As election day approaches, I’ve found myself increasingly alarmed by the number of individuals who have expressed their plans to abstain from voting in November out of disdain for the two major party candidates. Admittedly, this disdain is not without warrant. The critics (who curiously appear to outnumber the proponents on both sides of the aisle in this election cycle) paint Trump as fear-mongering demagogue.  Meanwhile, Clinton has garnered a reputation as a reckless opportunist. Democrats cry “bigot!”; Republicans, “crook!”  

In light of the unremitting torrent of inflammatory remarks and scandalous newsbreaks, many seem to have left the political circus altogether, its once-entertaining or enticing spectacles having finally lost their allure.

Yet for those who abstain from voting out of a simple lack of interest in either candidate, such abstinence ultimately results in the perpetuation of democratic pessimism — a disposition that poses one of the greatest threats to the flourishing and proper function of the almost sacred (at least in the eyes of the West) democratic systems that much of the world is purportedly founded upon.

For those staying home November 8 due to a distinct antipathy toward both major party candidates, a refresher on the difference between idealism vs. realism may be in order to show them the error in their thinking. Not surprisingly for Americans, a lack of supply for our distinct political demand is a rather unsettling reality. We who have been situated within a market economy that panders to consumers with an almost endless array of commodities to satisfy the most obscure of desires now seem to have similar expectations when it comes to the political appetite as well. We all have our own profile of political values, axioms, principles, etc. as meticulously tailored to convey our political selfhood as the clothes, persons, places, etc. seen on our Instagram feeds. Yet when presented with a dearth of candidates to embody these values, we retreat into a self-exilic idealism. When left in want of a candidate in whom we can invest our political hopes and desires, we distance ourselves from the election altogether. As Bernie faded from public view, those of us on the left lost heart in an election that had once promised revolution. When Kasich finally pulled out, our peers tending to the right witnessed the exit of the only reasonable GOP candidates with truly conservative values. Now, left disenchanted with candidates who supposedly embody the values of Wall Street and uneducated white males, we’ve begun to leave the table as the voices that spoke for us have become increasingly silenced.

But by abstaining from voting for a perceived disparity between one’s own values and the values of Trump and Clinton, one cannot make a claim to moral superiority or some idealist principle of noncompliance. Rather, such inaction could be more aptly labeled as a pessimism resulting in political passivity. Not only does it completely disregard third party candidates, it also evinces a mind unwilling or incapable of exercising the critical thinking involved in analyzing the competing policies and proposals necessary to make the difficult decision between which to endorse. It reflects a person unwilling or simply uninterested in attempting to make something of the available campaign platforms. What I’m trying to stress here is that it’s in climates like the one in which we’ve found ourselves (and in most, I reckon) that we have to attempt to wrangle the givenness of things. Need I even mention the lesson of history that teaches us that passive bystanders — not only active proponents — can be held responsible for the emergence of injustice in the world? Indeed, during this current election cycle, we must put our polished ideals aside and get our hands dirty sorting out the political mess our country has handed us. Unless you come out of this process of critical engagement believing that the two candidates are equally bad or equally good (which is a preposterous conclusion borne of a pseudo-calculus), refraining from voting for the aforementioned reason amounts to an act of negligence towards the decision of choosing the best possible option. Such refraining does not keep us true to our lofty ideals, but rather allows the candidate that you or I think least fit a better shot at the White House. You can stay home in November and harken back to the Golden Age of Athens all you want. Meanwhile, the more politically responsible citizens with their heads below the clouds will be in the booths attempting to bring about what they see as best possible outcome with the political situation they’ve been dealt.