An Appeal to the Undecided Voter

As I write this message to you, there are but twenty-three days left until we Americans go to the polls to elect our nation’s President and Vice-President for the next four years. For whatever reason, you have not yet decided whom you will be voting for, or if you are going to vote at all. I am sure that you have your reasons for this, and I assume that they are valid reasons. I am not here to judge them or you, nor do I intend to castigate you as many of my contemporaries have done. I believe that a confrontational approach is  counter-productive, although I would strongly urge you to exercise the right to vote, a right that is the most precious freedom that we have as Americans.

The issues that we are facing in this election year are complicated and somewhat confusing to most people. Each of us has a different set of priorities regarding the issues. Perhaps you, like I do, view the War on Terror as the overriding issue. Or perhaps because of your personal circumstances, your highest priority is health care, the economy, or education.  That is okay. We all lead different lives and we set our priorities based on those issues that have the greatest affect on us as we see them.

For the very reason that we are blessed to be living in a country where we can exercise some control over those issues that affect us the most by casting our ballot, does it not therefore make sense for us to be as fully and totally informed about those issues as possible before doing so? Does it not make sense that we should listen to both sides of the issues, do at least a minimum of research beyond what the politicians or the media are saying about the issues, and then cast our ballots as intelligently as possible?  For example, if you feel that the highest priority is the economy, does it not make sense to spend some time studying the candidates’ records on economic matters rather than relying solely on what a candidate and/or his opponent says about the issue?   They are politicking, and their words are usually either half-truths or outright deceptions. Does it make any sense whatsoever to accept blindly what some Hollywood personality or some TV talking head says about your primary issues, and then base your own opinion and decision on that alone?  You owe it to yourself to look further. In general, politicians and their spokespersons campaign with the assumption that most voters are not well informed on the issues of the day, and can be easily swayed by telling them what they want to hear, hoping that the voters will accept it as the truth without doing further research.

Beware of the candidate that frequently claims, “We wish to focus on the future rather than dwell in the past”. This usually means that the candidate has something to hide from his or her past, or is trying to make a campaign promise that is totally contrary to his or her actual political philosophy and/or track record. This is not to say that voters should not focus entirely on the past, but rather to understand the basic positions that candidates have taken before on similar issues because, more often than not, politicians, like tigers and zebras, do not often change their stripes.

Intelligent voting requires rational, rather than emotional, analysis. Voters should ask themselves the following questions about the candidates:

Is this candidate more style than substance?  In other words, do I like what a candidate is saying because he looks and sounds good saying it rather than because it is something that is both logical and clear?  

Are actual results more or less important than a candidate’s image?

What will be the long-term results of a candidate’s campaign promises?

Are the candidate’s campaign promises achievable and realistic?

At what cost?

Do I agree with what a candidate is saying merely because someone else who I respect would probably agree with it, such as a parent, or spouse, or a friend?

Although a specific campaign promise may be beneficial to me personally, is it good for the country as a whole, now and in the future?

Am I allowing my own personal prejudices ( against rich people, against unions, against religious people, etc.) to cloud rational thinking on an issue or a candidate?

Are there any historical precedents that might shed some light on the likely results of a candidate’s position on an issue?

Am I sufficiently well informed to understand both sides of an issue and make my voting  decision accordingly? 

These are difficult questions to answer, and it is unlikely that anyone could analyze every issue in this manner. However, to demonstrate the procedure, let us stick with the issue of the economy, and apply these questions as if we were trying to make a decision of which presidential candidate for whom we will vote.  Inasmuch as this appears on a politically conservative website, you may or may not agree with the analysis. I would only ask that the reader attempt to retain an open mind as I, the author, will attempt to do.

1. Is this candidate more style than substance?  In other words, do I like what a candidate is saying because he looks and sounds good saying it rather than because it is something that is both logical and clear? 

