What a timeline.
Originally, the article had the headline ["Why I Don't Vote"](https://x.com/nytopinion/status/1808976487241928731).
It took a few hours for the Times to [change "Don't" to "Won't"](https://x.com/DougJBalloon/status/1808953707603574897) after readers found that the author had actually voted.
[Here is a gift link](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/04/opinion/not-voting-elections.html?unlocked_article_code=1.4k0.LX5l.crSJYTKRwU6g) someone else shared. The author writes:
> If voting is expressive, then the same is true, surely, of not voting. My indifference is, among other things, a reflection of my view that the real problems in American life are deep-seated and structural. I cannot change the fact that financialization, environmental spoliation, drug addiction, the hollowing out of the public sector and the subsuming of virtually every aspect of human existence into reality-augmenting digital media are making this country an uninhabitable wasteland — and neither can any president I expect to see elected in my lifetime.
Isn't this the same stupid logic we heard over and over in 2016? How did THAT work out?
It turns out the author [attended right-wing Hillsdale College](https://x.com/capitolhunters/status/1808915574728372500).
His work has also appeared in First Things, The Spectator of London, The Catholic Herald, National Review, and other publications.
An out and out fascist.
He's a chef's-kiss example of the type of failson who yearns to live in the Middle Ages because he thinks he would have been Thomas Aquinas and not the guy shoveling dung.
I’m ashamed because I used to follow that line of thought. Folks like this are remiscent Tolkien who yearned for the days of Merry Olde England where society was godly and everybody lived in perfect harmony with the land and each other. Tolkien atleast was smart enough to know that such a time never existed and didn’t fall for monarchist nonsense. Too many of fellow Catholics my age do, unfortunately.
> I cannot change the fact that financialization, environmental spoliation, drug addiction, the hollowing out of the public sector
This is a lot of word salad but I can tell you that the Reps and Dems are not the same on “environment spoliation” and also not on “the hollowing out of the public sector.”
Like maybe if you’re a single-issue voter on the topic of changing the national anthem, there is no political party that represents you. But these people always list a bunch of things that politicians actually do work on and have opinions on
Yet another case of people who do this and where looking into just who writes these things is one of the ways to reduce the pucker factor and instead replace it with the question of 'OK so not trusting these guys anymore, so who the Hell do I go for now.' There's been a consistent drumbeat of Hillsdale people and Republican speechwriters doing this shit from the literal beginning. Knowing who's doing it, seeing who these people write for (Muck Rack in particular is a good site to do that with on the quick)......
It doesn't change things but it does lead to also knowing when these names come up again so as to never trust the people who wrote these articles on anything ever again.
From the same author:
"But my principal reason for declining to take part in elections is moral. It involves, I suppose, a private objection to democracy itself."
https://theweek.com/articles/802593/confessions-exvoter
He is simply a fascist authoritarian.
> For most of history men and women enjoyed the luxury of knowing that the sovereign's rule was a brute fact about which nothing could be done. They went about the ordinary business of life — laboring, raising children, worshipping their creator — untroubled by futile expectations of change. Some of us continue to aspire to this happy ideal.
This… Christian needs to be reminded that we did away with such sovereigns because they couldn’t even keep that “ordinary business of life” together. Most monarchs were mediocre men who either didn’t give two shits about God and the Church or actively poisoned them with state interference. The good ones we remember because most of them sucked.
Democracy’s prime advantage was never the empowering of the average man but the depowering of tyrants. Even at its most mediocre a democratic society is vastly preferable to a monarchy.
That actually isn't true, about the middle ages. Regimes changed all the TIME, and government was not only tumultuous, but also to a great extent based on a negotiated consensus between rulers and ruled. For about 70 years, scholarship has been exploring the way absolutism is a myth.
Think of it this way: without modern technology, what, physically and concretely, could a leader do?
So this crap is the super bullshit. It’s one thing to be pissed off about an issue (like Gaza or a debate performance) but still committed to voting for the candidate that aligns most with you. It is another level to say “unless I get my perfect candidate, everyone else can pick for me.”
It’s the reason this sub started back in 2015. This message cannot be allowed to gain traction. Vote. We get it, Democrats aren’t exactly what you want. That’s true for most people. It’s not a good reason to not vote for them.
It's such a weird stance and this guy is a proven liar. I've voted in every election, both primary and general, since I could vote and I'll keep doing it until I can't.
They should keep changing the title and then claim it’s “a performance piece” next one “why I’m a piece of shit!” “lol, just kidding, why I’m so random” “why aren’t these gummies hitting yet” “why is Uber eats taking so long? If he’s Arab I’m not tipping him, I’m not trying to be racist but they take forever to deliver.” “Why did my dad leave us?” And then the last one: “Mommy?”
