On The Popular Mandate For Totalitarianism
I’m going to catch a lot of flak for this entry, I have little doubt. If you are averse toward opinions that do not conform to that of the average television addict, I would suggest moving on. This one is going to hurt, especially if you live in Texas, ’cause you guys are nuts. Anyway, here goes.
I don’t vote.
I figure what the hell, today’s as good a day to talk about it as I’m gonna get.
Oy, should not have said that…
I have never voted in my life. I’ve never even registered. I have no party affiliation, no favorite candidate, no desire to participate in America’s faux-democratic system, and I never will, so long as I have a choice.
I will pause for a moment while I wait for the bright crimson in your face to subside. Also, please put that fountain pen down. You may remember that stabbing is illegal.
This is not a matter of apathy; I happen to have viciously strong political beliefs. Nor is it a matter of laziness; I expend more energy fending off the endless castigations spewing from the voting masses than I ever would if I just relented and stood in the booth to be counted.
My abstinence from the system is rooted in a simple logical conclusion that I reached as a teenager: Representative governance is inherently flawed such that it eventually and inevitably trends toward corruption and, consequently, oppression. Put more cursorily, a Republic is nothing more than a Dictatorship with the blessing of the people. Even shorter: A desire for power precludes the right to wield it.
That is what a Republic is principally based on, after all: People who desire the power step up and say that they want it, the people decide which ones to give it to, and that’s it. Someone is put in charge, gets to do whatever they want for four years, no accountability, no consequences.
What I wanna…
Have we already forgotten the promises made when the Democrats took over Congress in 2007? And what of the general discourse against the Republicans who held it before them and who still exercise their influence? Is the system really doing its job when it leads to the election of a President that most people did not vote for, and whom is now loathed by the majority of the population? How can we impeach a man for not wanting to admit that he cheated on his wife, and yet let a man who has brought about the deaths of thousands of foreign civilians go scot-free?
And worst of all, why has there never been a middle-class citizen in office? How have we descended into a system whereby only the wealthy have the means to seek power?
The bloggers are bright and alive today, beseeching their readers in the Super Tuesday states to go out and vote for their preferred candidate, often stressing that participation in the system is one’s civic duty, a blessing from our forefathers, a righteous privilege that must be exercised at the exclusion of all other obligations. After all, the country is a mess! We need to bring in new blood to get us out of it!
There are other options, though.
It’s systemic…
The solution to our problems is NOT to be found via the system. The system is the problem, and worse yet, it is also self-perpetuating. Vote for the people who preach change all you want; You have no assurance against the notion that they are only flourishing their sweet words to get your support. When they don’t come through on their promises, you’ll go back to the polls to vote for the next wealthy snake oil salesman, and the whole thing will repeat. Each vote that you cast guarantees that the system will survive.
The cycle needs to end. Already, the majority of those eligible to vote do not do so. One might conclude that this means that the government no longer represents the will of the people. This is completely true, and always has been. That is clearly not enough, however, as we can plainly see that the government still exists, corruption and all. Nevertheless, if the state of things can reach such a deep trough that 100% of Americans lose faith in the system and refuse to participate, instantly, the government will be invalidated, the offices of those with power will become void, and the entire machine will fall apart to at last be replaced.
Of course, we all know what will take its place. We’ll draft a new so-called Democracy, with new ideas designed to minimize government, assure accountability, and promote the will of the people. If that sounds familiar, you are reminded of the Americans of the late 18th century who already tried that. Look at where we are now and tell me if they were really so visionary.
Here is my plea to you: Do not vote today, and do not vote in November, or ever again for that matter. The promises of change are mere words, spoken by individuals who would say anything to taste the sweet nectar of power. Want to really make a difference? Help the old lady next door take out her garbage. Adopt an abused child. Give money to cancer research. Recycle. But don’t try to effect change by voting for the people who say they’ll do all of those things and then some. They won’t. They don’t have to. They’re in charge.
Hi Ray,
Just a few quiet thoughts in response to your post.
I’m as unsatisfied with our current system as the next guy, so I easily am attracted to terms like “change” and “progressive.” I’m happy you’re sharing your opinions about the situation because nothing will change if we’re all quiet about it. I also know that the candidates most likely to actually effect some change and upset the status quo are being systematically ignored and shoved aside by private corporations and the media in favor of candidates who will keep things chugging along with as few ripples in the pond as possible. There are a few people I believe would actually help the situation if not fix it but have 0 chance of getting elected or have already dropped out. So what who I left with?
