Thanks for keeping this conversation going. I know you’re busy.

I understand what you’re saying. Everyone draws the line somewhere or other. People draw it at different places, however. And no one risks anything by voting, as compared to whatever risk a German had by not taking a loyalty oath in 1935.

The writer’s point was that if enough people had refused, the risk to everyone in the end would have been much, much less. But of course, you can’t know in advance how many people will resist.

I have no idea whether or not I would have joined the Resistance during the war. But the people who did—and the people who hid Jews, or committed other acts I think of as heroic—are heroes to me. Protecting one’s family is also important, for sure, but at what point does a person need to let other considerations override that? It’s always a difficult judgment call. People who are young adults and single, without children, are probably more likely to be able to take the risk.

I just don’t understand how something as simple as voting factors into it. Whether or not you think the “cancer” is incurable or not, not voting is giving up completely, and voting carries no risk at all. For now.

I have a good friend who is dying of cancer. Now I care about that, but there’s nothing I can do. There’s nothing anybody can do.

America has cancer, too. I care deeply about that, but once again, there’s nothing I can do about it. The great masses of disinterested and ignorant Americans have completely overwhelmed our defenses.

The moral question you posed about the Nazi loyalty oath is difficult. Ten years ago I would have probably taken your position, but not any more. I now realize that the moral thing to do would be to take the oath and continue to support my family. It’s almost never moral to sacrifice oneself or one’s family no matter what, but then my definition of morality might be a little different than yours.

Thanks again for this great essay.

The problem is that young folks don’t listen. They’re too busy with their own lives.

… but if you think our future is that bad, would not an act of mercy be to tell us before it comes – or at least warn us to run away in time?

You don’t have to accept the guilt. But in my opinion those who refuse to vote in an election are responsible in small part for what happens as a result of their not voting. For example, refuse to vote for Romney in 2012 and you’re responsible, in however small measure, for the re-election of Barack Obama.

As for the “well, it’s only one vote” argument, I offer something I read in the book They Thought They Were Free by Milton Mayer. In it, Mayer interviewed a number of Germans right after WWII about the rise of Nazism and the war years. One of them said the following, which is not a parallel to the situation we find ourselves in, but rather a meditation on the power of an individual who might think that “After all, I’m only one voice.”

The situation was a discussion of a loyalty oath the speaker took in 1935, even though he was anti-Nazi and considered not taking it and risking the loss of his job. He was looking back with great regret, and telling the author that, if he hadn’t taken the oath that day in 1935 (before the evils of the regime had come to full fruition), the Nazi regime might have been kept from doing some of its evil. The author was puzzled; could this intelligent man actually mean that his act, the act of a single person, could have saved the day? That was absurd.

The man’s answer was this:

If I had refused to take the oath in 1935, it would have meant that thousands and thousands like me, all over Germany, were refusing to take it. Their refusal would have heartened millions. Thus the regime would have been overthrown, or indeed, would never have come to power in the first place. The fact that I was not prepared to resist, in 1935, meant that all the thousands, hundreds of thousands, like me in Germany were also unprepared, and each one of these hundreds of thousands was, like me, a man of great influence or of great potential influence. Thus the world was lost.

It’s an odd thought, but it’s one I had had even before I read that passage several years ago. For example, the reason polls work as well as they do is that each person stands for a large group of people like him/her. The decisions we make are being made by millions of people like us.

I keep abreast of the news and am informed of the positions of the candidates. In recent elections, I spent days researching the CV of all the down-ballot candidates like judges and agricultural commissioners and fill out my sample ballot in advance. But let’s face it, I’m probably the only one in my entire county that goes to that trouble. So I have come to realize that my one vote is basically a waste of my precious time. It’s like wetting my pants in a dark suit – It gives me a warm feeling but nobody notices.

Speaking of time, us oldsters can see the end of the road ahead, and that makes us more interested in finishing things left undone in our personal lives than worrying about which statist is elected to which office. I’ll probably be ejected from the Oldster’s Guild for telling you this, but we have a pact to keep the secrets of getting old to ourselves and never, NEVER, let you young folks know what’s in store for you. It’s an act of mercy, trust me.

My wife has vowed never to vote again, and I may join her if the GOPe shoves Jeb down our collective throats as expected. Personally, I have things to do where I can have a positive effect on my life. Remember the Serenitty Prayer? That’s where I’m at right now:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

I certainly hope you’re right about both the US’s future and the qualities of your own generation!!

If you’re any indication, I think the future is in good hands.

Thanks!

But about your statement “we vote for conservatives, but what’s the point”—well, I think that attitude is a recipe for the triumph of evil. You don’t know what changes as a result of voting for conservatives because you don’t know what would have happened if, for example, Congress and the presidency had been totally dominated by liberals all those years when they were not. Do you really think everything would the same? I don’t. Another thing that has changed is that, although conservatives don’t dominate the party, they constitute a greater percentage of it. The solution is to support more conservatives, and work for that. I am quite puzzled as to why so many on the right give up so easily and quickly. The left has been working for at least 150 years in order to reach the point it’s reached now, maybe even more. And working very very hard, too. I assure you, they never give up, although there have been times when it must have looked to them like they were losing.

I realize the left can point to a record of long, slow victories, a slow march towards more government dependency, for instance. But that’s partly the nature of government in general and of human nature, as well as the left’s “end justifies the means” tactics. The left has in many ways an easier road to go down, I realize. But that doesn’t mean that the right can’t someday reverse that—although to do so permanently requires more vigilance than the right has been able to exercise. For example:

I think as one ages, one cares less about things that one can’t do anything about. Sadly, politics seems to fall into that category these days. We vote for conservatives, but what’s the point? Nothing ever changes. It sure seems like Ayn Rand was right: Voting is nothing more than the sanction of the victim.