In frustrating election years like this one, when there’s a shortage of candidates to our liking, it’s easy to wish for a nostalgic time when Americans chose from people that were truly admired—like Lincoln, or perhaps Reagan. We long for a hero: someone who embodies the best virtues in one leader.
In his day, Washington was called “The American Cincinnatus,” but today few know what that means. During the fledgling years of the Roman Republic, Cincinnatus was called upon during a desperate national crisis. He left his plow in the field to serve his country and was given dictatorial power to rescue Rome and its armies. After securing victory the people begged him to remain in power, but he willingly relinquished his position and returned to his humble life of farming.
I hear what you’re thinking. We all want another Cincinnatus, whose selfless example Washington intentionally followed. Who wouldn’t? But reality rarely provides such a hero. Politics is a messy game where players maneuver and lie to get gain. Instead of voting for someone we truly want, we’re left trying to decide which candidate we dislike the least, or worse, just avoiding the decision entirely. Compared to Cincinnatus, the modern world is rather disappointing.
What then is a person of conscience to do?
Many good people argue that we should simply vote for the most “virtuous candidate” rather than for policies. But can the public really measure a person’s virtue accurately? Since unbiased media is a fantasy, we lack a reliable lens to view a candidate’s private life. For instance, can I personally verify that Kamala Harris had an extramarital affair with former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown to launch her political career, as some have reported? Or personally confirm Donald Trump is secretly a racist? Obviously, verifying such claims is impossible because we can’t truly see into a person’s heart.
This is especially true with the rise of AI deepfake videos, which have already influenced foreign elections in recent months by generating sham campaign speeches, false confessions and other scandals. The era of political vandalism has arrived. Hence, we cannot rely on media alone to judge a candidate. This includes the entire rumor-mill complex of legacy media, podcasts, and our friends who follow them. If we do, we reduce ourselves to nothing more than proxy voters for whoever is best at spreading gossip. The only reliable indicators we are left with are the candidates’ past policies and political choices—their documented fruits.
But do a candidate's policies and track record give us a glimpse into their private virtue? Both are important, since deceptive individuals can appear perfectly virtuous when it’s convenient. This raises a common dilemma: if a virtuous candidate has policies you oppose, and a flawed candidate supports policies you favor, whom would you choose? But isn’t a policy record a politician’s private beliefs made public? And shouldn’t this apply to the so-called virtuous candidate who proposes policies with which you disagree? Why would a virtuous candidate hold unvirtuous beliefs, unless they too are at least duplicitous? In this case, either the candidate in question isn’t really virtuous, or you should reconsider the virtue of your own beliefs.
Which brings up another question. Which virtues are we looking for in a candidate? Perfect vocal pitch is not a virtue you need in a landscaper; but it is for your wedding singer. The virtues of a good heart surgeon are very different from what you may require in a lawyer. So it goes in government. We need different virtues in our Commander-in-Chief than we do in a judge, accountant or pastor. After all, no person has every virtue.
Finally, a vital point to remember is that by casting your vote, you don’t elect just the candidate. National politics is never about one person; it’s about the candidate’s team. Cabinet members, agency admins, supreme court justices, not to mention hundreds of federal judges—the ripple effects are massive. On average, new presidents change around 4,000 political appointees, which in turn swap out more deputies, managers, advisors, etc., to replace as many as 10,000 people. These radically change the federal government’s priorities, because they typically share the ideologies and objectives written in their party platforms. You can’t elect a player without electing his entire team and their goals.
A vote for president is not a personal endorsement—it’s a vote for the downstream policies of the thousands of people who will be placed into power by that administration. It’s a vote for a set of policy consequences and the moral implications of those consequences. This means that we don't have to be fans of the "candidate" at all.
But can’t we keep our hands “clean” by simply abstaining? As it turns out, this is mathematically equal to choosing the side that wins. Likewise, third-party “protest votes” simply guarantee the winning side—even when naively described as voting "one's conscience." In other words, during an election it’s impossible to escape a moral action.
If a Cincinnatus reappeared on the political scene, we shouldn’t hesitate to elect him. It’s obvious that a virtuous, competent leader is what we Americans want. But the dilemma when we don’t have a Cincinnatus is much more typical. In that case, our only option is to measure promises against track records, and compare our own worldview to each candidate's ideological team.
This year, since both candidates have been in the presidency before, we’ve been given a rare gift. Their clear track records can guide us. How did their past policies already affect us, our families, our careers, our communities, and our way of life? Based on that, which team’s proven priorities will make those things better and strengthen our nation over the next four years?
When every candidate is flawed, voting can still seem difficult. Although this choice may feel imperfect, we can at least support the policies that will secure our families, our country, and those things in life we value most. So by all means, vote your conscience, but only for the bundled set of policy effects that actually align with your beliefs.
—--------------------------------
Stephen Earley is a 17-year-old “road-schooling” student from Gilbert, Arizona. He is a science and political philosophy enthusiast and lead violinist and vocalist of Trio Fratelli. He also enjoys speech and debate, studying Italian, hitting the weights, basketball, camping and dating girls. He’s currently saving for college, service for his church, and to expand his business. You can reach him at earleystephenc-at-gmail.com.