how i vote
I vote.
During each of the seven previous presidential elections that has occurred since I turned 18, I have voted.
I will do so again come election 2016.
However, in these nearly 30 years of adulthood, only once have I ever told anyone how I voted.
For that year’s election, I opted for a write-in nomination, neatly printing the name of a friend of mine. It was the only way I could think of to continue to exercise my right to vote while not being able to, in good conscience, get behind any of the officially proffered candidates that year. My friend was amused when I told him; and he can now truthfully tell his children and grandchildren that he was once on the ballot to become President of the United States.
I’m a pretty open person. But there are some things I just don’t talk about. My vote (in fact, politics on the whole) is one of them.
Why all the secrecy? As is my way, let me start with a story.
Back when the Internet was new and shiny – when AOL chat rooms were where the cool kids hung out, and emails containing poorly written and saccharine poetry frightened people into Forwarding them by questioning your love for Jesus if you didn’t – I used to get “those” questionnaires from friends. You know the ones. They had 50 to 100 questions (why so many, I’ll never understand), asking such insightful things as “Peanut butter or bologna?” or “If you could only wear one color ever again, what would it be?” And, of course, you’d also wind up getting a whole slew of these questionnaires from the dozens of other people who had received it and spent good chunks of their day answering every question in detail.
A variant of the questionnaire was the online quiz. You’d go to a website, make up 10 questions about yourself with multiple-choice answers, and then send the link around to your friends, complete with the taunt “Let’s see which of my friends really knows me the best.” Of course, this was always fodder for much interpersonal drama when people who fancied themselves your “bestest bud” would get a 20% and then claim that you somehow cheated.
Well, I caved in and made one such quiz (don’t judge me, I was young once). I don’t recall all of the questions I posed, but I do recall this one:
I have befriended all of the following except:
A. a porn star
B. a deaf-blind Indian boy
C. a nun
D. a serial killer
And, of course, at the time, the correct answer was …
(For those who don’t know the back stories on some of these, it’s probably best that you don’t start jumping to conclusions.)
I’m happy to report that I have also since befriended a few nuns (though I frisked them for rulers first).
The point is – I like people. All kinds of people. And that means that I count the most liberal of left-wing Democrats and the most conservative of right-wing Republicans among my friends.
I have friends who cover their vehicles in bumper stickers announcing how they will vote.
I have friends who have told me, “I love my church! They just hand out pamphlets that tell you how Christians should vote on every issue and candidate. I used to get confused, but now it’s so easy!”
I have friends who have quite literally ignored every political issue beyond finding out a candidate’s public stand on abortion and gay marriage, and that is how they cast their vote.
I have friends who sigh in admiration at the name of Barack Obama while sucking their teeth in disgust at the mere mention of Ronald Reagan. And I have friends who are still seething that Obama was ever elected in the first place, while affectionately caressing their retro bobblehead of Reagan as they perpetually mourn the end of his term in office.
The funny thing is, I’d be willing to bet that if you asked anyone within this wide scope of friends how they think I vote, they would each tell you that I vote exactly the same way they do.
So how is it, with my never having told anyone how I vote, that such disparate political proponents would all believe that I’m casting my vote in alignment with their thinking?
My best friend, Dib, hosted my 40th birthday party at her home. Guests around the table included those closest to me at the time, some of whom had never met before then. I was seated at the head of the table, where a golden crown was placed on my head. Many hugs were exchanged. Teary toasts were given. Faces were lit with joy all around.
What’s more, everyone exclaimed for weeks afterward how much they each enjoyed not only the celebration, but meeting the other important people in my life. Virtues were extolled – how generous or fun or intelligent or kind this one thought that one was. The term “good people” ushered forth from lips many times in these discourses.
Yet mere minutes later, as the conversations shifted topics, the same people would vehemently assert things like, “What kind of [fill in unsavory label, e.g., moron, bigot, etc.] would ever vote for [fill in name of presidential candidate from the opposing political party]?” with the clear assumption that I was in full agreement with them. Some have even gone so far as to say they “could never be friends” with anyone who voted this way or that on an issue, or for a candidate they opposed.
Really? They all thought the world of one another at the party, where no one had considered how anyone else might cast their vote. It caused me to wonder: would their positive opinions of one another change on a dime if they knew that the person they’d been seated next to at the party was casting their vote for the other guy?
