Conscientious Objectors  by Tom Reynolds

President Ronald Reagan once cautioned against "the temptation of blithely declaring yourself above it all and label both houses equally at fault...and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil."

Many Americans share a frustration with politics. They see shortcomings in both major parties and conclude that neither deserves their vote. As a friend of mine likes to say, "The lesser of two evils is still evil."

It is an understandable sentiment. No candidate is perfect, and few—if any—will represent all of our values and priorities. Some voters focus primarily on personality, while others focus on issues. Most of us fall somewhere in between. Ultimately, every election comes down to choosing which candidate is most likely to move public policy in the direction we believe is best for our families, communities, and state.

How do we make that decision? We examine each candidate's record, stated positions, and actions.  As investment brokers disclaim in their ads, “Past performance does not guarantee future returns.”   However, it is often the best information available. Evaluating a candidate's history and credibility is an essential part of being an informed voter.

Whether your priorities involve public safety, taxes, affordability, constitutional rights, or the future direction of New York, the question is not whether a candidate is flawless. The question is which candidate is more likely to move the state in the direction you believe is right.

For those who place a high priority on protecting the Second Amendment, each candidate's record on firearm rights deserves careful consideration. Governor Kathy Hochul has spent the past several years signing and advocating for laws that have made New York's firearm regulations among the most restrictive in the nation. Several of those restrictions have faced successful constitutional challenges following the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Bruen decision, while other provisions remain under review. Voters now have an established record by which to evaluate her administration and in her case “Past performance does guarantee future actions.”  Compare it with the positions and priorities of her opponent, Bruce Blakeman.

Some believe staying home is a way to express dissatisfaction with the choices on the ballot.  But one thing is certain: choosing not to vote does not remove us from the outcome; it simply means others will make the decision for us.  Elections produce laws, policies, and decisions that affect all of us, including those who did not participate.

In the war to save the 2nd Amendment, the non-voter is a conscientious objector.

The future of New York will be decided this November—not only by the candidates on the ballot, but by the citizens who take the time to participate.

The future is decided by those who show up.  Your vote matters!