What do you do if one candidate stands for your economic philosophy but the other for your social policy?
This was taken head on via a Facebook post by Doug Wright, an American Tony award and Pultizer winning play write in a gay marriage, which has gone viral:
“I wish my moderate Republican friends would simply be honest. They all say they’re voting for Romney because of his economic policies (tenuous and ill-formed as they are), and that they disagree with him on gay rights. Fine. Then look me in the eye, speak with a level clear voice, and say, “My taxes and take-home pay mean more than your fundamental civil rights, the sanctity of your marriage, your right to visit an ailing spouse in the hospital, your dignity as a citizen of this country, your healthcare, your right to inherit, the mental welfare and emotional well-being of your youth, and your very personhood.”
It’s like voting for George Wallace during the Civil Rights movements, and apologizing for his racism. You’re still complicit. You’re still perpetuating anti-gay legislation and cultural homophobia. You don’t get to walk away clean, because you say you “disagree” with your candidate on these issues.”
My economics would probably be closer to traditional economics, more Adam Smith than Keynes. In other words I prefer people being left to make their own economic decisions without the state dictating or choosing. I am concerned about government as well as market failure. Where I would differ from the right is the need for social institutions that allow people to be equal citizens in a capitalist system. By this definition, adequate health care and good education are rights rather than privileges. Further, that it is up to people to discover what makes them happy, and if that is a gay relationship the state should not go out if its way to reduce their happiness because of their choice.
This usually leaves me in the centre being shouted at by everyone about something.
Thing is when you vote do you think of others more than yourself?
Well if I had a vote that would be Obama because I think he is good for women (not one), civil rights (I’m white and straight). But if I am honest I prefer his foreign policy which is more in my interests because quite frankly if my countrymen and women are going to lose limbs and their lives I want it to be for a very good reason. He has shown with drone attacks and the assassination of Bin Laden he is no push over. With the Arab Spring that he is not gun ho. Recognising that the change needs to be driven by the people.
I hope with the election over in November more action can be taken against Syria.
When you vote should you think of others more than yourself, just yourself, or the same?
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog