Share Email 0 Shares

(Editor’s note: Jon Margolis is VTDigger’s political columnist.)

Touchy, touchy.

Get Final Reading delivered to your inbox. Sign up free.

This presidential campaign is in a huff.

Or, more precisely, many voters are in a huff over the campaign. They are taking it personally.

A big mistake. Politics is not personal.

Not that there’s anything new about voters getting emotional on behalf of the candidate they support and even more emotional against the one they oppose. In this country, such fervor goes back at least to the time John Adams ran against Thomas Jefferson. That was in 1800.

But the fervor does seem more intense this year, and it’s not hard to see why. There is, to begin with, the matter of Donald Trump. Some of Trump’s supporters are so devoted to him that they throw punches at anyone around them who does not share their inclination.

The Republican anti-Trumpers are just as ardent, if less physical in how they display their ardor. They are more likely to take to Twitter — #neverTrump seems to be a common hashtag — or to fulminate on cable TV news programs.

VTDigger is underwritten by:

Passions run at least as hot on the Democratic side, though not as evenly. There are Hillary Clinton supporters who don’t think much of Sen. Bernie Sanders. There are many more Clinton supporters who think even less of some of Sanders’ most ardent enthusiasts. “Smug, self-righteous twits” is one of the gentler (and printable) terms used to describe them.

But not thinking much of a candidate is far different from hating him, and very few pro-Clinton Democrats hate Bernie Sanders. They may find him a weak candidate. They may judge that he wouldn’t be a good president. But they don’t hate him.

Do Sanders supporters respond with similar equanimity?

They emphatically do not. Many of them flood the various social media platforms — not to mention Vermont coffeehouses, restaurants and saloons — with expressions of outright hatred of Hillary Clinton and promises not to vote for her in November.

Just how many is impossible to calculate. It’s a minority. A recent CNN poll showed that Sanders supporters favored Clinton over Trump by 86 percent to 10 percent.

But if that’s 10 percent of the Democratic base, it’s not such a tiny minority, and the way some Sanders supporters talk, it’s not certain that all those in that 86 percent majority will actually vote for Clinton, so deep is their antipathy toward her.

If what has happened in the past is any guide (and it is surely one guide), almost all of them will end up voting for Clinton if Sanders campaigns for her, which he probably will. It’s in his interest to do so, and some of his supporters — including former members of his campaign staff (and possibly some present members) — are in the process of working out the best way for him to concede the nomination and support her.

But the discussions online and in person over what the pro-Sanders voters should and will do transcend the specifics of this year and this year’s choices. They reflect something broader and deeper about contemporary American culture: the glorification of the self.

While some of the uncompromising anti-Clinton (or anti-Trump) voters mention some legitimate political reasons for their opposition, as many talk about what their vote would mean to them, to their perception of themselves as a certain kind of person with certain values and connections, as though voting had some kind of aesthetic or spiritual properties, as though choosing a candidate was like choosing a religion, an ethical standard, a way of life.

It isn’t. Voting is not a personal act. It is — by definition — a political act. It’s only purpose is to choose someone to fill the office.

In America, thanks to both our culture and our constitutions (winner-take-all elections; none of this proportional representation stuff) that almost always boils down to choosing one of two contenders. Either Smith or Jones will win.

And it’s hard to imagine that there could be a single voter for whom either Smith or Jones would not be preferable — however minimally — on the basis of the policies Smith or Jones would support or oppose.

Which is the only basis that matters. Neither Smith nor Jones is running to be your friend, your philosophical guru, your role model. They’re just going to help run the government. One of them is going to try to run the government in a direction more pleasing (or less objectionable, just another way of saying the same thing) to each voter.

But what if a voter who decides that Jones’ policy positions are preferable to Smith’s also finds Jones personally objectionable? Suppose the voter distrusts Jones, dislikes some of Jones’ associates, is repelled by Jones’ personality or appearance to such an extent that the voter feels voting for Jones would mean sullying him- or herself?

VTDigger is underwritten by:

This happens. When it does, there is but one honorable, patriotic, public-spirited, sensible thing to do: Sully yourself. Vote for Jones.

First of all, you’re not inviting Jones to dinner. You don’t have to associate with Jones. You’re just helping send Jones to the White House, the Statehouse, the county courthouse, city or town hall. All these institutions have been sufficiently sullied for decades, if not centuries.

Besides, you’re not important. The world is important, and the policies of governments have an impact on the world — on its wealth and poverty, its air and water, its schools and health care systems, its crime and punishment, its war and peace. The voter who thinks that what Jones does in office (and this applies whether Jones is running for president or select board) would likely lead to better outcomes for the world should vote for Jones, even if the voter thinks that Jones is a rat fink.

A vote is just a vote. It’s just politics. It’s nothing to get touchy about.

Share Email 0 Shares