The problem with a reboot of the way things work is everything will change. You might say, isn’t that what I want? Nothing works! So why not change it? It’s the transition that is the problem. Everything will have to stop and be replaced by another process. Your paychecks, your 401K, your health insurance… all would have their funding cut off and then resumed some how. The problem is the country as a whole doesn’t have an “emergency savings account” to cushion any drastic changes in it’s infrastructure. Actual reform may be possible if issues like these are addressed by future leaders. The best I can hope for is either another revolution (because it took a revolution the first time)or a series of leaders who don’t mind shaking things up by gradually phasing out faulty policies for better ones. I’m not about to pick up a musket and march down to the capital (I’m not suicidal) so I’m going to support what little good there is left in the system, it’s not all bad.
I’m at home with radical thinking, I hold some beliefs myself that might get me punched but abstaining from voting isn’t going to help me in the short run. Realistically how long is it going to take from everyone to stop voting? I probably won’t be around for it, but there are people out there not driven by special interests or lobbyists that are genuinely contributing to the public dialog about viable alternatives to the current mess. As soon as I’m done reading their books I’ll definitely recommend which ones were worth my time.
Personally I’d love to see a three or even four party system and some real oversight. Not to mention a public that cares about the people controlling them. The majority of Americans aren’t not voting because they don’t like the system, they’re not voting because they don’t know how messed up things are and how much better they could be. Instead of urging people not to vote, you’d accomplish more by urging people to learn about the current system and pay attention to current events and politics. An alarming majority of citizens avoid the news and exist in a self imposed bubble so they “don’t have to think about it.” Sounds like some of the blame you place on the current system should be shared with the people who are ignorant of their situation and do nothing about it. That’s not you and me, it’s all the eligible to vote Americans who aren’t voting because they don’t know any better.
Goddamn, nicely said. :)
I completely agree with you that a lot of people don’t vote because of ignorance. I abstain because I know how bad things are. I wonder how many more people would follow my charge if they knew it as well.
I think my abstinence is more of a statement these days than a road to change. The system as it stands isn’t going anywhere. I accept that, and to be perfectly honest, I sometimes prefer it. You’re right, a breakdown would be a mess. But then, isn’t it worth it to suffer a moment of agony to stave off a lifetime of ache?
My goal in refusing to vote is more to raise awareness. Every time someone sets me off on my anti-voting rant at work, I contribute to that aim of awareness. Americans are notoriously change-averse, though, and I think I see a hint of that fear (not really “fear,” but I couldn’t think of a better word) in what you’ve said as far as what a breakdown of the system would cost us.
Also worth noting, if anyone has a shot at effecting change, it’s Obama or Paul, probably most likely Obama, since people actually listen to him. The country is in rare form right now, favoring change for the sake of change. Goes to show you just how tired people are of the current administration.
i can respect your decision not to vote. i myself voted in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections because i had an opinion and i wanted to cast my ballot. my choice.
however, i remember in november 2006, when it was local election time, i did not vote. i had no clue who the candidates were, what they stood for, or any of it. so i did not vote. and when my coworkers found out, i got all sorts of flack for it. i simply said, “so you’re telling me you want me to just vote arbitrarily? just pick a name and go with it?” the only response i got was that voting was “my civic responsibility” and that i should have educated myself. i still disagree.
so here, after 2 paragraphs, is my 4 cents: if you feel you have a strong opinion, and you want to cast your ballot for someone, then do it. if you don’t have an opinion, or don’t want to share it, or don’t have an option to share it (we can’t always vote for ‘none of the above’) then don’t vote. it’s a choice.
You’ve hit it on the nose, SB. Democracy (even the kind that we have in the US that isn’t actually democracy) is about choice. I exercise my choice by boycotting the system wholesale. Those who would force you to cast a ballot essentially want to take away your freedom to choose.
I ask this out of curiosity based in my life as a government employee.
If you don’t want a representative government, then how do you propose to organize? How many people do you think can work together at once? Would “power” be assigned by turns? (You go run the sewer plant now, and I’ll go teach the 4th graders.) What would an economy look like?
Oddly, I’m reminded of a line from the Elton John version of Aida: There are no shackles on you. If you don’t like your destiny, CHANGE IT.
You don’t like a representative democracy? What do you like?
(BTW, that was not intended as some Obama plug. I think his slogan is mostly hollow. I have the same questions for him. Change is all well and good, but what is he going to _do_?)
Hello, fellow government employee! I sympathize!
