“Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”

Alexis de Tocqueville

A moral imperative is something you hear little of in this age of relativism and a culture that elevates narcissism to leadership positions. At the other end of the imperative moral paradigm is relativism. Relativism may be of more significant threat to democracy than the proclaimed governmental enemies of liberty.

The relativist believes they are superior liberated beings. The relativist says since there are no absolutes, then I am free to do as I wish. The consequence of my action is not society’s concern. They simply need to accept that there can be no “right truth” or moral guide from which humanity may judge my actions. Therefore, I will not be held responsible for the negative consequences of my actions, even those detrimental to the community, society, and neighbor, as a moral imperative are constructs that don’t exist. 

The relativist preaches tolerance for everyone except those who might disagree with having no guardrails, no boundaries – unfettered access to any and all things abhorrent to mainstream society. The relativist is the modern version of an anarchist. Like the anarchists, the moral failure of relativism is on display in full public view.

The modern anarchist – relativists – want us to believe the chaos in the streets is rooted in intolerance, bigotry, hate, and retribution for past failures. Somehow violent expressions of discontent should be expected and tolerated as normal. Normalizing violence is counterintuitive to the legitimate and open protests that are uniquely part of a democratic society. We see legitimate peaceful protest ending in rioting, looting, and destruction of innocent property. The relativist hides behind the idea we are the oppressor, I am the victim. It is my right to take from you what I have not earned as reparations for historical wrongs perpetrated by generations of unenlightened moralists. Your gain is to my detriment, and therefore, I am entitled to do as I please without consequence to settle the score. So, what does this have to do with voting?

I contend voting is a moral act, a solemn obligation, and an imperative in a democratic society. In simple language, voters care. Voters are not relativists. They comprehend there are consequences to every action. Voting is the supreme rejection of relativists who care only for themselves. Voting is the acknowledgment that people can change. Society is tolerant. Past mistakes can be reconciled by present and future actions. Democracy is not contingent on just the actions of one, but on the actions of the whole community through the ballot box. A vote is the most aspirational of activities a citizen in a democracy can perform.

Voting is a moral act because it not only requires a conscious effort and thoughtfulness but an inordinate amount of faith. Faith that what you do by voting in some small measure perpetuates freedom and liberty. Faith that outcomes are fairly adjudicated at the ballot box. Faith that the things you care about – community, neighbors, equality – are underpinned by voting. Faith that democracy is a moral imperative because the act of voting compels you to do more. The very definition of a moral imperative is a strongly-felt principle that compels a person to action. 

Not the action of the relativist, the modern version of the anarchist. Nor the action of the narcissist, what seems to substitute for authentic leadership in our times today. Instead, voting is the one action in those with the least, and those with the most are entirely planted on equal footing. The ballot box doesn’t ask your net worth. It’s not interested in your race, ethnicity, or gender. It has no interest in your political leanings or your educational background or occupation. Instead, the ballot box is the affirmation of your belief that democracy works!

The ballot box is the one place that truth always prevails. The relativist may argue there is no truth, no moral principles or guardrails. The act of voting proves otherwise! Democracy is the guardrail. Voting is the principled moral imperative.

No doubt, recent crises have fundamentally changed how the candidates, electorate, and elections officials view voting. Nevertheless, skepticism should never be considered as outright rejection. The relativist wants you to believe we live under a failed system. One that is too burdened with historical wrongs to be redeemed.

The relativist can’t possibly make that judgment without condemning their own historical aversion to democratic practice. If one exists, the most principled anarchist rejects all forms of authority but still concedes that some code must be adhered to, or we plunge into absolute chaos.  Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” The surest path to destruction is to abandon voting and lose faith in the democratic system.

We can have a serious debate about the mechanics of voting. Drive-by curbside voting, electronic voting, lengthening the number of days a person can vote from one to three days, and expanding the early voting period are all ideas that are open to public scrutiny and comment. However, debating the mechanics should never elevate the relativist’s position voting is a meaningless act. Nor should the argument devolve into sound bite after sound bite of hyperbolic accusations. Mechanics are amoral tools. Voting is the moral expression of the voter. They are as different as the hammer is from the architect’s vision drawn on a set of plans.

Do not accept the relativists who hold no absolute truth, right or wrong, or principle to guide society. Likewise, do not believe those who try to dissuade you from exercising a moral imperative, voting.  “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith (de Tocqueville).” Voting is the expression of both!