Sabrina Macpherson asks of Ken Boessenkool, if those among us who are most engaged in protecting the core values of liberal democracy don't vote, then who the hell do we expect to vote, exactly?
"If those among us who are most engaged in protecting the core values of liberal democracy don't vote, then who the hell do we expect to vote, exactly? Why do we presume that it's enough to have other people preserve democracy on our behalf? "
Thank you, 100% agree, even if its the "least worst" choice
Agreed, no matter how bad and worse two candidates are instinct tells me that one is worse than the other. It might take some digging to figure out which is which but the digging is the secret sauce to democracies.
Good call. I also bristled when I read Boessekool’s dismissal of the need to vote. He ends up coming off like some privileged Canadian untouched by the realities of truly bad governments. Which is exactly what the vast majority us Canadians are. Never take your freedom and comparative wealth for granted. Step up and accept this small responsibility even if it’s while holding your nose and casting your ballot for the candidate that you believe will do the least damage.
I suppose that "must" is why I'm not a libertarian, but I do appreciate how you/they ask certain tough questions in political conversations. This is why I like ideological differences, they make the resulting compromises stronger! Ideally.
And ha, yes, I suppose that I did use the US comparison - Classic Canadian Move (TM).
Thanks to Sabrina Macpherson for her excellent rebuttal as she has articulated a point of view near to my own thoughts on the decision to vote or not. Thanks for Ken Boessenkool's original article for raising an excellent perspective, and one which was very similar to my feelings about this particular election. Thanks to the Line Editor for providing the platform, and thanks to the excellent and substantive comments that have followed from the Line Readers (with only minor exceptions). This type of discourse is what makes The Line so special. Honestly, I really do value this, and it gives me much hope in our civil society.
For this election, I was contemplating not voting for the first time in my adult life. Even when I've lived abroad I've always made a point of mailing an absentee ballot or marching over to the polling station at a consulate. But this election has really thrown me for a loop and Ken captured the sense of frustration I've been feeling here. I actually contemplated not voting at all, but many of the points that Sabrina raised stuck in the back of my head. Waking up this morning my intent was to, then, express my "vote" by spoiling my ballot. I figured I could show my contempt for the abysmal quality of the candidates and their campaigns - in which I was bombarded with nothing but negativity for weeks - by being tabulated as one who at least cared enough about the process to make a mark. I figured that was the least that I should do under the circumstances.
In the end, though, I re-read the platforms of the parties this morning, and ended up holding my nose and marking a proper 'X' next to the name of one of the candidates. I feel good about the decision, though still bad about the overall context.
One point I'd like to note, though, about the libertarian position on voting - I think the best libertarian arguments against the need to vote revolve around the idea that governments should be so limited that the elections of candidates don't really matter - the elected caretakers really won't bring much to the table, or detract much from the office, regardless of who gets elected. However, in a highly-interventionist environment as we find ourselves in now, my thought is that it really behooves those who have limited-government sort of aspirations, to make their voices heard, somehow, in the polls. If there isn't a candidate who represents libertarian views, a 'none of the above' sort of vote (such as a spoiled ballot) is better than no vote at all. I'm absolutely not in favour of forcing anyone to vote (through legislation, fines, penalties, or even morality) as that is dangerous. And I do take the point that low voter turnout can be an interesting tally in and of itself. But libertarians living in a a society such as ours really ought to do more than just not vote. So Ken, please vote today, if you can (but I thoroughly respect your decision not to if that's your ultimate choice, and I'll certainly defend your right not to, if need be).
Perhaps a rhetorical question, but why is it that we don't have a truly libertarian party in AB? I suspect that is where my political beliefs really land overall - but it seems that libertarian policies aren't able to be communicated well to the electorate, or maybe they just get muddied? I suppose it would be difficult for a new party on the scene to break in as well.
