I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but there’s presidential election coming up. And, as is characteristic of the period preceding party delegate decisions, a lot of the political race consists of candidate comparison. Of course, I say ‘as is characteristic’ of presidential elections as if I’ve been alive for more than five of these events, but for the purpose of this discussion we’ll assume that I’m old enough to have a retirement plan and that I display other adultlike behavior, like moderating the amount of pizza I eat or caring about thread count. While talking about Egyptian cotton is a topic for another day, there’s something about the modern political climate that must be analyzed. Candidate loyalty is interfering with the way we vote, and today is the day you need to ask yourself why you have that campaign sticker on your laptop.
For the purposes of this discussion, I’ll define candidate loyalty as the support for a particular politician’s ideology, platform or image as an extension of the person in question and not necessarily the party they’re affiliated with. Most of us are guilty of candidate loyalty, regardless of age, political inclination, gender, or any other common category of definition. Saying something like that can raise some eyebrows. What could possibly be wrong with loyalty? And, when the issues at question are friendship, romance, grilled cheese, or other experiences of an equal caliber of emotional intensity, loyalty is certainly desirable. However, political loyalty, when extended towards individual candidates, is manifested as inflexibility. Supporting a candidate because you think they’d fill the White House with new ideas, bills, or really great pantsuits isn’t inherently a bad thing, but some issues come up when you endorse a candidate as a whole package.
A cursory search of trending political discussion will reveal vehement support for certain candidates. Recently, I saw a particularly concerning call for revolution with pitchforks and torches in the event that a particular candidate was not successful in winning a primary. Oftentimes, supporters strongly support their candidate of choice as a complete entity, instead of someone who is running for an elected office and whose proposed policies are highly susceptible to alteration by the infinitely detailed meshwork of the U.S. government. No matter how deep your love for your candidate of choice runs, it’s highly unlikely that you agree with them on everything. And if you think I’m just cranky and fun-hating for saying that (I mean, maybe I am cranky and fun-hating, but that’s irrelevant), then let me say this: think of your mother or father or other parent figures. Most likely, you love them and think highly of their ideas and ambitions, but do you agree with them on everything? Would you make the same decisions they do? What about your siblings? Your friends? Your significant other? In many cases, these are people that you trust and understand, people that you agree with- most of the time. You know when you don’t agree with them, and when you’d trust someone else’s judgment over theirs. I wouldn’t hesitate to ask my physical therapist mother how to deal with shin splints, but she’s someone I wouldn’t consider if I was looking for someone to give me didgeridoo lessons.
The same level of discernment should be practiced during elections. It’s easy to look at a politician as if they were God sent to earth to deliver the world from evil. But let me ask you god-fearing folks (of which I am not), didn’t God also made some pretty questionable decisions? (Look up ‘Blobfish’ if you don’t believe me). I’m not saying this to imply that everyone is untrustworthy and government is a lie and we should all declare anarchy, but the people we want to put into office are human. It’s important to disagree with some positions and ideas, even if you still want to vote for them. Rigidity, in politics, is a very slippery slope. If you’re only supporting a candidate as an entire package, it’s harder to separate what makes your candidate similar to others. In reality, they may not be all that different. Who will you support if your candidate doesn’t win the primary votes for their respective party? What happens if they don’t win the election? Will you sulk for 4 years and express your anger through passive aggressive tweets and bumper stickers, or work for the kind of policies you want even though the person in the White House isn’t who you wanted? These are things that are worth considering even if your candidate does win, because being politically responsible is not identifying your unique perspective of the ‘good guys’ and the ‘bad guys’. Being politically responsible is supporting the specific policies and ideas that you believe will improve the quality of life for the citizens affected. Blind agreement will not achieve these things.
At the end of the day, you’re responsible for the choices you make. Vote for someone who is capable of making the decisions that you think need to be made. Don’t vote for an image. In all things, be critical. Even if a candidate gives great speeches and makes you feel all tingly inside with the anticipation of the great things you think they’re going to accomplish, give yourself the willpower to disagree with them, or think that another candidate has a better approach on certain issues than they do.
Go ahead. Practice a little candidate infidelity. I won’t tell anyone.
