Thursday, March 23, 2006

Litmus test for Delegates: Caught in the Middle

A similar situation to the caucuses written about in this Salt Lake Tribune article happened at my caucus on Tuesday night. I was the only nominee, that would vote for a Candidate that would support Tuition Vouchers.

It's not fun to be a dissenting voice. I was not selected as a State Delegate.

It's hard to be alone in an opinion when conspiracy theories abound. The group is wondering, 'Why is he so disagreeable?' 'Who is putting him up to this?' 'Who is funding his Candidates Campaign?'

I'm turning red from all the attention and asking myself, What is their angle? What are they worried about? They won't take my word for it that my Candidate is running on whole list of issues, and that Tuition vouchers have not come up.

They want someone without an agenda, but they have an agenda. Are the cacophony of voices just one voice-echoing, or many?

What could I have lost, if anything, in refusing to elect a candidate that didn't pass their test? Why did I stand my ground on something that is so small an issue? I suspect that something else was at stake besides school funds. Something of greater importance pressed me to resist. There is a fundamental problem in proposing a litmus test when the decision revolves around a persons character. Character is indefinable, but a litmus test demands definition. We are not all clones of one another. Something, deep within us, rebels when pressed to bend to anothers will. This is not humanities weakness, but it's greatest strength! That is not to say that mankind cannot compromise--We can leave good things behind to pursue greater things. But, our life-choices are not all-or-nothing propositions. We should not expect others to think as we do. When all voices have been heard, and reasons given, we may be left alone for a technicality.