I'd love to hear some additional thoughts from you on this if you have the time/energy to share them. :)
Many thanks for the prompt, though we're maybe straying a bit off topic. But I'll bite! I don't think the idea of 'libertarianism' writ large really makes much sense in the context of contemporary society, and I doubt very much that a 'true' libertarian platform (however defined) is really all that appealing to anyone (in Alberta or elsewhere) except maybe the relatively few billionaires who walk amongst us. It would cost a lot of money to survive in Galt's Gulch, and there's nobody rushing over there to collect the trash or clean the sewers in any event, so I'm guessing it's a rather stinky place. In real life we don't really see libertarians making beelines to relocate to Somalia - or even New Hampshire - after all, and for good reason, I think. The paradox of libertarianism is that only those with extreme wealth to start with could survive in a truly libertarian state, and one needs all of the trappings of a fully-fledged modern state (healthcare, education, etc.) in order to develop the population of consumers needed for anyone (should they so desire) to acquire and maintain such wealth. Billionaires (mostly) know where their wealth comes from, and they're going to stick around with the rest of us in one way or another. So a singularly-focused 'libertarian' party doesn't really make much sense here, I don't think.
But that doesn't mean that an excessively large government that regulates all aspects of life is necessary or desirable. Not all active intervention by the state is the most efficient form of regulation. There are credible arguments that some aspects of life can operate in stable equilibrium without the need for a government to intervene and act as referee. As such, those who have libertarian tendencies in this day in age are probably ought to be advocates for 'less government intervention' in certain aspects of life where those are needed, as opposed to advocates of some ideal form of non-interventionist government altogether. The libertarian viewpoint might be 'less active intervention in supply side economics' for example - as such, I'd say that the 'libertarian' viewpoint is going to be more issue-specific, as opposed to a general view. This is pretty well suited to political parties that themselves are not dogmatic about one-size fits all solutions. Indeed, all of the major parties have certain areas of 'libertarian' viewpoints within their platforms (not to over generalize, but conservative parties are sometimes libertarian when it comes to certain economic issues; while lefty parties are often rather libertarian when it comes to certain social issues), and I think the position to advocated by libertarians ends up being more issue-specific as opposed to general in application as a result. So libertarians should probably support the candidates and parties who's views most closely align with the specific issues that they are most passionate about.
Me, myself, am not a libertarian so take my thoughts as you may. With that said, I do think that our polis today suffers from a sort of a 'more government regulation and intervention as the only possible answer' when it comes to most political thinking - and I'd quite like to hear alternative viewpoints at least discussed from time-to-time. My political heroes are of the John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor ilk, so maybe 'classical liberal' is a label that might fit me better, though I think a throwback of society to Victorian/Dickensian times would be rather unpleasant overall. Indeed, I'm also an admirer of Jeremy Bentham (godfather to Mill, if I recall correctly) and some of his utilitarian sort of thinking, which is very much not libertarian, and is largely often unworkable in practice ... but did represent a creative mode of approaching certain societal issues in my view.
Thanks for this well thought out answer! I am a fickle voter I will admit. But generally favor government being effective at what I view it needing to do (the things that government is needed to do) while not having excess bloat in the process. Lots to think about here in what you wrote, so thank you!
To your second point, I think the difference lies in two details: Macpherson suggests you found the *worst American evidence* and that on the basis of that example, Canada is *good by comparison*
Macpherson's comparison does neither
- It relies on her personal experience (one that many people went through) of a not particularly dramatic fact (expecting weird, personal insults to be political suicide isn't revolutionary.. or wasn't, to her point)
- She doesn't use it as base evidence that Canada is better and therefore not in a crisis enough to justify regular citizen action
In my reading, that was her problem with your US comparison -- not an outright rejection of US comparisons but suggesting yours went right for the worst possible example then over-generalized the Canada-is-better-so-I'm-ok from it
Well said. May I offer something else? I live and vote in Ottawa-Vanier, a largely francophone riding in an anglophone city that always, forever and at every level elects a Liberal. I vote, never yet for a Liberal, because the other parties need to know they are appreciated and important alternatives--and because a smart winning candidate is going to look at the share of the popular vote those alternatives got.