As we have seen in the presidential debates, there is no doubt that Senator John Kerry is a much smoother and articulate speaker than President George Bush. Some people might also say that Kerry looks more “presidential” than Bush, but this is a matter of personal taste. Regarding the economy, the President has consistently said that he will not raise taxes, and instead continue his efforts to make his reduced tax rates permanent.  John Kerry has said that he would not raise taxes except for those people whose annual income exceeds $200,000 a year. He said even further that he would give additional tax cuts to the middle class.  Disregarding for now the other pros and cons of each proposal, do the candidates’ appearance, bearing, or vocal forcefulness have any relevance as to which proposal has more the validity and benefits? If it does, it suggests that you as a voter place more importance on the candidate’s style than you do the substance of what he says. Keep in mind the old saying that “beauty is only skin deep”.  

2. Are actual results more or less important than a candidate’s image?  

This question is very closely related to the first question. An incumbent candidate must base his or her campaign on actual results, while a challenger only has to make promises and maintain a strong image. Referring again to the tax issue, were the results of the Bush tax cuts harmful or beneficial to you and the country as a whole? Do you even know for sure, or is your knowledge somewhat hazy? Do you think that John Kerry would have done better with an economy that was already in a recession when it was hit and traumatized by the events of 9/11?  If you do believe this, is it primarily because, in your mind, John Kerry has a “more presidential” image? Would Kerry’s “image” really have resulted in more success with the economy since 2001? Is “image” something with which you measure predicted success?

3. What will be the long-term results of a candidate’s campaign promises?

If George Bush is successful with his campaign promise to make his tax cuts permanent, will the economy continue to grow? Is it possible that outside influences such as the war or the price of oil eventually reduce or eliminate the affects of the tax cuts on economic growth? Is there any validity to the Republican claim that tax cuts stimulate the economy to the point where tax revenues (the amount of money that the government actually collects from taxes) eventually increase to more than they were before the tax cuts?  Or are we destined to continue a period of deficit spending in order to meet our determined needs? On the other hand, will tax increases on higher income people actually harm the economy by destroying investment and growth, while also reducing the number of new jobs that are provided as the Republicans claim?  Would increasing tax rates for higher income people provide all of the additional revenue needed to enact the many domestic programs being proposed by the Democrats, or would it eventually become necessary to raise taxes of all income levels to prevent deficit spending to grow out of control? Do you know, or can you make an educated guess?  If not, how can you determine which candidate will receive your vote? Do you even care?

4. Are the candidate’s campaign promises achievable and realistic?

While campaign promises usually sound very attractive, voters who are more sophisticated understand that many of the promises cannot be kept, for various reasons. Whether or not George Bush can keep his promise to make his tax cuts permanent depends on many factors. For example, the political makeup of the Congress during the next four years will have a huge bearing on this. If the Republicans maintain or increase their current majority in the Senate and the House, the chances are good that Bush will succeed. On the other hand, John Kerry would have a very difficult time having any of his proposals passed into law, and they would become empty campaign promises. Do you, the undecided voter, know what the party trends are for the next Congress? Should that information not form a part of the basis for whom you would vote?

5. At what cost?

Politics is always a matter of priorities and compromise. Politicians, government leaders, and we ourselves all have our favorite political issues.  But in government, it is impossible to provide favorable outcomes for everyone’s pet projects. Funding limitations play a major role, as does garnering support for our projects.  It must therefore be asked, what must be given up and put aside in order to successfully accomplish a candidate’s political priorities?  Must we forego prosecuting the War on Terror in order to provide the jobs and economic benefits that we desire? Will economic strength even have any meaning if we lose the War on Terror? Where will the financing for these projects come from? What impacts will these grandiose plans have on taxes and the national debt?  Is it reasonable and realistic to expect that our pet project will be given a higher priority in Washington than other projects?

6. Do I agree with what a candidate is saying merely because someone else who I respect would probably agree with it, such as a parent, or spouse, or a friend?

Are you, the Undecided Voter, vacillating because you are leaning one way but your parents, spouse, friends, or some organization to which you belong have always voted the other way, or because you yourself have always voted the other way?  If so, you owe it to yourself to vote the way that you think is best, based on your own informed opinion as well as your own system of values. In my own case, my family was always strongly Democratic, but I found that after I began voting Republican, they still loved me. We just don’t talk about it. If my friends had not accepted it, then they were not worth having as friends.  And I would never allow any  organization, be it a company, a union, or a church, tell me how to vote. If I did, I would not be worthy of the vote. When we enter the voting booth, we must vote for whom and what we as individuals think are best, not what someone else thinks are best. It is therefore incumbent upon us to be as well informed of the issues as we can be, so that we can vote intelligently.