It all begs the question: how is it that I’ve managed to remain friends with so many people who have such adamant and yet polar opposite viewpoints from one another? Moreover, how have I so long escaped having been “found out” for my true political beliefs? I mean, clearly, many of my friends would have to include me among the list of [morons, bigots, nincompoops, etc.] if they knew my political beliefs.
Really, when it all comes down to it, according to lines they themselves have drawn in the sand, they would be obliged to hate me, should they discover that my viewpoints conflicted with their own.
It’s not that I have no thoughts or beliefs or convictions.
I don’t just pander to whomever I happen to be with at the moment.
I’m not afraid of being rejected for having thoughts, beliefs or stands that may not align with those of friends.
I started this post telling you that I’ve never told anyone how I’ve voted. I’ve given you some observations, stories and cases in point. Now let me spell out for you why I’ve chosen not to reveal my hand when it comes to politics.
Chapter 24 of The Best Advice So Far has this central piece of advice:
Focus on the person not the problem.
In making the choice not to assert my own “rightness” regarding issues or candidates, I allow others to express their own beliefs and the reasons for them, freely and unchecked.
My goal is not to get someone to agree with my take on things; it’s merely to understand theirs better, and in so doing, to understand that person better. This is a much more worthwhile “cause” for me than debating over any political stand.
Chapter 21 of The Best Advice So Far focuses on this advice:
Asking the right kind of questions works better than making statements.
In choosing to refrain from telling people about my political beliefs, I leave room for asking more of the right kind of questions – questions that, for instance, start with “What if …?” or “How might …?”
While I’ve never seen anyone argue anyone else into changing a political (or religious) belief, I have witnessed the power of earning the right to ask questions that cause people to reflect on why they believe what they believe. And over time, I actually have seen people gradually open themselves up to new perspectives and either change their stance entirely or at least begin to experience true empathy and tolerance for those who don’t see things in quite the same way.
To be sure, there are times when people will outright ask me, “So what do you think about [insert political issue or candidate]?” And my answer is most always the same, some version of this: “Funny you should ask. I’ve never told anyone how I vote or what my political beliefs are. Do you see me as a reasonable, intelligent, caring person who wants the best for other people and for the country?” And the reply is usually, “Yes, that’s why I want to know what you think,” to which I reply, “… and that is exactly why I don’t tell anyone. I might agree with you 100%. I might not. What if you were to find I don’t agree with your position?”
It’s fun to watch the other person’s eyes go wide, to hear the audible swallow as they think (most likely for the first time), Oh my god! Is he one of … them?!
But what it does over time is cause them to really think – to ponder that “what if …?” without the immediate barrier of being able to neatly place me in “the other camp” where their auto-response of prejudice can kick in.
I usually try to tie up posts with a clear take-away point. It seems antithetical with this one. I’m not trying to convince you to take my approach, to avoid talking politics (or any other topic). Rather, I hope I’ve at least opened your mind to some new thinking. What you do with it, if anything, is your choice.
Focusing on the person, not the problem, is also one of the major tenets of negotiation per the Harvard model! It’s actually the first, once negotiators can train their minds to see beyond the problem to the person, negotiations can begin more smoothly.
It’s also amazing how much difference that simple shift in thought can make.
Thanks for drawing the parallel, Raul. I hadn’t even considered the Harvard negotiation approach; but you’re right – it’s a great fit! I hope others will look into that, in order to further their thinking and learning.
It always surprises me how often we are judged at the barrier of our self-imposed labels rather than on our humanity.
Hi, Sue. I’ve decided that I can’t change humanity, but I can change me and maybe then bring a bit more humanity to one interaction at a time. It’s working out pretty well so far. Thanks for reading and for taking the time to share your thoughts!
That’s pretty much the best way forward as we can only be truly responsible for ourselves.
And what a relief that is to know, isn’t it?
It is probably more than enough 🙂
Very interesting, Erik. I found my self saying, “but…. but…. but…” during this whole article. On one level, I completely agree with you that espousing political views is more likely to entrench opinions and divide people than it is to change anyone’s mind. As you know, in counseling, curiosity is the much more effective approach to opening conversation and reflection. At the same time, I wonder a lot about my moral obligation to stand up to hate speech, to rhetoric that is divisive, to falsehoods and violence. There are times when I feel silence might be construed as a sign of complicity. A very thought-provoking piece here.
