|Frankly, I'm astonished. Quit worrying about which talking head will occupy 1600 Pennsylvania. You think switching (or not switching) politicians will enhance our freedom, enlarge our wallets, make our women and babies fat, and oh, by the way, slaughter terrorists wherever they may lurk? Politicians don't change things. Ideas do. Without a cultural shift in "our" favor--meaning in order for people to vote for a libertarian they must believe in libertarianism--voting is, as Joe Rowlands has said, not very important. It's your official and documented sanction of one candidate or another, but it's significance is tiny. |
And as Glenn has pointed out, one must realize the realities of our electoral system: more than a few Americans are needed to elect a candidate. Until more than 50 percent or so of the electorate decides to cast for a libertarian--the only type of candidate that could affect true and positive change in America--you are going to have one (mealy-mouthed Democrats) or the other (mealy-mouthed Republicans). And that type of turn-out for a libertarian candidate won't happen without "cultural shift". Stop putting the cart before the horse. The politicians will solve our problems? No, no. The right type of politician usually comes from, and gets elected by, the right type of culture, in "a democracy such as ours". Voting for one or the other, and thinking it will make a damn bit of difference if there hasn't been at least a modicum of cultural shift, is evasion. That's right. The big "E".
I won't vote. And I'll still bitch. Voting doesn't mean they won't turn their guns on you. It might mean they save you till last, but it doesn't spare you any horrors that a non-voter might experience. "Don't come crying to me when they drag you out of your home, dirty non-voter!" Pffft...you think the type of government that drags people out of their homes will bother to check voter registration records? I don't know what it is about Bush that inspires so many of us, but this whole "he can win the war on terrorism" argument is shaky at best. Should a candidate have only one admirable attribute to get himself elected? Every four years, should we have a referendum, decide what the Big Issue is, and elect the strongest candidate to deal with that Issue? Or will the ideals of the future ever outweigh the expediencies of the present? Hell, let's resurrect one of the many under-sized, well-spoken dictators from the depths of human history. Napolean would punch global terrorism's ticket much quicker than Bush, I assure you.
Like Joe said (for different reasons, I think) voting is not that important. Having organizations like SOLO, Reason magazine, and yes, TOC and ARI, is important. If Badnarik took office tomorrow, he'd either:
1) be forced to not to be libertarian at all, or
2) be impeached within the week,
America is not ready for, nor does it want, a libertarian. The Left doesn't want our free markets, and the Right doesn't want our "live and let live" ethos. And I don't mean politicians on the Left, or politicians on the Right. I mean plain old Americans; they don't want a libertarian. So come November 2nd, vote for who you like. I'll be drunk.
Edit: And, no, I don't consider the war against terrorists to be "an expediency". I consider using that issue alone to determine who is capable of heading-up our government, an expediency.
(Edited by Jeremy on 9/08, 6:30pm)