7. Although a specific campaign promise may be beneficial to me personally, is it good for the country as a whole, now and in the future?

As individuals, we tend to be selfish. That is normal, and in a sense that concept forms the basis for our system of government. But mature citizens balance that inherent selfishness with the needs of society as a whole, and that is what we must do as voters. It would benefit me greatly, for example, if as a retiree I could know for certain that the state or federal government would provide free health care for me for the rest of my life. At the same time, I am aware that if the government did provide free health care for retirees, many other worthwhile programs would suffer, as would the less tangible concepts of personal responsibility, freedom, and initiative.  I would therefore vote against any proposal to provide free health care to the elderly except in  extreme circumstances and need.  There are dozens of similar issues that could be mentioned here. In fact, almost all of the issues being discussed in this campaign are fine examples of how this balance applies. 

8. Am I allowing my own personal prejudices (against rich people, against unions, against religious people, etc.) to cloud rational thinking on an issue or a candidate?

Personal prejudices are the favorite targets of campaign rhetoric. The campaign promise to raise the tax rates only of the rich is no less bigoted than would be a promise to raise the taxes on gays and lesbians, or on African-Americans, or on any other group. Yet the promise to do so comes from a candidate who falsely claims to be the champion of equal rights and opportunities. The difference is that, in our society, it is considered to be fashionable to discriminate against certain groups, while it is forbidden against others.  Although we have come a long way in the last 150 years, we still have a long way to go to overcome bigotry and discrimination totally. We must therefore ask ourselves if we would support a candidate simply because he or she has adopted a position or positions that harms certain groups that are a part own our personal prejudices.  And before you question my credibility, I will say yes, I would include here any proposed laws that threaten gays and lesbians, or any other group in our society. 

9. Are there any historical precedents that might shed some light on the likely results of a candidate’s position on an issue?

This question deals more with the issue of a candidate’s credibility more than probably any other. At the same time, answering this question may require more research and time than any other, if the job is to be thoroughly done. Since this is not likely for the vast majority of voters, some simple analysis may have to suffice. The main point here is to look at each candidate’s record to determine if his campaign statements agree with his record in other political offices that he has held. If the candidate makes promises that clearly conflict with his past performance, his credibility should be seriously questioned. This applies especially to voting records and legislation that was authored or sponsored by the candidate. This also requires that the voter consider whether any part of a candidate’s history really has any relevance whatsoever to the current campaign, or how it is indeed relevant. If a candidate is promising to do (A), but his voting record shows him to have opposed similar proposals in the past, his campaign promises are probably not believable.

10. Am I sufficiently well informed to understand both sides of an issue and make my voting decision accordingly?

Being aware of and understanding both sides of an issue is not the same as agreeing with both sides. This instead gets back to our own set of priorities. One of the main goals of the presidential and vice-presidential debates is to provide voters with the opportunity to learn both sides of the issues, then base our decisions on that with which we agree.  I may clearly understand, for example, why certain people would like to see America pull out from Iraq as quickly as possible, but my own application of the ten questions being discussed here has resulted in the opinion that such a withdrawal would be catastrophic. I therefore oppose such a withdrawal, and my decision as to who to vote for rests on my judgment as to which candidate would be less likely to do so.  Similarly, I have applied this same process to the economic issues. Fortunately, I arrived at the same answer, for had I not, it would place much greater emphasis on question #5, which deals with “priorities”.

Time is running short for the undecided voter. Only three weeks remain before the election. No doubt many of those voters who continue to claim to be undecided will not vote at all. It is hoped that those who do vote will do so after performing at least some analysis, rather than making a last minute decision in the voting booth. Although I have attempted to maintain some neutrality in this article, I concur that it is not totally neutral. For a political writer, that would be nearly impossible. But I firmly believe that if an undecided voter would perform this analysis, he or she would vote for George Bush and Dick Cheney in this election.

RETURN TO ARCHIVES PAGE