ARE NOT UNIVERSAL. Morality (another word for values) is subjective. What is an immoral activity to some, is not immoral to others. With that being the case, and since the US Constitution guarantees equal protection to all, we cannot adopt a subjective moral code which favors one citizen’s values over another.

This is where many people get lost, thinking that I am advocating a lawless anarchy. That is not the case. Borrowing from Libertarian principles, a well-structured, stable, and lawful society can be constructed around the “non-aggression principle”. The basic concept is that the purpose of government (and its laws) are to protect individuals from the aggressive harmful acts of others. I will refrain from an in-depth explanation at this point, but basically, you are entitled to any action which does threaten to cause unwanted direct harm on anyone else. Example: Drink alcohol or smoke marijuana – OK. Drink alcohol or smoke marijuana, and then drive a car under the influence – not OK. Example: Bob has consensual sex with Steve – OK. Bob rapes Steve – not OK. Pretty straight forward, right?

Granted there are more complex shades of gray to address, but again, I am not going to give a Libertarian dissertation here (research for yourself). I simply want to open minds to dispelling the misconception that we need values/morality to serve as a backbone for a lawful and constructive society. We do not. We simply need protection from the harmful aggression of others. Meanwhile, is their still a place for morality? Absolutely, but not in the form of government. Morality should be in the domain of community groups, churches, charities, etc. Such organizations can promote their moral beliefs without trying to have them dictated through government, which again, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Moral Welfare: Brought to you by Republicans

Republicans hate welfare, right? They don't want the income of hard working citizens to be overly taxed merely to be given away to lazy citizens. Frankly, I tend to agree. In economic terms, when a government is too parental, or overly regulatory, it weakens the economy by stifling natural competition. Republicans prefer free markets, with the general belief that free competition will support the advancement of stronger ideas, products, businesses, etc. The weak must be forced to adapt or be allowed to wither. I support the contention that this economic Darwinism favored by Republicans (how ironic considering the "religious right") produces a stronger economy, society, and country.

Republican's scorn for the Democrat-born ineptitude is humorously portrayed by the video clip called "Democrats on Escalator". It is quite funny, and the point is well made, that big-government weakens us by making us less self-reliant. When I was a teenager, I dislocated my knee skiing, and had to wear a full leg cast for a couple months. When the cast finally came off, I hopped off the doctor's table and nearly collapsed, because I was completely unprepared for how much two months of cast and crutches had weakened my entire right leg. This is the danger of Interventionist big government. It is a crutch which weakens us as individuals, and as a whole society.

So far, Republicans are cheering me on in this post. Well not so fast, if you are a typical value-touting Republican, I'm about to pull the rug out from under you. If you agree that big government weakens our country, and that free markets are the best way to ensure advancement of the strongest, then where does that faith go in terms of values and morality? Why do you desire a government which controls and dictates morality? This is the "values" equivalent of food stamps. It is moral welfare. If financial welfare weakens our economy, wouldn't the same principles conclude that moral welfare weakens the morality of our society. Certainly it must. Just as the Democrats were "stuck" on the escalator, unable to conceive of climbing the stairs, government controlled morality leaves us less able to conceive and consider moral issues without the use of a "crutch", such as the Bible, which is by no means a capable comprehensive resource for running a country.

Republicans, wake up and smell your hypocrisy.

- HeadLevel

Dear Republicans: You danced with the devil and got dizzy.

This is an oversimplification of history, but at some point the collective conscious of your Republican party must have thought “Man, there sure are a lot of Christians in this country. How can we appeal to them and get all their votes?” Unfortunately, that collective conscious apparently failed to ask itself if appealing to Christian values might undermine what your party stands for. Well, it did undermine it, that is, if it is agreed that the Republican party stood for “conservative” (Minimalist) small government. Undeniably, incorporating the restrictive values of Christianity into government form is contrary to the notion of keeping government small (see “Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Welfare”). Are you starting to see why your party can’t seem to find its’ identity?

Republicans, you are blowing it big time. Technology is increasing the ease and speed of communication, and communication inherently increases tolerance of diversity. This would be playing to your strengths, if you had not abandoned true conservatism, which does not dictate values. Instead, by playing the “religion card” (dancing with the devil), you are swimming against the increasingly tolerant current of the future. Meanwhile, you have left the door wide open to the Libertarians, who may occupy the fertile political platform you turned away from.

Dear Libertarians: Keep it real

First, my apologies for the lame opening contemporary catch phrase. You potentially have a very bright future in front of you, with the opportunity to displace the misguided Republican party. The challenge before you is to appeal to the masses in a relatively simple (but accurate) way that they can grasp and not be fearful of. Fear is a relevant emotion for you to be mindful of. When the average person here’s the fundamentals of Libertarianism, the word that comes to their mind is “anarchy”. You need to build a marketing campaign around the non-aggression principle, showing people how it is a reliable basis for healthy society.

Meanwhile, you need to lighten up not be so dramatic about how microscopic the government should be. Although I personally do not formerly affiliate with any party, I am most favorable to the Libertarian platform. That said, even I think you are a little unrealistic at times for how little government involvement you prescribe. We do need government to intervene in whatever places we cannot rely on private markets to regulate themselves (like global warming, if it’s real). You should focus on navigating that gray area in very practical (keep it real) terms, and lay a path for gradual reduction of government, rather than black and white extremes.

Dear Democrats: Your heart is in the right place, but…

…you can’t have it both ways. I applaud your tolerance of diverse lifestyles, choices, etc. However, when people abuse that liberty and make irresponsible choices, you are too quick to bail them out. But if you insist on government that acts as the parent of our society, then you must be more restrictive of liberties to keep your “children” out of harm’s way.

Government should help those who cannot help themselves. However, by granting your citizens high levels of personal freedoms, but relatively low levels of personal accountability (see “Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Welfare”), you create a society in which government encourages those who choose not to help themselves, despite being able (i.e. people who are content to live on welfare). Hence the rightful objection of the hard-working wealthy who feel they are taxed to support the lazy. I personally do not endorse such a highly-Interventionist government model, but I would respect your position if it were more consistent with the “liberty-responsibility principle”.

Meaning of Think B4 Speak

We live in a time when people seem to be more concerned about the volume of their opinion than the quality of their opinion.


Years ago I started to get annoyed with local news broadcasts. Particularly when they would do "public opion" segments, taking camera crews on the streets to get opinions of random people on various topics. My annoyance was that with a microphone shoved in their face, people would just throw around opinions that they had probably given very little thought to, not to mention if they were even qualified to give any reasonable opinion on the topic. Their ignorance gets broadcast to infect the masses.


Likewise the media publishes public opinion polls on topics like:

- Should Iran be allowed to develop a nuclear program?

- Do you agree with the President's ecomonic program?

- Should the US remain active in the United Nations?


I wish these same polls would offer a response of "I don't think I am qualified to comment on that subject".


I don't mean to sound elitist. I am only criticizing lazy or devisive opinions. Of course, ideas can also be useless if they are too elaborate. I try to keep my articles concise, yet thorough. "Think B4 Speak" is simply an appeal for people to at least make a reasonable attempt to consider an issue before voicing an opinion on it. Likewise, let's not adopt political propoganda without objective consideration. Too many people think that it is a necessity to have and voice an opinion on all topics. I would like to point out that "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable and respectable position to take, until you've had some time to offer a thoughtful opinion. We all enjoy freedeom of speech. Let's also enjoy the occassional freedom to not speak, until we think.