I live in Ottawa, and John Baird represented me for many years, first at the provincial level and then at the federal level. That said, Ottawa is a government town, full of very cautious people. I hope that it is not representative of Canada.
George, I say (with great respect, Sir) that I can assure you that Ottawa is NOT representative of Canada.
I would go further and note that I expect that my province (Alberta) is not representative of Canada and I am quite sanguine about that. My point is that we are who we are and we are content to be who we are; we have no reason to pretend otherwise. Further - and ever so importantly, please understand that the rest of Canada is NOT representative of Alberta.
Is that a declaration of independence? Well, not really; not yet. It is simply an assertion that just as we are who we are and you are who you are, we are not the same. Some similar characteristics but not the same. All the Ottawa centric attempts to tell us what we in Alberta should think, how backwards, ill-informed and embarrassing is what we do think is, to be polite, not welcome. Treat us with respect and we will return the sentiment.
I agree that we should respect each other, and that the respect is sorely lacking. But do remember that "Ottawa" is not homogeneous. In particular, very few of us work on Parliament Hill or even care about what goes on there.
Very happy to see this rebuttal, even more so that I can comment on it! I'm not sure what so-called Centre Ice Conservatives want to accomplish, but going on their own ain't it. I'm centre and I won't be voting for them, they should instead produce good policy and ideas and vision for the CPC.
100% agree with Sabrina. I voted today - it was, perhaps, the most unpleasant ballot choice I've ever been faced with, but at least I made that choice.
Thank you Ms. Macpherson for a great rebuttal. As along time Albertan we all see this election as too close to call. All the more reason why we must look beyond the candidates to assess the longer term democratic principles we see as important. I was frankly more shocked that Ken would lead a campaign for the party leadership knowing full well what the candidates represented going in and what the outcome was possibly before hand and then decides to not vote.
Well said Sabrina...thank you . Leading up to the last Provincial election in Ontario I was leaning toward not voting but a friend made a similar argument to yours and so I held my nose and voted for the least worst option. My candidate didn’t get elected but I feel comfortable in confronting the guy who did..and holding his feet to the fire every chance I get.
Cons who aren't voting, or those who are "lending" their votes to the other party are really using this as their method of settling scores and doing what Cons do best, ie, saying," if I can't play my way, I'm taking my toys and going home". The author has it right.
Like all true acts of service, voting is about shifting focus away from our own individual wants and participating in a practice that puts our community's needs first. Either the principle of individuals actively participating in democratic elections to inform the direction of their collective democracy is important, or it's not. If it is, then voting for the "least bad option" is better than shrugging it off. If we can't give the people around us the best, then we can protect them from the worst — and that is an important act of care for and engagement with our community." This right here is what convinced me to go vote.
I liked the rebuttal to Boessenkool's "not voting" declaration, which is like taking your ball and going home when upset during a scrub ballgame. Also, some thoughtful responses, though a few that seem all to similar to some of the UCP's more extreme supporters. I still feel gobsmacked by the assertion that both major parties are too extreme. I can buy that in part for the UCP given its last two leaders, but saying the NDP is promoting more socialism strikes me as a knee jerk response based largely on the rhetoric of rightwing politicians. Somehow people seem not to realize how socialistic the UCP government has been, only their targets are not individuals but corporations, primarily those in oil and gas. Surely subsidizing them is not all that different from subsidizing individuals.
I agree that The Line delivers a more nuanced view compared to Lorne Gunter or David Staples, but that is a pretty low bar to exceed. There remains a fairly strong conservative bias in most of the entries, although in my view Jen Gerson provides the most balanced perspective (along with the most fbombs, and interesting combination).
"If those among us who are most engaged in protecting the core values of liberal democracy don't vote, then who the hell do we expect to vote, exactly? Why do we presume that it's enough to have other people preserve democracy on our behalf? "
Thank you, 100% agree, even if its the "least worst" choice
Agreed, no matter how bad and worse two candidates are instinct tells me that one is worse than the other. It might take some digging to figure out which is which but the digging is the secret sauce to democracies.
