Dear Mr. Josephson,

"In a democracy, the highest public office is a citizen with the right to vote. Our privileges come with civic responsibilities, including the moral duty to participate" was said on the radio as I drove to work this this morning.

I have issue with "moral duty." It is an assignment of judgment for yourself and someone else's actions ("I did it and say it is the right thing to do, so you must do it also.") The conscious decision to vote or not vote is not a moral decision. It is the right of an individual to choose to vote or not. And if someone decides not to vote, their decision is valid and correct. No other person can condemn that choice because it was not their choice to make for anybody but themselves.

The entire statement above is without a degree of individualism with which democracy itself stands. The right to do anything that is granted by our constitution is an individual's right and one that should not be influenced by others. The phrase "including the moral duty to participate" is a blatant attempt to judge and to manipulate another's right to choice. With your statement, it comes down to, "Do what I say or you are bad or unpatriotic." This would leave no choice to all others and impose your views and morals on another's right to choose.

The person that votes because someone told them to vote, not by making that choice for themselves, is just a sheep and will have little, if any, knowledge of the democratic process, and thus, hinder their own right to choice.

Fabulous. I will use this with my English students in the Chinese community...who now are going by "the way they look."
THANK YOU again and again.
Sarah

Michael, I support your perspective. The critique by Mr. Hachten seems to confuse legal rights with moral responsibility. As a citizen I have the right to vote, but also the responsibility to vote. I also have a legal right to not vote, but there is no moral responsibility to not vote. The moral responsibility only works in one way, and it comes from the fact that I was born into and continue to enjoy the privileges of citizenship. From Mr. Hachten's reasoning it would appear that citizenship has no duties beyond those required by law. That is, there are no moral responsibilities, only legal ones.

Mr. Hachten also seems concerned that people shouldn't "judge" what others do, and seems to subcribe to the view that as long as one chooses, it is a correct choice. This kind of nihilistic thinking has very little in common with ethics or morals because it denies the very existence of anything binding on us as individuals.

Finally, he confuses exhortation with manipulation. I take the original article as a healthy reminder and a persuasive argument to action. I doubt very much that anyone will feel "manipulated" by it.

Well done, Michael.

It would seem that commentor David missed the point of the commentary which, IMHO, is that with the abundance if information available, ignorance of the candidates qualifications is not an excuse for not voting.

However, if one is not satisfied with the status quo in our country, with our government, with our leaders, then one does have a moral duty to exercise one's right to vote and make a change.

Whether or not my candidate wins the election I can at least go to sleep at night knowing I tried to make a difference.

I'm always thrilled to read the pros and cons about your commemtaries. David, anonymous, Brian and Tom all disputed points of semantics about voting, all to make their point right. No one ever mentioned that this country gives one the right to vote. The outcome might be contested but we don't break into civil war over it because we don't accept the results and kill our political leaders as well.
Whether one votes or not for whatever reason, they still have the opportunity to accept the government or complain after it's done. Remember, change is good.

While your working premise that dissatisfaction with the choices and the temptation to stand on the sidelines and not vote does set up your excellent commentary well, I respectfully disagree with that premise. Specifically, because we have been given such a distinct and unprecedented variety of choices, the opportunity to find a candidate that may impel you to jump off of the sidelines and join the political process has never been greater.
Thank you for providing more tools to allow for prospective voters to make a positive selection, and for reinforcing the idea that the only bad choice is to not vote.

Good day Michael Josephson: It seems a bit odd that your delightsome comments about the value of ethics are broadcast on a station (KNX 1070KHz) that is affiliated with a church that excommunicates members who exhibit ethical behavior.

Greetings! I loved your commentary on the duty to choose, and I agree whole-heartedly. One premise held by the founders of this country was the principle of civic virtue. I believe that voting is the most universally accessible expression of civic virtue: participation isn't a function of what we look like, where we live, what we do for a living, or whom we know. I plan to share this column with my high-school history students. Michael, keep it up!

As for Richard's comment about KNX 1070, I looked them up and they seem to be owned by CBS--which is decidely NOT affiliated with a church. I don't know whether they offer religious programming (I live in Alabama) but access is not the same as affiliation.