A Citizen's Duties

    If there was any single term that could serve as a "watchword" for Stoic values, it would have been the word "duty."  Stoic writers and teachers used it constantly, albeit in different contexts.  Since here in the United States we are coming up on a presidential election, it would certainly be appropriate to discuss this matter: Is there a "duty" for the Stoic to take part in such elections?  We live in a free Republic, and one of the aspects of that circumstance is the fact that we can participate in choosing who our executives and legislators will be, and how long they will serve--at least within the law.  We do not required citizens to vote, unlike some nations, and voter turnout is sometimes very low.  I would see this as a way in which we are shirking both our duty and our power, giving it, in fact, to other people.

   Now, I know that we hear, all the time, how "one vote" doesn't make any difference, that the politicians do not "listen" to the people who elected them.  There are just two points that should be made to that useless objection.  The first is that no one ever claimed that any one particular vote should have the privilege of being the decisive vote.  Yes, I am one of millions, but every single candidate who won an election did so by earning more of the "meaningless" votes that the other guy.  Votes certainly make a difference; in 2008 the Democrats won the White House, solidified their control of the House, and got a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  What happened in 2010?  They lost control of the House completely, lost their super-majority in the Senate, and were faced with the--for them--unpleasant task of either making serious, principled compromises with the Republicans, or seeing none of their agenda enacted.  This change was the result of millions of unimportant "one votes."

  We also hear the complaint that the parties aren't any different, that all politicians are the same, and so forth.  I wonder why I seem to hear that from the most uninformed segments of society, those who are either so far right, or so far left, that they do not have the mental apparatus to comprehend nuances?  They are either stupid or so egotistical that they think that it is THEIR opinion that should be the one that counts, that all candidates should reflect their own narrow perspectives.  I am 63 years old; I have not yet seen any candidate to whom I would grant an unqualified endorsement.  So what?  Only children say that if you won't play MY way I'll take my ball and go home!