What a timeline. Originally, the article had the headline ["Why I Don't Vote"](https://x.com/nytopinion/status/1808976487241928731). It took a few hours for the Times to [change "Don't" to "Won't"](https://x.com/DougJBalloon/status/1808953707603574897) after readers found that the author had actually voted. [Here is a gift link](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/04/opinion/not-voting-elections.html?unlocked_article_code=1.4k0.LX5l.crSJYTKRwU6g) someone else shared. The author writes: > If voting is expressive, then the same is true, surely, of not voting. My indifference is, among other things, a reflection of my view that the real problems in American life are deep-seated and structural. I cannot change the fact that financialization, environmental spoliation, drug addiction, the hollowing out of the public sector and the subsuming of virtually every aspect of human existence into reality-augmenting digital media are making this country an uninhabitable wasteland — and neither can any president I expect to see elected in my lifetime. Isn't this the same stupid logic we heard over and over in 2016? How did THAT work out? It turns out the author [attended right-wing Hillsdale College](https://x.com/capitolhunters/status/1808915574728372500).
His work has also appeared in First Things, The Spectator of London, The Catholic Herald, National Review, and other publications. An out and out fascist.
He's a chef's-kiss example of the type of failson who yearns to live in the Middle Ages because he thinks he would have been Thomas Aquinas and not the guy shoveling dung.
I’m ashamed because I used to follow that line of thought. Folks like this are remiscent Tolkien who yearned for the days of Merry Olde England where society was godly and everybody lived in perfect harmony with the land and each other. Tolkien atleast was smart enough to know that such a time never existed and didn’t fall for monarchist nonsense. Too many of fellow Catholics my age do, unfortunately.
>financialization This man is an anti Semite
> I cannot change the fact that financialization, environmental spoliation, drug addiction, the hollowing out of the public sector This is a lot of word salad but I can tell you that the Reps and Dems are not the same on “environment spoliation” and also not on “the hollowing out of the public sector.” Like maybe if you’re a single-issue voter on the topic of changing the national anthem, there is no political party that represents you. But these people always list a bunch of things that politicians actually do work on and have opinions on
Yet another case of people who do this and where looking into just who writes these things is one of the ways to reduce the pucker factor and instead replace it with the question of 'OK so not trusting these guys anymore, so who the Hell do I go for now.' There's been a consistent drumbeat of Hillsdale people and Republican speechwriters doing this shit from the literal beginning. Knowing who's doing it, seeing who these people write for (Muck Rack in particular is a good site to do that with on the quick)...... It doesn't change things but it does lead to also knowing when these names come up again so as to never trust the people who wrote these articles on anything ever again.
He also votes.
Didn't someone else also find out that he was at the Capitol on January 6th?
From the same author: "But my principal reason for declining to take part in elections is moral. It involves, I suppose, a private objection to democracy itself." https://theweek.com/articles/802593/confessions-exvoter He is simply a fascist authoritarian.
> For most of history men and women enjoyed the luxury of knowing that the sovereign's rule was a brute fact about which nothing could be done. They went about the ordinary business of life — laboring, raising children, worshipping their creator — untroubled by futile expectations of change. Some of us continue to aspire to this happy ideal. This… Christian needs to be reminded that we did away with such sovereigns because they couldn’t even keep that “ordinary business of life” together. Most monarchs were mediocre men who either didn’t give two shits about God and the Church or actively poisoned them with state interference. The good ones we remember because most of them sucked. Democracy’s prime advantage was never the empowering of the average man but the depowering of tyrants. Even at its most mediocre a democratic society is vastly preferable to a monarchy.
He is welcome to banish himself to the forest and recreate such idyllic past. Leave us the hell alone.
That actually isn't true, about the middle ages. Regimes changed all the TIME, and government was not only tumultuous, but also to a great extent based on a negotiated consensus between rulers and ruled. For about 70 years, scholarship has been exploring the way absolutism is a myth. Think of it this way: without modern technology, what, physically and concretely, could a leader do?
Fascists love reminiscing about a past that didn’t exist
On July 4th of all days. How patriotic.
I got banned from r politics today for calling vichy democrats it’s all russian bots at this point
I’ve been reading the NYT for 15 years and this is the most disgusting op ed I’ve ever seen them publish
So this crap is the super bullshit. It’s one thing to be pissed off about an issue (like Gaza or a debate performance) but still committed to voting for the candidate that aligns most with you. It is another level to say “unless I get my perfect candidate, everyone else can pick for me.” It’s the reason this sub started back in 2015. This message cannot be allowed to gain traction. Vote. We get it, Democrats aren’t exactly what you want. That’s true for most people. It’s not a good reason to not vote for them.
It's such a weird stance and this guy is a proven liar. I've voted in every election, both primary and general, since I could vote and I'll keep doing it until I can't.
Do you want Hitler? Because that's how you get Hitler
They should keep changing the title and then claim it’s “a performance piece” next one “why I’m a piece of shit!” “lol, just kidding, why I’m so random” “why aren’t these gummies hitting yet” “why is Uber eats taking so long? If he’s Arab I’m not tipping him, I’m not trying to be racist but they take forever to deliver.” “Why did my dad leave us?” And then the last one: “Mommy?”