Deciding Who...

Elections are just around the corner (we hope), and the campaign season will soon begin in earnest anyway, putting each of us in the position of again deciding who should get our vote.  

Reaching that decision can be daunting because regardless of the office--be it national, state, or local--the issues are often complex, and where a candidate stands can be unclear, inconsistent, or irrational.  We're inundated with slogans, promises, and appeals for campaign donations, but we’re seldom offered real, substantive ideas, detailed plans, proposals, or programs.  By the time we cast our votes, we're likely to feel exhausted, frustrated, and disappointed in the whole process.

But that's democracy: it's "messy," and, as Winston Churchill said, it's the worst system of government in the world--except for all the others.

This year, the challenges we face as voters are the greatest ever. How can we even begin to address them?

Here's how.

For any--any--candidate from Congressional representative to City Council member, ask them two initial questions:

• Do you think Donald Trump won the 2020 Presidential election?

• Do you think January 6 was a legitimate exercise in political dissent?

The only legitimate, appropriate answer to both is "No." If the answer to either is "Yes," that person has no business running for, let alone serving in, elective office. Do not vote for them. If there is any hesitation, equivocation, evasion, or refusal to answer, that person has no business running for, let alone serving in, elective office.  Do not vote for them. These two questions are baseline tests of a candidate's fitness for office because they reveal whether the candidate thinks critically, and they illuminate the candidate’s understanding of democracy, our Constitution, and what legitimate political dissent entails.  

First, to assert that Donald Trump won the 2020 election requires 1) the willful rejection of verifiable facts, 2) the denial of evidence, including the loss of every legal challenge to the outcome, and 3) the embrace of conspiracy theories. Second, to claim that the violent assault on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 was a legitimate expression of political dissent requires a deliberate blindness to what actually transpired that day, revealing a dangerous misunderstanding of the democratic process and our Constitution, distorting beyond recognition the concept of "legitimate political dissent." This is a person who will, if elected, bring that mindset to their performance in office, whether that office is national, state, or local. Do not vote for them.  

For any--any--candidate for state or local office, ask them these questions as well:

• Do you think voter fraud is widespread in the state of Washington’s county and local elections?

• If so, what evidence do you have to support your judgment?

Here again the responses will reveal whether they think critically and rely on verifiable facts and evidence, as well as whether they see those charged with running our elections as trustworthy. 

To assert that voter fraud is rampant in our state or that election officials lack integrity or are somehow complicit in enabling voter fraud to serve partisan objectives requires the willful rejection of facts and evidence clearly and repeatedly showing the opposite.  It is intended to sow doubt and distrust about the very process they are engaged in when seeking office.  This is a person who, if elected, will bring that same mindset to their performance in office.  Do not vote for them.

How can you pose these questions?

Every candidate for office has (or should have) a means for contacting them, either by phone, email, or in writing.  They will have (or should have) a statement of their views, their values, and their positions on what they see as the most important issues they intend to address if elected.

If a candidate does not have a means for engaging with them or does not provide a statement of their views, values, and positions on important issues pertinent to the office they're seeking...do not vote for them.

If a candidate for any office declines to participate in a forum, town hall, or other public appearance, doesn't show up, or when they do, refuses to answer such questions, dodges or deflects them, or offers answers that are not supported by verifiable facts, solid evidence, and sound reasoning...do not vote for them.

This is how we begin restoring sanity and accountability to deciding who should get our vote and who gets elected.