At the risk of offending almost everyone, I’m pondering my vote-casting options openly in this forum.
Here is my dilemma, which (apparently) I share with many these days:
I must not cast my vote for Clinton, and I cannot cast my vote for Trump, and I will not cast my vote for Johnson, who opposes most of my convictions. So, on election day, whom shall I write in?
I’m tempted to write in Ronald Reagan. I realize he’s not healthy enough for office (being dead and all), but with the right spin machine, that shouldn’t be a problem. Having served two terms, his election would be illegal, but that doesn’t seem to matter these days. His convictions, even with a dead brain, are more reasoned than than the third-party man.
Still, while a dead man cannot fib and has a suitable temperament for office (being dead and all), it’s more nostalgic than realistic.
So, whom shall I write in?
I have been told that voting for anyone outside the two-party race is a wasted vote, or that not voting for the lesser of two evils is a vote cast for the more evil candidate. Some have even urged that I should not allow my principles to guide my choice but to vote pragmatically, lest we end up with a more evil president.
As I survey my memory of world history, a disturbing trend emerges. Dictators and despots thrive on this kind of thinking. They rise to power and establish regimes that no one wants when individuals ignore their principles and make choices based on which way they perceive the political winds to be blowing.
When people succumb to their fear of standing on the wrong side of a political victory, they hastily toss aside their convictions and let self-preservation guide their choices. Consequently, they become capable of abominable decisions that contradict their own core values.
On the other hand, the power of despots crumbles when people allow principles to guide their choices, independent of what their peers may or may not do.
So, whom shall I write in this November?
Mark W Gaither 