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.