Posted on 01/05/2004 4:30:20 PM PST by Federalist 78
My apologies to Shakespeare, but the phrasing so clearly expresses the dilemma that I have faced since the mid-sixties, when my friends and I discussed our objections to boys too young to vote on matters of war, being drafted and sent to Vietnam. By the time voting rights for 18 year olds had been passed, I was so disillusioned with the government that I, personally, took the stance of refusing to vote.
As a young child, living just twelve miles from where I currently reside, many of my earliest memories are of voting and party choices. A favorite family story told of how my great-grandfather and his brother, one a Democrat and one a Republican, would constantly argue about politics, then ride together to the polls. Their commitment to voting, even though they knew that one's vote would cancel that of the other, never wavered. If it was time to vote, one was honor bound to do it. In my home, the whole family rode to the township hall so that my parents could vote. I am often reminded of those excursions, for that township hall is where we have our family Christmas and special occasion parties. The same voting booths are there, varnished and gleaming.
For many, many years I did not vote; my decision stemming from my gut level distrust of the State. In silence I accepted the stern reprimands from my father, as he attempted to drive home the point that I had no right to criticize anything that the government did since I refused to make my preferences known by voting. Since the schools had only provided me with rewritten history, I lacked the facts and insights with which I might have defended my decision and myself. Still I refused to vote for Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum.
Recently, while reading Murray Rothbard's, The Case Against the Fed, I was reminded of my father's blind loyalty to his Party…
For the "Third Party System," which had existed in America from 1856 to 1896, was comprised of political parties, each of which was highly ideological and in intense conflict with the opposing party. While each political party, in this case the Democratic, the Republican and various minor parties, consisted of a coalition of interests and forces, each was dominated by a firm ideology to which it was strongly committed. As a result, citizens often felt lifelong party loyalties, were socialized into a party when growing up, were educated in party principles, and then rode herd on any party candidates who waffled or betrayed the cause. (Pg. 90–91)
Rothbard continues,
For various reasons, the Democratic and Republican parties after 1900…were largely non-ideological, differed very little from each other, and as a result commanded little party loyalty. In particular, the Democratic Party no longer existed, after the Bryan takeover of 1896, as a committed laissez-faire, hard-money party. From then on, both parties rapidly became Progressive and moderately statist." (Pg. 91)
Even had I been able to put evidence such as this before my father, it would not have modified his thinking. It is almost as if such individuals are caught in some kind of a time warp. They have been socialized to party loyalty without being taught the facts and the intellectual reasoning behind the original stances held prior to 1896. Any belief that they should hold a party to a 'firm ideology' has been bred out of them, or simply lost along the way.
I did, finally, become a voter, although never for my father's party. Still I never felt comfortable about voting, but neither did I feel comfortable about not voting. Possibly I dreaded old messages from childhood returning to haunt me. During the last election I did go to the polls, but I cast only one (1) vote – against a candidate I despised. I have continued to fret – to vote, or not to vote.
Recently I received a brochure from the "Sons Of Liberty" in Central Florida, entitled, VOTING STRATEGY – 2004 – WHEN "THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS" IS NO LONGER AN OPTION. The title caught my eye, and their rationale for voting makes a great deal of sense. They begin with this:
The most effective argument to convince patriotic Americans to support the Republican Party has been that "The Republicans will do less damage to the Constitution than the Democrats will – and besides, what other choice is there?" The conservative vote is taken for granted by the Republican leadership because they believe that we have nowhere else to turn; from a purely pragmatic short-range view, perhaps they are correct. The result has been a Republican Party that ignores conservative values because it has no incentive to do otherwise. The time has come to provide that incentive.
I had to agree with this summation, and I continued reading,
The Republican Party is the dominant party today because it has the conservative vote. Let's look at what Republicans have done with the power that conservatives entrusted to them.