Hi, Diana. I love your thoughts and your honesty here. As ever, we can never include everything in any one post. But I am far from silent. I just use questions and reflection rather than statements, since I find that the responses that must come through one’s own mouth usually wind up most effective. One of my favorite questions for the “religious haters” is this:
“Let’s imagine that you’ve died – which you eventually will – and you face God, and God says, ‘I’ve got a little quiz for you before the final decision of your eternal soul is made. It’s about [insert the hate issue they just asserted so adamantly]. Your three choices are as follows: A.) I stand by what I said about [hate issue] and I assert that I was 100% correct in that stand, or B.) I’m not sure. If you get it wrong, you will have decided to spend eternity in hell. If you get it right, you get to come on into eternal bliss. Oh, and by the way, choice “B” is always a free pass.’ Given this scenario, which answer would you pick?”
I usually first get, “Well, are you saying that [hate issue] is fine with God?” And I’ll reply, “I wouldn’t presume to speak for God. But what about that quiz answer?” When pressed, people get the woo-woo-willies and invariably choose “B,” after which I say, “If you would choose ‘B,’ then why do you fight so adamantly now as if you are 100% sure?”
Another favorite, if evangelicalism is mixed in with the hate: “When the Bible says, ‘For God so loved the world…,’ do you think he meant to include or exclude [Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, etc.]?” followed by “How do you think you’re doing representing God’s interests there?”
It does seem for some reason, in my circles at least, that the more religiously entrenched a person is, the more venomous and hateful the political and social commentary gets. Seems strange, given the alleged focus on a figure who never spoke negatively about political issues, but rather whose harshest words were reserved for those religious people who asserted that they were “more right” than everyone else.
Well-said. Can I just take back what I said and say that Diana stole my words? 🙂
Nope. 😛
You stole my post! I was going to write something exactly like this, but you pulled it off way better than I could.
I have good friends that are atheists and Christians, democrats and republicans, vegans and meat-eaters. And though I disagree vehemently with some of these people, we’re still friends. (Go figure).
On the other hand, I think there’s a place to express an opinion. I actually wrote a Dr. Suess-style poem about this recently:
http://www.dustinfife.net/blog/the-blogger-of-bolvine/
I started that blog post with a snarky opinion that expressing your opinion was stupid because you wouldn’t change anyone’s mind.
And yet, the ability (and perhaps obligation) to express an opinion may be what protects us from tyranny.
It seems, as you said, important to focus on the person, not the problem.
I guess I’m still trying to figure out the balance…
Hey, Dustin. Thanks for joining in (and for the FB share)! First, please see my response to D. Wallace Peach, which adds context – mainly that I am not against speaking up or out; rather I just tend to do that through reflection or questioning. In addition to what I said in response to Diana there, a reflection might be to simply repeat back exactly what they just said, word for word, after a slightly uncomfortable pause. For instance …
:: pause while maintaining eye contact for 15 seconds ::
“So … you just said, ‘Hillary Clinton is the antichrist,'” or “You just said that you believe all Muslims should be rounded up … and shot.”
Usually, people will then backpedal or tone down such a statement, which leads to further reflection or opportunity for questions.
Another approach is to say, “I know many very smart people who feel exactly opposite about this issue and can back it up with what they consider to be solid proof. For instance, how would you reply to someone who gave the argument that ________________________?”
This is like making a statement, but it allows that mystery to remain about what I myself actually think, so it takes away that urge to attack me. I’m simply asking a “what if …?” style question, to cause that person to possibly second-guess their knowledge of a topic.
I admit, it doesn’t hurt that people consider me reasonable, grounded, loving, intelligent and well-read (even in the religious texts they may be trying to stand on, as well as others). So my asking such questions may give people more pause than perhaps someone else using the same questions. I guess I’m saying that not too many people feel they can dominate or bully me into agreeing with them, and that gives me an edge to use some techniques that might be a bit trickier for some others.
I hope that didn’t come across conceited. I think we all have to know our own weaknesses and strengths, in order to be most effective in most areas of living.