Ideally, I would see one of two forms of governance:
1) Perfect, honor bound communism. Everyone contributes, everyone shares. Unfortunately, no human could ever accept such a system. Humans are lazy and don’t share! And who can blame them? A doctor makes a better contribution to society than a bum. Why should they be treated as equals?
2) Perfectly benevolent dictatorship. This would involve setting up one person who has absolute authority over everything, which is fine so long as that person truly acts with the best interests of all citizens in mind. Again, no human today would accept this. By nature, we despise those with dominion over us, even if they’re doing a better job than God (disclaimer: I’m an Atheist).
In either case, the big flaw is humans. They’re just not mature enough to handle such things.
Here’s the thing: I do believe representative governance can work, but there needs to be accountability and consequences. I actually have an idea for a system that would have those qualities. I’ll be writing about it sometime soon. :)
As for Obama, his ideas for change center mostly around libertarian ideals, few of which are embodied in America at the moment. This Wikipedia article collects it together pretty well.
I think the reason people accuse Obama of not really saying what he wants to change is because he says he wants to change stuff more loudly than he explains what changes he’ll make. It’s mostly a PR move, really. Voters attention spans are too short to last longer than the first phoneme in “Change.” They get as far as “Cha” and zone out. There’s not much point in going into any more detail. Law of diminishing returns and all of that.
I agree with your thesis that the system itself, but I must disagree strongly with your conclusion that therefore there is no point in participating. Even if all the candidates running are to some degree “evil” (in the sense that a desire to wield power corrupts), you don’t seem to notice that there is usually at least a lesser of two (or more) evils.
For example, I think many people would agree that America would have been better off should Al Gore have gained the presidency in 2000 instead of George W. Bush - even if both are part of the “establishment”, there is still a dramatic difference between the two in terms of intelligence, leadership, and judgment.
Likewise, I support Obama in 2008 not because I honestly think he is going to charge into Washington on a white horse and enact Change, but because out of all the candidates I simply find his judgment, leadership, and character to be the best.
Something else important that I didn’t see you address in your post (I apologize if you’ve talked about it before) is the outdated Electoral College system, which needs to be eliminated for elections to truly represent the will of the people. As it stands, a Democrat in Texas or a Republican in California is essentially disenfranchised.
2004 was a very strong year for the “lesser of two evils” debate. The fact that voters resign themselves to such a state shows just how bad our democratic situation has become. The point of voting is to decide whom you think is the best candidate, not whom you think is the least bad! If no one is qualified for an office, then why give it to someone who is unqualified?
You always have a choice to simply not endorse anyone. It may only count as a matter of principle, and it might not bring about reform, but I think it at least makes a poignant statement.
Regarding the Electoral College, I’m confident that it won’t last much longer. I think we’ll see it dissolved in our lifetime, so I don’t bother worrying about it. It’s definitely a problem, but it’s not the worst of our worries.
“If no one is qualified for an office, then why give it to someone who is unqualified?”
Well, because we have to get some work done around here. I have to live each day between now and utopia (or heaven). Which means that I need a police chief, and a mayor and a governor… or some other variety of positions fulfilling the same functions.
In the work I do, I see the minutes of many of the town councils and county commissions in my state. Sure, some of it isn’t “necessary” (resolutions in honor of a 100th birthday). But these are the folks who keep the water flowing and the lights on and the poor cared for and the students taught and the storm victims rescued and the roads in (semi-)decent repair and and and and and….
So not voting is not one of the options I see as reasonable. If I am going to live in this society, and derive benefits from it, I do see it as my obligation to become informed and to cast my vote for someone who is willing to do the work which is mostly thankless. Sure, they get “power,” (and some more than others) but honestly, most of the work is just that - work.
Believe it or not, I can respect your right not to vote. This isn’t Australia, after all.
When you lay out a plan for getting the work done under a different system, then maybe I’ll be convinced.
Until then, I’ll keep voting.
You make a very good point with regards to local affairs, and I’ll admit that this is the first time that I’ve taken local elections into account, so, thank you for bringing it up. I tend to look at the issue from a high (read: national) level. At the community level, though, there is probably a much better concentration of people who genuinely want to do good work. In a case such as that, I can completely agree with the idea of indicating support for these individuals on your ballot, though I’m skeptical that they are in the majority.
My big issue is with presidents, senators, representatives, high-ranking appointed officials, governors, mayors of large cities, etc. Certainly, there are some who are in it to make a positive difference, but for every Ron Paul you’ve got ten Giulianis. The odds of people succumbing to power hunger at these echelons is a great deal higher.