President George W. Bush has presided over a dramatic increase in the size, cost, scope, and power of the federal government that would be the envy of even the most radical socialist. He has stated his support of the clearly- unconstitutional Clinton gun ban and has vowed to sign a replacement into law (the current law has a sunset provision that expires in 2004) should it reach his desk. His Attorney General has made it his personal crusade to get ever-greater power for the government to snoop into the private lives of citizens. Bush has used the military to invade a sovereign nation that had no realistic chance of threatening America, while at the same time encouraging a flood of illegal third-world immigrants across our borders. Yet many conservatives continue to support this administration. Why? Because they believe they have no other choice – the alternatives are even worse.
Please excuse me as I continue to quote from this pamphlet, for a summary would not do it justice:
Conservatives have fallen into the trap of only looking at the short range. It is probably (but no longer certainly) true that America would be better off with a Republican administration than with a Democratic administration – in any given year. However, that completely misses the point. The direction that the country is headed in must be looked at in terms of decades and generations – not as a four-year presidential term.
The Sons of Liberty list four options:
1) Continue to vote for the Republican Party candidates. Maybe we won't end up with a Democrat – or maybe we will. Either way, the Republican Party learns once again that they have the conservative vote no matter what they do.
2) Vote for the Democratic candidates. Some on the far edges of conservatism have suggested this as a way to hurry along what they see as the inevitable collapse of America, and see a rebuilding as freedom's opportunity.
3) Don't vote at all. This is a common strategy in other parts of the world. The objective is to demonstrate that the elections are not valid by boycotting the election. Another objective of this strategy is to voice dissatisfaction with all the candidates – effectively saying "None of the above."
4) Vote for a third-party candidate.
The pamphlet points out that Option 1 has already been discussed and points out that a vote for the Republicans will assure a drive off the same cliff, but at a speed within the posted limit. They believe that Option 2 should be dismissed as not lending itself to rational discussion. Regarding the last two options, they have this to say,
Option 3 is based on the assumption that anyone would notice that people were not voting. It is also based on the assumption that the parties would know why people were not voting. Not voting at all simply means that the political strategists ignore you. Being ignored is not our intent.
Option 4 is what we believe to be the best choice at this point. The objective is to show that there are votes available that the Republican Party will not get until they change their ways. The objective is not to find and support a third party candidate who can win an election. For the foreseeable future, that just is not going to happen. Instead, the objective is to demonstrate to the Republican Party that voters will leave the party if they are not represented by that party. The working assumption by the Republican Party has always been that conservatives have nowhere else to turn, and that they are pragmatic enough to not "waste their vote" by voting for a third party. Our objective is to show that assumption to be false.
Again, the point of this option is not to find a third party with any chance of winning, but that the voters "take a long range view and sacrifice in the short term if needed. We are working for future generations, not for ourselves."
The Sons of Liberty end with, "The only important point in making your decision is that your vote must be clearly seen as one that the Republicans should have gotten. Choose your party/candidate wisely." They list conservative political parties: Libertarian Party; Constitution Party; America First Party; and the Southern Party.
Hmmm…"your vote must be clearly seen as one that the Republicans should have gotten." Yes, I think that it is time that we, in the words of Murray Rothbard, "ride herd" on any candidate, and the party as a whole, for "waffling" and for betraying America. We voters have been taken for granted – for far too long. We have gone with our interests misrepresented or un-represented, since that long ago era when the various political parties "were dominated by a firm ideology to which it was strongly committed." When political parties again truly and honorably represent the real wishes of the people, then and only then, should we again loyally support one particular party.
So, I will vote in the next election, but the Republicans have definitely lost my support. I will go to the polls and cast my votes for candidates from one or more of the four conservative groups listed. I will be sure to inform every Republican fundraiser of my decision, asking that they convey my message accurately to their supervisors. Why, I will even send each Republican caller a copy of my Letter to Ken Mehlman, should they profess an interest. Yes, I am relieved to finally have a voting strategy!
Compare the goals of Free Republic to The Bush Record and then to anyone of these:
Will the conservative base continue to "lie back and enjoy it" or put Principle Before Party?