You’re one of the least conceited people I know (as far as internet knowing can occur).
I like your strategy. It amazes me how anybody can be dogmatic–there are always smart people on either side of an issue, people FAR smarter than I am, so what gives me the right to assume I’m right?
I like your method–asking probing questions. I’m tempted to try said tactics with people who share my own opinions. (Because, though I have firm opinions, I usually am able to see both POVs).
Gee, thanks, Dustin. 🙂
And trust me, I use these methods with myself, let alone others. It’s good to question ourselves often, why we believe what we believe, where we got our ideas, etc. I’m not threatened in the least by hearing out any viewpoint possible. And where I’ve chosen not to engage in asserting my own opinions directly, there is no need for this to be stressful or combative.
As Diana pointed out, some see silence as agreement. I guess I feel that, whether someone thinks I agree with them or not is A.) not going to change their mind, and B.) not my doing. I would suspect that many who talk the loudest imagine that their arguments are so sound that most people agree with them.
Other favorite questions:
“Now, where did you get that information?”
“Is there any possibility in your mind that you may not have all the facts here?”
“If [Jesus / Buddha / Muhammad / person you respect the most / etc.] showed up right now and told you that they saw it differently, would you be open to hearing them out, or would you stick to your current view anyway?”
“If your daughter’s life depended on your being right on this issue, would you state it the way you just did, or would you want to seek more information to be sure?”
So do have to resubscribe?
Hi, Frank. Yes, I think those who’d like to continue following will need to resubscribe. I had read somewhere that it might be possible to somehow contact WordPress and ask them to manually add existing subscribers when moving a site. But I couldn’t seem to find a reliable source on exactly how to contact them (seems to be all catch-as-catch-can volunteerism).
I also don’t think there is a “Follow” option for WordPress.org sites (i.e., for other WordPress bloggers to simply show the site in a “Reader” panel, like on the free version. If you know something I don’t, please share. Thanks!
Great thoughts, Erik. I’ve been so busy lately that I’ve hardly followed this election – though I have always voted and will continue to do so. I’ll just have some catching up to do in the near future. Is it just me, or is the political arena getting more heated than ever? I know that politics has always been a hot topic, but it feels like it is getting hotter.
I remember when parties could disagree, but it seems that most people were still at least somewhat respectful of our president. I may soon adopt a similar stance to yours. Politics is certainly not worth losing friendships over, and some arguments simply are not worth having.
Looking forward to chatting more later today!
This time around does seem to stand out, I’ll give you that! And, yes, can’t wait to connect later this [afternoon/morning]. 😀
You know, when I was a kid, politics played no role whatsoever in the family dynamic. I mean, my father was an avowed lefty, despite the fact that he listened daily to Bob Grant’s conservative radio show (at top volume, I should point out, as I could hear it blasting from the tiny FM radio in our apartment when I stepped off the elevator way the hell out in the hallway), but Dad was so bright and so funny that he made politics seem fun. He and his best friend (the one who played bagpipes on St. Patrick’s Day) used to have uproarious, friendly political debates over Thanksgiving dinner, and though I was too young to understand most of it, their spirited arguments (which were always punctuated at regular intervals by gales of laughter from both of them) still make me smile when I think of them. But, that was it, really — that was the extent of the political discourse in my family.
Then 9/11 happened. (My father, incidentally, died just weeks afterwards, though he’d been intubated that entire summer, so I never got to hear him express his feelings or opinions on the matter.) What made that tragedy so immediately profound for my family was that a cousin (on my mother’s side) was an NYPD Emergency Services officer who perished in the second tower collapse. After that, 75% of the extended family became hardline conservative, versus the staunchly liberal minority. And let me tell you: The family has yet to recover from that ideological fracture. Political differences have completely and irreversibly poisoned our dynamic (which only got worse under Obama, and I expect will get worse still under Hillary, presuming she’s elected). Nobody can sit at a table together anymore; everyone is so vitriolically angry with those that don’t see eye-to-eye with them. 9/11 cast a shadow on everything — I fully understand and appreciate that — but what it did to my family personally breaks my heart in ways it pains me to consider. If the death of our cousin wasn’t tragic enough, we made it worse by letting it divide us (and if you’d known my cousin — a cheerful man as dedicated to his family as he was to public service — you’d know that would’ve been the last thing he’d wanted.) I long for the times when we could all sit around a dinner table and talk about work and movies and reminisce about dearly departed members of the family, but those days are gone… and they’re never coming back. 9/11 took that from us.