Good call. I also bristled when I read Boessekool’s dismissal of the need to vote. He ends up coming off like some privileged Canadian untouched by the realities of truly bad governments. Which is exactly what the vast majority us Canadians are. Never take your freedom and comparative wealth for granted. Step up and accept this small responsibility even if it’s while holding your nose and casting your ballot for the candidate that you believe will do the least damage.
Damn fine rebuttal. Damn fine. Thanks for the honour of a rebuttal.
Only one point: The (increasingly small) libertarian in me rejects “must” in the last paragraph.
Ok, two: Kinda funny you reject US comparisons immediately before you make one!
But those are minor. Thanks again for your excellent rebuttal.
Thanks! I always appreciate a robust debate.
I suppose that "must" is why I'm not a libertarian, but I do appreciate how you/they ask certain tough questions in political conversations. This is why I like ideological differences, they make the resulting compromises stronger! Ideally.
And ha, yes, I suppose that I did use the US comparison - Classic Canadian Move (TM).
Thanks for the reply. Appreciate it!
And this folks is how grownups handle disagreements. Thanks to both of you for a very thought-provoking discussion.
Thanks to Sabrina Macpherson for her excellent rebuttal as she has articulated a point of view near to my own thoughts on the decision to vote or not. Thanks for Ken Boessenkool's original article for raising an excellent perspective, and one which was very similar to my feelings about this particular election. Thanks to the Line Editor for providing the platform, and thanks to the excellent and substantive comments that have followed from the Line Readers (with only minor exceptions). This type of discourse is what makes The Line so special. Honestly, I really do value this, and it gives me much hope in our civil society.
For this election, I was contemplating not voting for the first time in my adult life. Even when I've lived abroad I've always made a point of mailing an absentee ballot or marching over to the polling station at a consulate. But this election has really thrown me for a loop and Ken captured the sense of frustration I've been feeling here. I actually contemplated not voting at all, but many of the points that Sabrina raised stuck in the back of my head. Waking up this morning my intent was to, then, express my "vote" by spoiling my ballot. I figured I could show my contempt for the abysmal quality of the candidates and their campaigns - in which I was bombarded with nothing but negativity for weeks - by being tabulated as one who at least cared enough about the process to make a mark. I figured that was the least that I should do under the circumstances.
In the end, though, I re-read the platforms of the parties this morning, and ended up holding my nose and marking a proper 'X' next to the name of one of the candidates. I feel good about the decision, though still bad about the overall context.
One point I'd like to note, though, about the libertarian position on voting - I think the best libertarian arguments against the need to vote revolve around the idea that governments should be so limited that the elections of candidates don't really matter - the elected caretakers really won't bring much to the table, or detract much from the office, regardless of who gets elected. However, in a highly-interventionist environment as we find ourselves in now, my thought is that it really behooves those who have limited-government sort of aspirations, to make their voices heard, somehow, in the polls. If there isn't a candidate who represents libertarian views, a 'none of the above' sort of vote (such as a spoiled ballot) is better than no vote at all. I'm absolutely not in favour of forcing anyone to vote (through legislation, fines, penalties, or even morality) as that is dangerous. And I do take the point that low voter turnout can be an interesting tally in and of itself. But libertarians living in a a society such as ours really ought to do more than just not vote. So Ken, please vote today, if you can (but I thoroughly respect your decision not to if that's your ultimate choice, and I'll certainly defend your right not to, if need be).
Happy election 2023, all!
Perhaps a rhetorical question, but why is it that we don't have a truly libertarian party in AB? I suspect that is where my political beliefs really land overall - but it seems that libertarian policies aren't able to be communicated well to the electorate, or maybe they just get muddied? I suppose it would be difficult for a new party on the scene to break in as well.
