“When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
– Proverbs 29:2 (NIV)

All the elections in the news have me thinking again about leadership. You may love politics and all that goes with the process — I know I used to. Or, you may have developed the equivalent of a stomach-ache after eating too much cotton candy, a cumulative toxic dose of politics (me again). But wherever you land on the continuum of loving/hating politics, and no matter where you plot on the scale of liberal to conservative, I want to convince you not to sit out the political process in this or any election year.

It’s a matter of conscience

Consider the ways in which the contemporary West differs from its previous eras. In most western countries, citizens have the right and the privilege to vote for their leaders. This has resulted in the rise of the most loathsome Professional Politician, but it is still in many ways preferable to monarchical dynasties where the populace had to take what they got, under good kings and bad — and to obey whatever the king, emperor, etc. commanded, no matter how costly.

Democratic republics are fragile things, and to paraphrase Dietrich Bonhoeffer, those who choose not to vote are the unwitting allies of the strong. If you are typical of the contemporary breed of political cat, you may tend to view the candidates and supporters of the opposition not only as wrong-headed, but as evil. If so, choosing not to vote is choosing not to oppose “evil.”

Too on the nose? Fine. There are legitimate differences in philosophy and practice between the parties of the left and the right. To choose not to vote is to cede the direction of policy and your money (because you pay taxes) to the stronger party with whom you may or may not agree.

It’s a matter of personal leadership

The degree to which you participate in the electoral process is a measure of your leadership. Some people have the gift of leadership from birth, but even they cultivate the gift. Others work to learn leadership. I have written about the development of individual leadership here, and I recommend the post to you.

Your influence may encourage others to cast a ballot for the first time. But then again, you may find yourself becoming a candidate for public office — and even winning an election. If you do, congratulations, but don’t ignore the people or the principles that got you there.

Foundations and boundaries

In Western nations, there are multiple structures that function in the way that levees restrain the power of a river. As Cloud and Townsend explain in their book, Boundaries, a river within its banks provides life and facilitates agriculture, commerce, transportation, and leisure. A river outside its boundaries is called a flood — and floods are devastating.

The levees of a nation are its geographic borders, its culture and language, its constitution and laws, and its institutions. If a nation goes to war, its enemies seek to modify its borders by conquering its territory, by subverting (or replacing) its language and culture, and/or by repudiating its laws. In the modern era, hostile forces don’t always confront an enemy country militarily; instead they seek to demoralize a people through terrorism, or by attacking its institutions.

Elsewhere I have written about Marxist feminism — and cultural Marxism generally — and its objective of subverting the institution of the family with the goal of bringing about what they call cultural revolution. This project has been a near-total success, with millennia-old understandings of law, justice, contracts, education, family, and maleness and femaleness themselves now apparently written on water. Although I am aware of the growing belief that corruption of our institutions is so far along that “there is no voting our way out of this,” I cannot agree to forfeit a valid method — and a God-given right — to attempt to correct it.

What stay-home voters, third-party candidates and suicide bombers have in common

All three of the above tend to take the rather alarming and absolutist view that letting their party go down to utter defeat — with all that goes with it — is preferable to working to secure a win for a flawed candidate of their own party. We see this at work now with the #NeverTrump Republicans and the Trump absolutists, each of whom vow to withhold their respective votes from anyone other than their man. For them it’s not, “If I can’t have you, I don’t want nobody, baby.” Instead, it’s “If I can’t have you, nobody can.”

I once lost an argument by asserting that virtue was the highest good. What I should have said was that existence is the highest good. Virtue cannot be understood, practiced, or enjoyed by those who do not exist. In political terms, a party must win in order to implement its agenda. Staying home — even for principled reasons — will likely deny the homers’ party a victory, ensuring they get exactly 0% of the laws or reforms they want. This is the virtue enjoyed by those who don’t exist.

Politics as the art of the possible

Former Education Secretary, William Bennett, often says that politics is the art of the possible. By that he means that no candidate or piece of legislation is perfect, but that disciplined and focused representatives can settle on the essential 80% that would make the most needed changes and work to accomplish them. Bennett is a conservative Republican, and he has pointed out how his Democratic opposite numbers have been more shrewd and successful in accomplishing their goals by pursuing them incrementally.

This doesn’t just have to happen around presidential campaigns. For example, parents interested in maximizing educational opportunities have ignored party labels to pursue charter schools and private school vouchers.

Again, opting out of the obligations of citizenship while standing on principle reduces the range of possibilities far more than does active engagement, contacting your elected officials and candidates for elected office, and finding common cause with your neighbors.

Who is my neighbor?

I recently spent a couple of workdays with a colleague who is a faithful elder and active member of the LDS church. Although he and I are both aware of the differences in our respective churches’ theologies, we found we had a great number of things in common — especially regarding the work objectives we share, but also regarding the importance of family and a father’s role.

My Mormon friend and I are not endorsing any candidates or working on any campaigns together, but I’m pointing this out to illustrate that emphasizing what we have in common increases the probability of success — and that enlarges the space for our respective particularities.

Does it matter who is in office?

Likely Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton famously replied to a congressman’s question, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” As a lifetime optimist with a realistic streak, I maintain that the impact or significance of which party or individual holds office varies — but that it does matter.

Progressives of the left and the right believe in expanding the role of centralized government, and in giving “experts” more control over the choices available to individual citizens. A  president who is a progressive would pursue an agenda of legislation and extra-legislative regulations (e.g., executive orders, policy edicts through federal agencies, etc.) that would constrain your liberty. Add to this the presidential authority to appoint — with the advice and consent of the US Senate — justices to the Supreme Court, and you can begin to see the far-reaching effects of who gets elected.

A declaration — of my biases

I am not endorsing a candidate, but as an evangelical Christian, and a social and fiscal conservative, I am planning to support the Republican nominee for president — whoever that turns out to be.

I have friends who do not share my faith or my political inclinations, and they are going to vote for whomever they wish. I love them no matter what. My purpose in putting it out there is to encourage you to do your homework, register, and vote. Apathy doesn’t look good on you.

So how about you? How do you intend to engage in the process of choosing our leaders? Add your comments below.