But, to be clear: We let it happen. We could’ve fostered our political beliefs and opinions (there would’ve been nothing wrong with that), and we had every opportunity to express them — at the ballot box. But, we brought them into the home, and walls went up that are never coming down now. There’s a reason people aren’t meant to discuss religion or politics, and I suspect, Erik, you’ve done yourself a huge favor by not giving into the temptation to do so. And, after fifteen years, I can assure you from firsthand experience that all the arguing and proselytizing in the world will never sway another person’s firmly held beliefs/convictions; if anything, it only makes them dig their heels in.
My wife and I are both registered to the same political party — we’re not independents — and we get out and vote in every election: presidential, congressional, gubernatorial, mayoral, and even local propositions (we have tons of those out here in California). We research the issues and candidates and make our voices heard the most democratic way possible. But, we both steer clear of discussing those matters online or in the presence of others. It just ain’t worth it.
Wow, Sean, thanks for being willing to share this deeply personal take on the subject, which I hope many people will read and heed. I’m sorry to hear of the fractures that politics has caused in your family (especially knowing a bit about other rifts that had already been setting in over time). I suppose the experience in itself has been a teacher, allowing you to arrive at your ultimate conclusion: “It just ain’t worth it.”
I mean, everybody can put on a friendly face when they need to, but the undercurrent is always there. And even during those tacit détentes, some of the less politically inclined members of the family live in dread that any moment the ax will fall — that somebody will “go there.” And, often, somebody does. Once-close relationships — many going back decades — have been irreversibly altered over all the political anxiety. My wife and I are somewhat removed from the immediate drama of it all, living on the other side of the country (we moved, as you know, on 9/11, as fate would have it), but it’s affected us, too. It is what it is, I guess. But given how extremely politically polarizing all the current presidential candidates are (save, perhaps, Kasich — and that’s not an endorsement, to be clear), I don’t hold out much hope for ideological reconciliation in the next four years…
Yes, I know what you mean by the polite façade with undercurrents. It does seem a terrible shame that people, with our one life, would draw walls based on ideas about something that isn’t, by nature, interpersonal.
I’ve got to say, I think I prefer how you handle the question of how to vote. I was a lot more outspoken long ago, and yeah, I lost some friendships over questions of politics and all of that. Doubly so since I tend to be more on the conservative side of things, and a lot of the circles I travel in are very, very blue.
Honestly, I think it’s just gotten to the point now where politics are less about a summation of one’s beliefs about how government and society should run and now it’s more of a tribal identifier. Thus, to say that one is Democrat or Republican- or whatever other ideological stripe- is seen as less saying that one believes in bigger or smaller government, but rather whether one is a Hatfield or a McCoy. Feudin’ is the only possible result, by and large.
Which is depressing, and for the longest time, I was wondering how to address that. But your way, just asking questions and leaving it there, might be the best way of handling it. Bypasses the innate tribalism and gives more opportunities for changing minds.
…just hard to bite my tongue sometimes. But, so I need to learn to do anyway, so!
Thanks for sharing your honest reflections on the topic, Ben. I’m sure you are right – that the party one votes with does seem to have become more personal than ideological over the decades for some reason.
I can honestly say that, to date, no one has spewed hatred at me for deciding not to reveal how I vote, nor for asking questions. (Again, they choose to believe, for whatever reason, that my views align with their own and that I’m only asking theoretically, since it is unfathomable to most that I – or anyone else – would choose to be friends with someone who did not hold the same or similar views.) It’s always been an advantage, and often, as I say in the post, has resulted in earning an ear where I might otherwise have been rejected out of hand if I’d stated alliance with a cause first.
My dad had it easy. Since he worked for civil service, he had a valid excuse for not discussing how he voted. Everyone understood. Interesting subject, Erik, and you thoroughly covered it. 🙂 — Suzanne
Thanks, Suzanne. I feel more and more happy with my choices in this arena as time goes on, I’m finding. And I’m also noticing that no one else notices that I don’t join in. It seems this is an area where most people are plenty happy to hold the floor.