I'd love to hear some additional thoughts from you on this if you have the time/energy to share them. :)
Many thanks for the prompt, though we're maybe straying a bit off topic. But I'll bite! I don't think the idea of 'libertarianism' writ large really makes much sense in the context of contemporary society, and I doubt very much that a 'true' libertarian platform (however defined) is really all that appealing to anyone (in Alberta or elsewhere) except maybe the relatively few billionaires who walk amongst us. It would cost a lot of money to survive in Galt's Gulch, and there's nobody rushing over there to collect the trash or clean the sewers in any event, so I'm guessing it's a rather stinky place. In real life we don't really see libertarians making beelines to relocate to Somalia - or even New Hampshire - after all, and for good reason, I think. The paradox of libertarianism is that only those with extreme wealth to start with could survive in a truly libertarian state, and one needs all of the trappings of a fully-fledged modern state (healthcare, education, etc.) in order to develop the population of consumers needed for anyone (should they so desire) to acquire and maintain such wealth. Billionaires (mostly) know where their wealth comes from, and they're going to stick around with the rest of us in one way or another. So a singularly-focused 'libertarian' party doesn't really make much sense here, I don't think.
But that doesn't mean that an excessively large government that regulates all aspects of life is necessary or desirable. Not all active intervention by the state is the most efficient form of regulation. There are credible arguments that some aspects of life can operate in stable equilibrium without the need for a government to intervene and act as referee. As such, those who have libertarian tendencies in this day in age are probably ought to be advocates for 'less government intervention' in certain aspects of life where those are needed, as opposed to advocates of some ideal form of non-interventionist government altogether. The libertarian viewpoint might be 'less active intervention in supply side economics' for example - as such, I'd say that the 'libertarian' viewpoint is going to be more issue-specific, as opposed to a general view. This is pretty well suited to political parties that themselves are not dogmatic about one-size fits all solutions. Indeed, all of the major parties have certain areas of 'libertarian' viewpoints within their platforms (not to over generalize, but conservative parties are sometimes libertarian when it comes to certain economic issues; while lefty parties are often rather libertarian when it comes to certain social issues), and I think the position to advocated by libertarians ends up being more issue-specific as opposed to general in application as a result. So libertarians should probably support the candidates and parties who's views most closely align with the specific issues that they are most passionate about.
Me, myself, am not a libertarian so take my thoughts as you may. With that said, I do think that our polis today suffers from a sort of a 'more government regulation and intervention as the only possible answer' when it comes to most political thinking - and I'd quite like to hear alternative viewpoints at least discussed from time-to-time. My political heroes are of the John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor ilk, so maybe 'classical liberal' is a label that might fit me better, though I think a throwback of society to Victorian/Dickensian times would be rather unpleasant overall. Indeed, I'm also an admirer of Jeremy Bentham (godfather to Mill, if I recall correctly) and some of his utilitarian sort of thinking, which is very much not libertarian, and is largely often unworkable in practice ... but did represent a creative mode of approaching certain societal issues in my view.
Thanks for asking!
Thanks for this well thought out answer! I am a fickle voter I will admit. But generally favor government being effective at what I view it needing to do (the things that government is needed to do) while not having excess bloat in the process. Lots to think about here in what you wrote, so thank you!
To your second point, I think the difference lies in two details: Macpherson suggests you found the *worst American evidence* and that on the basis of that example, Canada is *good by comparison*
Macpherson's comparison does neither
- It relies on her personal experience (one that many people went through) of a not particularly dramatic fact (expecting weird, personal insults to be political suicide isn't revolutionary.. or wasn't, to her point)
- She doesn't use it as base evidence that Canada is better and therefore not in a crisis enough to justify regular citizen action
In my reading, that was her problem with your US comparison -- not an outright rejection of US comparisons but suggesting yours went right for the worst possible example then over-generalized the Canada-is-better-so-I'm-ok from it
Well said. May I offer something else? I live and vote in Ottawa-Vanier, a largely francophone riding in an anglophone city that always, forever and at every level elects a Liberal. I vote, never yet for a Liberal, because the other parties need to know they are appreciated and important alternatives--and because a smart winning candidate is going to look at the share of the popular vote those alternatives got.
