Who ‘would you rather?’
Even if you don’t like the choices, you still have the responsibility to vote
Waiting at a favorite kidfriendly restaurant for his hot dog and French fries, one of my 5-year-old twin grandsons asks me, “You wanna play, ‘Would you rather?’ ” “How do you play?” “Well, would you rather eat a hot dog crawling with ants or not see me for a year?”
“Gross — I don’t want to do either of these things.”
“But, you have to pick one. You can’t decide not to choose.” “There are no other options?” “No, you have to choose one.” And, so it goes for the undecided in this election.
I am not insinuating that either presumptive nominee is analogous to a hot dog with ants, or to not seeing a grandchild for a year. But I do believe my grandson was right, regardless of the challenges in reaching a decision, “you can’t decide not to choose.”
Universal suffrage is the result of numerous arduous battles fought in these United States. Through several constitutional amendments, state laws and legislation (including the 15th Amendment prohibiting discrimination based on race; the 19th Amendment, prohibiting discrimination based on gender; and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its amendments prohibiting certain discriminatory practices) our predecessors fought and died to ensure that all eligible adult citizens of the United States — not just white male landowners — have the right to vote. Democracy demands we elect our leadership.
While the general election is still five months away, I’ve heard too many people proclaim, “I’m going to sit this one out.” They are willing to abdicate their rights because they deem the presumptive choices wrong. It may be tempting to adopt an, “I’ll show them — I’m not voting,” or similar passive-aggressive approach. In reality, however, we are not “showing” the amorphous “them” anything. We are merely passing the responsibility to those willing to make the choice. I can hear the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Susan B. Anthony shouting, “Shame on you!”
So instead of making the decision not to decide, perhaps it is helpful to remember that we, as a country, have collective long standing goals. Behind the curtains of divisiveness, hype and sensationalism, there are fundamental commonalities. For example, we all want a strong economy — one that provides the opportunities to earn, the potential to advance and the security to retire. We all want effective national security — our borders safe from hostile threats and our citizens safe from acts of terrorism. We want a government that operates ethically and efficiently. We want an environment that ensures quality air and water for our grandchildren, education that prepares our children in both core competencies and critical thinking skills, excellent medical care and so on. We want to protect our Constitution and all that is sacred.
If we are not too entangled in partisan strings, we can concede that well-intentioned individuals may differ on how best to achieve these overarching national goals. Even in the face of polarizing issues like Second Amendment and abortion rights, differences in values need not denote evil intent.
What if, just for a moment, we put emotions aside and asked which candidate will bring us closer to our shared goals? Who is most likely to accomplish what is in the best interests of our country? This is not a summer-camp, blue-versus-red tug-ofwar. We are electing the next president of the United States of America.
We need to weed out the rhetoric and educate ourselves on the real issues. And, at the end of the day, whether we believe that this is a “lesser of two evils” choice or not — we need to make a decision. We must ask ourselves, “who would you rather?” And then, go vote.
(By the way, I would never go a year without seeing my grandson. I choose the hot dog with ants.)
Laura Black (laura@laurablack.net) is a local community leader, attorney and business woman. She is the author of “Big Butts, Fat Thighs, and Other Secrets to Success” (Cazco Press, 2012).