Before You Vote, Remember the Campsite

THE FXBG ADVANCE WEDNESDAY 10/28/26 AFTERNOON READ

By Phil Huber, ADVANCE COLUMNIST

As a Boy Scout, I learned to leave a campsite better than I found it. I have tried to practice that lesson ever since. Scouting still teaches campers to walk around before leaving and make sure the site is better than they found it.

It is a simple idea: Take responsibility for the place you have used. Remember that others will follow you.

I did not always bring the same care to voting. For years, I was a regular voter without doing enough work to know the candidates. Too often, I settled for asking which one was the lesser evil. I performed the routine without fully accepting my civic responsibility.

If you have not voted yet, I am not asking you to endure another commercial or another shouting match. Find a quiet place. Set aside the campaign noise, not the facts, and ask yourself three questions.

First: Am I better off, and what have these candidates actually done to help or hurt?

Start with your own life. Are your household expenses manageable? Do you feel secure about your job, retirement, health care and family’s future? What has improved? What has become harder?

Then look beyond yourself. How are your neighbors doing? What about young people trying to establish households, families caring for aging parents, or people whose circumstances differ from yours?

Your answers may be mixed. That is not a failure of the exercise. It is a reason to think carefully.

But do not automatically give a politician credit for everything good or blame for everything bad. Ask what the office controls, what the candidate actually did, and whether the promised solution is credible. A campaign slogan is not an explanation of cause and effect.

Second: Can I trust this candidate with the responsibility I am handing over?

Agreement is not enough. Someone can share your position on an issue and still lack the honesty, judgment or restraint needed to serve you well.

Does the candidate answer difficult questions? Admit mistakes? Explain a change of position? Distinguish an inconvenient fact from an enemy attack?

Would this person respect legal limits when those limits obstruct a cherished goal? Would this person challenge wrongdoing by an ally, or excuse it because the other party is supposedly worse?

Apply the same test to yourself. If the opposing party’s candidate behaved this way, would you accept it? If not, why are you accepting it from your own?

You need not agree with every criticism. But loyalty should not require you to abandon the standards you expect others to meet.

Third: Is this candidate likely to leave our community and country better than they found them?

Here is where the campsite lesson becomes a public responsibility.

Ask what will remain after the speeches end. Better opportunities, or promises without a workable plan? Problems addressed, or bills and burdens passed on to someone else? Institutions strengthened, or weakened whenever they become inconvenient?

Consider not just what a candidate wants to accomplish, but how. A worthwhile goal does not excuse dishonest methods or unlimited power. Nor does winning an election relieve anyone of responsibility to people who voted differently.

We are choosing people to exercise authority over a place we share. They should understand that their time in office is temporary, while the consequences of their decisions may outlast them.

If you cannot answer these questions, spend some time finding out. Read the candidates’ positions. Compare their records and explanations. For Virginia voters, Cardinal News’ Virginia Voter Guide provides candidate questionnaire responses, while identifying candidates who have not answered. Use those responses as a starting point, not a substitute for checking their records. Treat campaign claims as claims to examine, not conclusions to repeat.

That does not require becoming an expert on every policy. It requires enough attention to distinguish a serious answer from an applause line, and evidence from reassurance.

My answers may not be yours. We can weigh legitimate priorities differently and reach different decisions. The purpose is not to make every voter agree. It is to make our choices more deliberate.

Sometimes neither candidate earns our enthusiasm. After examining both, we may still conclude that one is the lesser evil. That can be an honest judgment.

But let it be the conclusion of your homework, not an excuse for skipping it. Ask which choice presents less risk, offers more opportunities and leaves a better chance to repair what is wrong.

You do not owe a candidate affection. You do not owe a party automatic loyalty. You owe your decision some honest thought.

As a Scout, I learned to consider the people who would arrive after I left. As a voter, I should do no less.

We share this country with our neighbors and will pass it to those who follow us. Before marking a ballot, ask who is most likely to leave it better—and whether you have done your part.

***

Phil Huber is a retired Army Reserve colonel, federal civil servant and consultant who writes on civic education. He lives in Fredericksburg.