In 1990 Clayton Williams was the Republican candidate for governor in the state of Texas. He was locked in a tight race with Democrat Ann Richards but seemed to be gaining momentum in the final weeks of the campaign. Then it happened. The brash millionaire opened his mouth and inserted his foot up all the way up to his knee.
Hoping to curry favor with the press, Williams invited several reporters for some informal "off the record" time at his ranch. In casual conversation, the subject of the weather came up. Williams could not resist the temptation to play meteorologist and commented that bad weather is sort of like rape: "as long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it."
11 Republican Senators, 41 Republican House Members and One Republican President Signed BCRA-2002
McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n V. Amendment I (Speech and Press) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Virginia Declaration of Rights, sec. 12, 12 June 1776
12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotick governments.
Dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist:
"The court attempts to sidestep the unprecedented breadth of this regulation by stating that the `close relationship between federal officeholders and the national parties' makes all donations to the national parties `suspect.' But a close association with others, especially in the realm of political speech, is not a surrogate for corruption; it is one of our most treasured First Amendment rights. The court's willingness to impute corruption on the basis of a relationship greatly infringes associational rights and expands Congress' ability to regulate political speech..."
"No doubt Congress was convinced by the many abuses of the current system that something in this area must be done. Its response, however, was too blunt." Dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites):
"This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restriction upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming, would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government..."
"The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech. We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act I of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy." Dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas (news - web sites):
"The chilling endpoint of the Court's reasoning is not difficult to foresee: outright regulation of the press... Media corporations are influential. There is little doubt that the editorials and commentary they run can affect elections. Nor is there any doubt that media companies often wish to influence elections. One would think that the New York Times fervently hopes that its endorsement of presidential candidates will actually influence people. What is to stop a future Congress from determining that the press is `too influential,' and that the `appearance of corruption' is significant when the media organizations endorse candidates or run `slanted' or `biased' news stories in favor of candidates or parties?" Dissent by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy:
"The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people and Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it. The First Amendment commands that Congress `shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.' The command cannot be read to allow Congress to provide for the imprisonment of those who attempt to establish new political parties and alter the civic discourse. ... The Court, upholding multiple laws that suppress both spontaneous and concerted speech, leaves us less free than before. Today's decision breaks faith with our tradition of robust and unfettered debate."
New Conservative Magazine Declares Independence From GOP
Conservative Battleline Online To Speak For Limited Government Conservatives Against Big Government Right
Alexandria, VA - Donald Devine, a vice chairman of the American Conservative Union Foundation, announced the publication of a new online conservative journal of opinion to be called ConservativeBattleline, located at conservativebattleline.com.
Current features include: the Republican Party as the new welfare state party, the limits of the Bush plans for democracy in Iraq, the culture wars, the GOP sell out on Medicare and critiques of National Review, The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal, among others.
"The $7 trillion unfunded liability of the new Medicare prescription drug bill created by a Republican Congress and signed by President George Bush this week is the straw that breaks the camel's back, as it is the largest expansion of non-defense discretionary spending since the Great Society. We are forced to act," Devine explained. "I had written a memo to conservative leaders six months ago explaining the drift of the GOP and the need for an independent voice but hesitated to make the break. But we are forced to act or see limited government conservatism become irrelevant. So we are now going forward with the magazine."
"The vote on the massive drug entitlement had one beneficial effect. It helped us sort the sheep from the goats. While only nine Senators and 25 House member stood firm for principle, these few did make their stand and we owe them our support, especially in the face of the threats from Congressional leaders and the White House staff. But the fact that so few did muster the courage of their convictions makes a revitalization of limited government conservatism essential from our point of view. Forty-two conservative activist groups and virtually all think tanks also stood for principle on this terrible bill--and they also deserve a new voice not tied to the defeatist tone of so much of mainstream 'conservative' journalism. ConservativeBattleline will speak for them too.
"ConservativeBattleline recreates online the original publication of the American Conservative Union. It will be housed at the ACU Foundation but it will be an independent voice. ACUF and its board of directors will not be responsible for its content, which will be my responsibility alone, as editor of the new journal. David A. Keene will be publisher. Contributions will be solicited from the conservative community at large.