I’ll concede that my argument against voting applies more to the higher levels of government than local elections. There’s probably a strong root in my quasi-Buddhist live-and-let-live philosophies. I generally don’t feel like we need high-level government. We could dissolve the US entirely and leave the individual states to deal with things their own ways, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see an improvement overall in the quality of governance in North America. Right now, we’ve got too many invisible hands in our business.
Ok, I’m not a trained historian, so I may be drawing an in appropriate conclusion. But maybe not, so here goes.
There are historical reasons why we have a large-scale national government. The phrase “provide for the common defense” comes to mind.
Picture it this way. If we just lop off every federal employee or elected official, then what’s to keep Kansas from saying “no one from Iowa allowed”? Or how difficult would it be to coordinate firefighting teams when three states are battling one wildfire out west? Or a person from one place kills someone from a second, or third?
Let’s think about why Lincoln and so many others fought so hard to preserve the Union.
I guess I’m too fond of the fact that I’ve lived in 5 different states, and traveled in many of the others, without anyone’s permission. That I’ve had the same rights (and responsibilities) in each of them. That I can still move freely among them.*
On a seemingly silly, but still practical level, what would you do with all the federal-level things? I mean the federal courthouse in your county. I mean the IRS, FBI, ICE, FEMA employees. I mean the Statue of Liberty. I mean Mt. Rushmore. I mean Washington DC. Would you just lock the buildings up? Tear them down? Turn some of them into museums? (Not unprecedented. The Maginot Line in France was staffed almost exclusively in the 1980s by veterans who had served there in WWII. Wonder what it is like now…)
Oh, well. I don’t think I have the “gift to all inspire,” and probably won’t suddenly convince you to vote in November. But hopefully, if you continue to refuse to vote, you’ll find a way to spread your idea of a Better Way (TM). If you aren’t familiar with the Parable of the Sower, you could always check out the Octavia Butler book by that name (which refers to the Christian story).
[rereading your last comment again]
As for the invisible hands, I think there are actually two kinds. One is invisible simply because it’s busy behind the scenes - similar to stage hands. Your social workers, public works employees, etc. The scary ones are the Halliburton types. There, I’ll give you all the points about “this shouldn’t work this way.”
*Yes, I know all about having a government ID on planes and to drive. But far as I know, you can still go all Jack Kerouac and walk.
The deunionized states could handle coordination like you mentioned just fine on their own. The Allies of WWII communicated pretty danged well by 40’s standards. “Hey, we’re on fire.” “Eep, that’s bad. Yeah, we’ll come out and give you a hand.” That’s really all anyone would need to do. It might not always work out so well, but, much as I hate to admit it, I like to think humans are, overall, decent enough to take care of each other.
I don’t believe in forcing people to be nice if they don’t want to, though. For better or worse, I think people should be free to behave as they choose so long as it doesn’t impugn on other people’s rights to do the same.
The countries in Europe do an okay job of letting people travel to and fro. It’s not perfect, no country is going to be as open or closed as the next, but it’s a start. Deunionized American states should be able to at least do as well as Europe (although I have to wonder if the general naivety in the US compared to Europe would hamper that).
What to do with the fed-level buildings: That’s a really good question. I’ll have to think about that.
Federal courthouses can be repurposed easily enough. Federal services can be recreated if individual states trust each other enough to enter into an agreement to maintain them, but states should be free to opt out. Social workers, public works employees and the like can operate at the state level. Monuments can stay where they are, and states can contribute to their maintenance if they so desire. No one should be forced, though, and I imagine most states would help out, if only because their respective politicians want to look good. Can you tell I’m big on State Rights?
Better Way. I like it. :) Ray’s Better Way would also be a good name for a band.
In truth, my idea for an accountable governance is pretty radical, and borderline ridiculous/satirical, but I always have fun telling people about it. I’ll try to blog it in the next few weeks.
I think I read the Parable of the Sower in Sunday school as a kid. I’m not really into that stuff anymore, though.
The Halliburton stuff, that’s just a symptom of the general lack of accountability in the government. Accountability is key. No one that you vote for this week or in November is obligated to do anything that you want them to do.
The President managed to get himself the power to declare martial law last year. He probably won’t; poor judgment or not, the guy is smart, and a damn good politician if nothing else. He knows he’d be crossing the line if he went for military rule. Still, he can if he wants to, and there’s nothing you can do to stop him. That’s just scary. High rollers like him need to start answering to the people.
I’m still not convinced that the system works well enough for me to endorse it, but if it’s any consolation, Laura, you’ve given me a lot of food for thought. I’ve pondered this issue more in the last couple days than I have in many months thanks to your challenges. It’s genuinely appreciated.
