did not vote for either major party candidate in the last presidential
election, and after it was all over I more or less concluded that
was my last time for voting for president.
had voted in three presidential elections in a row for the same
third-party candidate. I finally decided that not only he, but also
all the others standing under minor-party flags, were implicated
in philosophical statism, along with the obvious wannabe dictators
on the Dem and GOP tickets. All of them, I thought, wanted to be
Führer, and to hell with that. I listened anew to the proposition:
"Don't vote; it only encourages them."
I read Hoppe's great, ground-shaking book, Democracy:
the God That Failed, and wrote about the revelation to me
that was. And I settled back to watch our current Imperator
go through his paces. This polite disengagement was rudely interrupted:
Sept. 11, wars, and all that. And catastrophes aside, it is hard
to stay unengaged as you see your once great nation dissolve, corrode,
and collapse morally before your very eyes, in way less than four
years, as it conducts a crazy crusade half way around the globe.
am meditating these days on whether "Don't vote; it only encourages
them" is a principle I am committed to or a mere expedient
I have adopted. The reason for my dilemma is pointed up by Paul
Craig Roberts in a piece LRC picked up Sept. 10 from vdare.com,
where he says the Dems hold the trump card on the next election:
U.S. invasion of Iraq has created many new problems and solved
none. A real leader would stand up and state this obvious fact.
A real leader would fire the neocon propagandists in high government
offices who misled both him and the public.
real leader would do this, that is, if the opposition party
would allow him. This the Democrats will not do. The minute
Bush admits the invasion was a mistake, the Democrats will destroy
are the Democrats the staunch allies of the warmongering neocons.
The Democrats poised to pounce keep the neocon strategy in place
to admit no mistake and to continue with the conquest of the
of meditating, meditate on that passage for a few minutes. If ever
you thought the two-party system was a marvelous solution to political
life, or even if you think, as I have long thought, that it is huge
part of our problem, this twist in things, which I think Roberts
has analyzed brilliantly, should give you advanced fantods. There
is at present almost nothing to hope for from our assorted political
had recently told a Gore-voting close relative that I was prepared
to vote not only for a Dem next time, but even for the Hillary or
Old Nick himself, if it meant bringing down the GOP and its neocon
policy gauleiters. Now I am not sure it matters enough to give up
principle and retreat from the "Don't vote" stance. There
will be, if Roberts is right, as I fear he is, no effective opposition
to what he refers to as the melding of
. . Karl Rove's war leader strategy [for GW] with the neocons'
agenda for American-Israeli hegemony over the Muslim Middle
you lose; tails I win. I am reminded of the old joke where a guy
asks a lady if she will do it for $1 million. She responds, "Well,
yes." Then, "Would you do it for $2." She, "What
do you think I am?" Says he, "We decided that, now we
are haggling about the price."
it's back to asking myself if my "Don't vote" is principle
or expedient, and all I'm concerned about is the price of standing
pat. I think at present I'll stick to it as a principle and look
around for a monarchy to move to. And meanwhile let this insecure
homeland's pot boil merrily, as it wants to do, and see what ruins
are left when our sterling politicians are done with their next
remember, I think, some old lines of, again I think, James Russell
Lowell, from his Bigelow
Papers: "The purpose of elections is to vote one humbug
out and another in."
White [send him mail]
writes from Odessa, Texas.