Prudence, by definition, is practical wisdom. Practicalities deal with commonsensical things. Ideally, it would be a waste of my time to write about what a prudent democratic citizen thinks with the hope of propagating sense into the minds of some 200 people that will likely read this post, because commonsensical things are too obvious to be stated. Sadly, it is not the case. If it were, Americans would not be stuck with the two candidates we are left with. The remainder of this post will deal with a list of things a prudent voter ought to think.
A Prudent Voter Has Respect for One's Fellow Citizens
We are now at a point where we call each other "deplorable" for supporting a candidate one does not support. We are now at a point where a politically involved person tries to undermine a religion and not many condemn that person's actions save for the religious themselves. We are at a point where we scream diversity and inclusion yet fail to tolerate diversity and inclusion of ideas. In this sort of hypocritical and hate-filled political arena, a legitimate rational dialogue is not likely to happen.
A Prudent Voter Applies the Golden Rule to Political Dialogues
Following off of the previous point, a prudent voter will do unto others' arguments as one would have others do to one's own arguments: interpreting an argument in the best possible way. Many people are repulsed at those who vote for Trump or Clinton. Could they look past the repulsion and see certain reasons the other side might be thinking? For example, could a Trump voter think to how a Clinton voter would be willing to look past her immoralities and ruthlessness? Could a Clinton voter do the same for Trump voters?
A Prudent Voter Does "Mental Ping-Pong"
A prudent voter gives oneself the benefit of the doubt, that one can err in reasoning despite the
feeling of certitude. Thus a prudent voter would apply a skeptical method (not necessarily skepticism), thinking of best possible objections that can be raised to one's set of beliefs in supposing that one's ideas are false. Look to the works of St. Thomas Aquinas such as
Summa Theologica, how he provides counterarguments for every point he attempts to make before making his arguments. Can an average voter do the same?
A Prudent Voter Remains Emotionally Restrained
I've had a hilarious experience with the wide-spread emotional immaturity among young people. I advertised a speaker's event on a college feminist Facebook page. For it was a contentious topic, I emphasized civility during the talk. Before the event , the Facebook group members interpreted my action as an act of stereotyping feminists, commenting in an uncivil manner. During the event, I saw people rolling their eyes or scoffing at a point they disagree with. Here, even when civility was emphasized, they had not the restraint to be civil. I am not bashing on feminists. What I am doing, however, is noting the current state of emotional maturity among the youth.
It is something humanity has known ever since we were conscious of a thing called "thinking": that emotions in many cases cloud our judgments, leading us astray from even the most commonsensical things. Many psychologists seem to think that the current generation seems to be lacking in
emotional maturity. This is a consequence of deteriorating family structure. Up until around sexual maturation, human brain goes through a sort of "
pruning," a process where the brain cuts off ineffective links to form new ones. As these links are cut off, children tend to act irrationally, or, shall I say, imprudently. They will likely continue to do so well into their 20s for the rational part of the brain, amygdala, will not be completely developed until around the age of 25. Further, a young adult will likely fail to use it to a full extent until the age of 27. Thus it is imperative that children are cared for by their older, more reasonable elders, their parents especially, that they may know the standard of emotional control.
I am mentioning these things here so that you, reader, can be aware of the fact that you are very likely to act in emotionally unrestrained manner if you are under 30, especially when it comes to issues with high-stakes, e.g. politics (and pointless relationships destined to break). Being emotionally unrestrained can have a number of consequences, ranging from misinterpreting others' arguments to putting a charismatic tyrant in a position of power. We would do well to remember that hyper-emotive groups have, with majority vote, executed two innocent men who were the history's finest.
A Prudent Voter Stays Informed
With the advent of internet journalism, we have an unparalleled access to information and opportunity to engage in fruitful dialogues necessary to carry out an effective democracy. Yet this blessing is not taken advantage of. Instead, most of us tend to gravitate toward whatever we agree with. I know people who constantly cite Milo Yiannopoulos as their source of political commentary and yet have never heard of Shaun King. I know people who constantly cite John Oliver's commentary but have never saw a minute of Bill O'Reilly's commentary.
The news industry reflects this reality. I remember when Fox News was the only news network stereotyped for being biased and people joked about it. Now, we can easily label the stereotype to Breitbart, MSNBC, CNN, and Huffington Post. About these newly labeled networks, we do not joke. Perhaps because the reality has gotten too sad. If conservatives gravitate toward Fox and Breitbart, and liberals to Huffington Post and Daily Show, and they get their news almost exclusively from those sources, then how can they see both sides? These people who only see one side can not be informed. No, being angry at the title of a Facebook share you disagree with time to time without reading the content does not count as being informed.
A Prudent Voter Does Not Worship a Candidate
A rule of thumb of human interaction is to give people who gravitate toward power an utmost skepticism about their moral character. Power can corrupt people. Those who hunger power will manipulate others into thinking that another is manipulating them. Yet I see people acting as though a presidential candidate they support is some sort of savior to bring about a utopia. This attitude has been more prominent among liberals in the past, and certainly utilized by liberal politicians. Remember Obama's campaign slogans? Now, however, it seems that conservatives are starting to tap into this attitude and take advantage of it (Make America Great
Again). We also see a slew of emotion-invoking moral terms that, without substantiation, are next to meaningless.
These are mere cheap tricks to bend the logic of people and propel them to zealous following of a candidate, rhetorical devices known to humankind as early as the Roman Republic. It was sad to watch my peers mindlessly supporting Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump while not knowing the consequences of their policies. They may sound great, but are they really? Such a skeptic attitude was rare to be seen among hyper-progressive college students.
A Prudent Voter Does Not Buy into Identity Politics
Identity politics have been in full swing. I was having a conversation with a guy about a person who is gay but oppose same-sex marriage. He said, "What? Even when he's gay?" I also had a conversation with a woman about conservative feminists who oppose abortion and contraceptives. The woman, after finding out that the majority of those feminists are women, said, "What? Even when they are women?" These two people presupposed that being for same-sex marriage is something every homosexual should support, and being pro-abortion something every woman should support. It seems nowadays that the only thing a politician has to do to spark a flame is to appeal to an identity. A prudent voter does not fall for such pandering.
"The System" Cannot Fix Everything
The current method of activists to bring about social change involve three elements: (1) promulgation of their doctrines, (2) injection of said doctrines in the academia, creating a doctrinal orthodoxy, and (3) integration of said doctrines into government policies. Activists most often protest in droves with young people under 25 in the front lines as a form of promulgation. The current generation then gets promoted to positions in academia, liberal arts in particular, with the favor of the past generation that holds similar doctrines (
political views are actually discriminated against... conservatism is the new heresy in liberal arts). With the help of these public intellectuals leaning heavily toward a particular side, they then push for integration of their doctrines into government policies. These methods are inadequate and, sadly, medieval.
No matter how good the policies are, no matter how good the law is, they are still liable to the misapplication by way of human flaws. Real change comes from shaping the character of the culture. Moral education through classics, enriching
the depressing lack of moral vocabulary of our generation. Absorbing the moral vocabulary into a style of life. Teaching the children without competent parents or role models of those morals through community service. These are the things that truly change the world
in the long run. The more moral the culture, the higher the likelihood of producing moral public servants. The more immoral or hedonistic the culture, the higher the likelihood of producing immoral, power-hungry public servants.