OK Ray, I think I am going to have to attack you a bit on the National Defense issue here.
What you are suggesting is to have a local government rather than Federal government. You say all the local governments would help defend each other if the other was threatened. History tells us that this is not the case. What you are suggesting is similar to the systems that existed in Europe for a few hundred years.
It’s called the Feudal system. There are two types. The one that existed in France, and the one that existed in Germany. I won’t write a history lesson, so as you would say, look it up. Germany operated much like your local form of government. There actually wasn’t even a “Federal” German government, but rather 100 of local Lords who commanded their local Knights and attempted to gain more power by attacking one another.
There is a reason France, Spain and England became the Super Powers of the day and Germany did not. It is called working together. Multiple Factions do not facilitate strength. This is why the Roman empire was able to destroy all opponents so well, factions and individuality do not constitute a good defense. If you look at Greek history, it was only when the city-states banded together could they repel a foe as large and organized as the Persian. The rest of the time they fought each other. Strength in Numbers.
If you want to call out WW2, do you think the Germans would have gotten as far as France had their neighbors not helped when Austria and Poland plead for help. You can even look to our modern military for examples. When the Navy and Army compete we loose men and we loose battles. Is isn’t until the last 10 years that the branches of the military actually started to communicate with each other that we have such little losses on the ground.
Finally having a federal Government allows us to pool money for defence. You think New Jersey could afford an aircraft Carrier, or even a few F-18s? The basic definition of a government is, and organization where by the people release individual power in order to have another provide them protection. If you think local power will work to protect you go over to Africa with your AK and join a clan. I don’t mind you claiming that the government sucks, but don’t think that individual state will work together to protect you. That is wrong on a historical level.
I had a little trouble reading your comment, so I edited it into paragraphs. Hope you don’t mind. I didn’t change any wording.
There’s no harm in states banding together to build a common defense. It would behoove them to do so, really. My issue with the Federal government is the fact that it governs. Defense is one thing. It’s not at all difficult to argue that we need a unified military (although we certainly don’t need one of the scale that we have today). What we do not need is the stifling oversight that the Federal government imposes on us.
The historical precedents that you cite are by all means apt, but they are historical. Past trends are not necessarily an indicator for future performance. While I have little doubt that states would quarrel like children to an extent, I do believe that, over the long term, people will be willing to put aside their differences for the common good. It’s how the Union was founded, after all. The problem is that, over the centuries, the foundation of providing for the common defense has given way to the greed of the politicians in the highest echelons of government.
Also worth noting, if there were no Federal government, there would also be no Federal Income Tax, which would allow states to raise their income taxes to the level where they could conceivably maintain a few planes and warships. Perhaps not of the scale that we see today, but we wouldn’t even need such a force if we broke our global intervention habit. We really ought to be putting that money towards social services (preferably at the state level).
It is certainly correct to state that government is something in the nature of a mass hallucination — if the mass ceases to believe in it, even for a moment, it loses its hold, & even if its forms & rituals remain, its practical influence on events is ended.
On the other hand, it is possible to identify certain problems with your approach. Firstly, human nature being what it is, disillusionment on such a grand scale is often a companion of despair, & followed by riots, suicides, turmoil & unrest, & all kinds of evils. Hence we may ask if such an outcome is so terribly desirable.
Second, it is questionable whether abstinence from voting on the part of an individual is enough to provoke the disillusionment even if it is found desirable. In other words, is not the principal sign of the mob’s acceptance their clinging to the Government and its measures, rather than their appearance at the polling-place? They take their Social Security cheques, they fill out their Income Tax forms, they take off their shoes in the airport, & every time something happens they say “there ought to be a law”.
If they would forbear to do these things, if they would simply withold their cooperation & refuse to acquiesce, the power of the State would vanish in a moment. I truly believe that the ballot is no longer the method by which power is legitimated in our society, & if the popular vote were eliminated today in favour of an explicit oligarchy, very little notice would be taken of it. Until we build for ourselves new forms of social organization, we will never be free of the apparatus of institutional violence, & when we have built them we will find that the State is simply irrelevant. If I may refer to (of all people) Karl Marx for a moment, it will “melt away” without popular convulsions. Revolution, after all (as Shaw says), has never lightened the burden of tyranny, only shifted it to another shoulder.
Vote or do not vote, in other words, and if you do vote, vote to ameliorate conditions or to exacerbate them as you see fit, but the change you seek will not be found in that direction.