"Revitalizing limited government conservatism will be a long term undertaking but it might as well start now, right here in the first edition of ConservativeBattleline Online," Devine concluded.
| Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 53 | Alaska | 20.00 |
1 |
20.00 |
79 |
0.25 |
150.00 |
3 |
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
However, an even better solution in my opinion is proportional representation for the House of Representatives. I would leave the Senate winner take all.
I would even accept instant run-off plurality elections for the President/VP election.
Here is an article on proportional representation at the national level.
Have the "stand in line" sheeples forgotten they have the right to criticize our government. Have they truly refused to see that our elected officials from both parties are guiding America on a downhill slope.
I assume being afraid that one might lose a few 'friends' for speaking their mind is considered too great a risk for too many on this website. Do friends they'll probably never meet in person count for more than the grandkids future? Eunuch,coward and sissie come to mind too frequently when reading their "follow the crowd" posts.
As we race to the bottom, our rights and liberties are being swept off to the side. Our court justices are legislating new laws from the bench. Socialism and various social engineering processes are being supported by both parties.
Oh well, when the Stars and Stripes is replaced with a Big Blue one world UN flag the grandkids won't mind. They'll have been indoctrinated not to resist government changes long beforehand.
Have you noticed "President George W. Bush has presided over a dramatic increase in the size, cost, scope, and power of the federal government that would be the envy of even the most radical socialist. He has stated his support of the clearly- unconstitutional Clinton gun ban and has vowed to sign a replacement into law (the current law has a sunset provision that expires in 2004) should it reach his desk. His Attorney General has made it his personal crusade to get ever-greater power for the government to snoop into the private lives of citizens. Bush has used the military to invade a sovereign nation that had no realistic chance of threatening America, while at the same time encouraging a flood of illegal third-world immigrants across our borders. Yet many conservatives continue to support this administration. Why?"
Take them sunglasses off, there's a cliff up ahead!
How about Tancredo and Keyes for write ins?
It provides a mathematical basis for the common sense idea that voting for a third party candidate in a plurality vote system (like ours) is equivalent to voting for the front runner you like the least.
That's not even a question.
You either vote or lose your right to b!tch about the government.
You may cast your vote any way you want but to not vote at all is not an option, IMO.
EXACTLY! Third party is the way to vote *this election*.
And there are more good reasons to do it, which will become clearer as the election approaches.
Get us to the same loss of Liberty to which the Republicans will get us if we vote for them, again.
LEW ROCKWELL ALERT!!!
By all means ... vote for whoever you want. Vote for the Libertarian Party if you want wide-open borders and no restrictions on immigration. Vote for the Constitution Party or any of those other "garage-band" parties; since they've never had power, you are buying a pig-in-a-poke (round and round she goes, where she stops, nobody knows).
"Oh well, when the Stars and Stripes is replaced with a Big Blue one world UN flag the grandkids won't mind. They'll have been indoctrinated not to resist government changes long beforehand."
Take the children and yourself
and hide out in the cellar.
By now the fighting will be close at hand.
Don't believe the church and state
And everything they tell you;
Believe in me, I'm with the High Command.
Can you hear me,
can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running,
can you hear me calling you?
Can you hear me,
can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running,
can you hear me calling you?
There's a gun and ammunition
just inside the doorway;
Use it only in emergency.
Better you should pray to God,
The Father and the Spirit,
Will guide you and protect from up here.
Can you hear me,
can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running,
can you hear me calling you?
Can you hear me,
can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running,
can you hear me calling you?
Swear allegiance to the flag,
Whatever flag they offer;
Never hint at what you really feel.
Teach the children quietly,
For someday sons and daughters
Will rise up and fight while we stood still.
Can you hear me,
can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running,
can you hear me calling you?
Can you hear me,
can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running,
can you hear me calling you?
Silent Running
(Mike and the Mechanics)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.