That's Debatable: It's okay not to vote

This article was originally published in ZU News.

In just eight months, the people of the United States will have the opportunity to either replace President Donald Trump or give him another four years in office. But before you make the decision of who to vote for, consider the unpopular alternative of not voting.

From a young age, citizens of the U.S. are educated of the significance of voting. We are told to vote because it’s our obligation, because people died for our rights to have a democracy and thereby our right to vote, because our vote can make a difference. 

This is all true.

I am not arguing against the importance of voting. It is our duty. People did go to war and die for our right to vote. Indeed, our vote can make a difference. 

Our vote can also make a difference if we choose not to use it.

Most people associate not voting with laziness or apathy to politics. While this is true for millions around the country who do not vote each election cycle, it is not true for everyone.

In 2016, I had my first opportunity to vote. I had turned 18 just 10 months prior to election day and I did vote in the Nevada Primaries. While I’m not fond of politics, the significance of voting had been instilled in me through my AP US History class and my Citizenship in the Community and Nation merit badges from Boy Scouts. 

I had every intention of voting in the presidential election. Then the unthinkable happened. Trump won the GOP presidential nomination. 

I am a registered Republican. The vast majority of my family are Republicans. I was raised with conservative values and like most who affiliate themselves with a party, I planned to vote for my party’s candidate. 

I could not in good conscience vote for Trump.

While I may agree with some of his policies and points of view, such as being the “most pro-life president ever” to supporting the military, I do not agree with the way he treats people or many of the decisions he makes.

From his disgusting mocking of a disabled reporter to his extremely crude “locker room talk,” Trump has been the definition of scandalous since far before he was elected. 

This leads me to the second half of my argument, I could not vote for another candidate. 

In 2016, Hillary Clinton captured the DNC nomination for presidency. While Clinton may not be as bad as Trump, she was just as untrustworthy. You can see this in her private server email scandal or her foundation taking money for corrupt reasons. 

I, and millions of other Americans, did not trust Clinton. Thus, I could not in good conscience vote for her. 

Then there were the third party candidates. The most popular was Gary Johnson who received 4.4 million votes in the election (Trump and Clinton both received more than 60 million). I didn’t vote for Johnson because I didn’t agree with many of his stances on topics like abortion. The same goes for Jill Stein, Evan McMullin and all of the other third party candidates that you probably forgot about three years ago.

In essence, I did not vote in the 2016 election because I did not trust or agree with any of the candidates. 

When I told friends and family members that I chose not to vote, I heard numerous negative responses. No one seemed to understand my decision to abstain from voting. 

Yet, just months earlier, I had heard a family member say this might be the first time they might not vote for a Republican candidate because of how terrible he was. But when election day came, they proceded to vote for Trump because they did not want Clinton to be elected. Numerous other Republicans did the exact same thing. This is a mistake to me.

To pick the lesser of two evils is still to pick an evil. You’re still supporting a candidate you don’t agree with. By giving them your vote, you have to live with the aftermath of all the decisions they made while in office, knowing that you supported them. 

Trump’s scandals have not ceased since he took office. If anything, they have amplified dramatically. From the Ukraine aide freeze to the Stormy Daniels hush-up, Trump has been anything but presidential in his tenure in office.

If you voted for Trump in 2016, you have to live with knowing you supported perhaps the most controversial, scandal-bound president in U.S. history. I chose not to vote for him and I chose not to vote for any other candidate. 

There weren’t any candidates I trusted or agreed with on enough important issues to support with my vote, so I didn’t.

And that’s okay. 

That’s all the reason anyone needs. If you vote for someone who you don’t trust or agree with on a majority of important issues, it’s a mistake in my opinion. People are blinded by their pride and party loyalty to a fault. 

I am confident I will hear many of the same things I heard in 2016 later this year if I again exercise my right not to vote. “If you don’t vote, that’s a vote for Trump,” “If you don’t vote, that’s a vote for Bernie,” or “If you vote for a third party candidate, you’re wasting your vote.”

People need to stop being blinded by party loyalty to the point where they feel like they have to vote for a candidate they don’t like or agree with. Not voting is perfectly fine. If there is a candidate you believe in, that’s wonderful, vote for them, but if you can’t find a candidate that you can get behind, you are well within your rights to choose not to vote. 

That's Debatable: Celebrities and Politics

This article was originally published in ZU News.

Over the past few years, award shows have undergone drastic structural changes. The Oscars no longer have a host. The Golden Globes dinner is now entirely plant based. However, no change has been bigger than the shift of award acceptance speeches from simple monologues of gratitude to political tirades.

Perhaps the first big instance of this was Leonardo DiCaprio’s speech after winning the Best Actor award at the Oscars in February 2016. As millions of fans watched DiCaprio accept his first Oscar, instead of talking about how long he had been waiting for the award like everyone expected him to, he spent a minute saying his thank you’s and then launched into a rant about the environment.

The audience of celebrities sat transfixed as DiCaprio regaled them with a series of bold statements, including “Climate change is real,” “It’s the most urgent threat facing our entire species,” “for those people out there whose voices who have been drowned out by the politics of greed.” 

It was the first major acceptance speech of its kind, but it would not be the last.

Just one year later, renowned actress Meryl Streep delivered a potent speech attacking then President-Elect Donald Trump for making fun of a disabled reporter, and talking about the need for a free press. Streep went well over her time limit, but no one booted her off stage because what she was doing was unprecedented and admirable.

“Disrespect invites disrespect, violence incites violence,” Streep said. “And when the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose.”

Other actors began taking note of the new trend and decided they would give it a go, including Andrew Garfield at the 2018 Tonys. Garfield talked about the struggles of the LGBTQ community and how they deserved to be treated the same as everyone else.

“It is a spirit that says no to oppression; it is a spirit that says no to bigotry, no to shame, no to exclusion. It is a spirit that says we are all made perfectly and we all belong,” Garfield said. “So let’s just bake a cake for everyone who wants a cake to be baked.”

While Garfield, Streep and DiCaprio spoke about vastly different topics, they had one theme in common. They used their platform for something more. 

For decades, these speeches have had the same format. Thank you Mom. Thank you Dad. Thank you to the production company, to my spouse, to the other actors in the production and the other actors who did not win but had such brilliant performances. 

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you Leo for throwing a wrench in the format of acceptance speeches. We’re all tired of all the gratitude. We know you’re grateful for everyone. We know that you would not have been able to do it without their support. 

What we do not know is what else they can do with that time in the spotlight. 

DiCaprio loves the environment and has fought for environmental issues for years. He wants to stop climate change and the best way to do this is through awareness. If one person decides to change their lifestyle, to recycle more and maybe bike to work instead of driving, that will make a small difference. If millions of people make the same small decisions, the ripple effect will be monolithic.

Streep is a kindhearted woman. She saw an abuse of power and called the president-to-be out on it on national television. That takes guts. Streep fought a culture of bigotry and used her speech to inspire change in the way we treat others.

Garfield used his platform to fight for equality among the LGBTQ community. When people, no matter their political views, see a celebrity they love and respect advocating for something bigger than themselves, that just might incite a change in heart.

You accomplish nothing by telling the world how grateful you are. Your family and cast and crew already know that. You can tell them that at literally any point. However, even celebrities only have a live audience of millions at a handful of times in their lives. 

Should they waste it, or should they use it for something more?