I live in Ottawa, and John Baird represented me for many years, first at the provincial level and then at the federal level. That said, Ottawa is a government town, full of very cautious people. I hope that it is not representative of Canada.
George, I say (with great respect, Sir) that I can assure you that Ottawa is NOT representative of Canada.
I would go further and note that I expect that my province (Alberta) is not representative of Canada and I am quite sanguine about that. My point is that we are who we are and we are content to be who we are; we have no reason to pretend otherwise. Further - and ever so importantly, please understand that the rest of Canada is NOT representative of Alberta.
Is that a declaration of independence? Well, not really; not yet. It is simply an assertion that just as we are who we are and you are who you are, we are not the same. Some similar characteristics but not the same. All the Ottawa centric attempts to tell us what we in Alberta should think, how backwards, ill-informed and embarrassing is what we do think is, to be polite, not welcome. Treat us with respect and we will return the sentiment.
I agree that we should respect each other, and that the respect is sorely lacking. But do remember that "Ottawa" is not homogeneous. In particular, very few of us work on Parliament Hill or even care about what goes on there.
Very happy to see this rebuttal, even more so that I can comment on it! I'm not sure what so-called Centre Ice Conservatives want to accomplish, but going on their own ain't it. I'm centre and I won't be voting for them, they should instead produce good policy and ideas and vision for the CPC.
Thank you. Agreed. Make a decision. Choose. I was shocked at the no vote option.
Three cheers for you, Sabrina Macpherson!
I like to think that I make an informed vote for the benefits which will cover the majority of Canadians.
Agreed 100% with all of Sabrina’s well thought out rebuttal.
100% agree with Sabrina. I voted today - it was, perhaps, the most unpleasant ballot choice I've ever been faced with, but at least I made that choice.
Thank you Ms. Macpherson for a great rebuttal. As along time Albertan we all see this election as too close to call. All the more reason why we must look beyond the candidates to assess the longer term democratic principles we see as important. I was frankly more shocked that Ken would lead a campaign for the party leadership knowing full well what the candidates represented going in and what the outcome was possibly before hand and then decides to not vote.
This was very well said and a great perspective.
Well said Sabrina...thank you . Leading up to the last Provincial election in Ontario I was leaning toward not voting but a friend made a similar argument to yours and so I held my nose and voted for the least worst option. My candidate didn’t get elected but I feel comfortable in confronting the guy who did..and holding his feet to the fire every chance I get.
Cons who aren't voting, or those who are "lending" their votes to the other party are really using this as their method of settling scores and doing what Cons do best, ie, saying," if I can't play my way, I'm taking my toys and going home". The author has it right.
Thank you, Sabrina Macpherson. Excellent points!
Like all true acts of service, voting is about shifting focus away from our own individual wants and participating in a practice that puts our community's needs first. Either the principle of individuals actively participating in democratic elections to inform the direction of their collective democracy is important, or it's not. If it is, then voting for the "least bad option" is better than shrugging it off. If we can't give the people around us the best, then we can protect them from the worst — and that is an important act of care for and engagement with our community." This right here is what convinced me to go vote.
I liked the rebuttal to Boessenkool's "not voting" declaration, which is like taking your ball and going home when upset during a scrub ballgame. Also, some thoughtful responses, though a few that seem all to similar to some of the UCP's more extreme supporters. I still feel gobsmacked by the assertion that both major parties are too extreme. I can buy that in part for the UCP given its last two leaders, but saying the NDP is promoting more socialism strikes me as a knee jerk response based largely on the rhetoric of rightwing politicians. Somehow people seem not to realize how socialistic the UCP government has been, only their targets are not individuals but corporations, primarily those in oil and gas. Surely subsidizing them is not all that different from subsidizing individuals.
I agree that The Line delivers a more nuanced view compared to Lorne Gunter or David Staples, but that is a pretty low bar to exceed. There remains a fairly strong conservative bias in most of the entries, although in my view Jen Gerson provides the most balanced perspective (along with the most fbombs, and interesting combination).