Why electing Democrats could be even worse

A lot of voters are thinking that the Bush administration and Republican-controlled Congress deserves to be ousted because of the unconscionable War in Iraq. Well... hell yes, they do deserve it, but tossing the rascals out and putting the Democrats in charge could produce even worse results.

Even though George W is the 3rd President to flail about in Iraq, it's his war, and it was his Republican Congress that condoned and funded it. While it's true that a lot of Democrats jumped on the war wagon too, and most of the rest have been gutless go-alongers, the Republicans deserve the bulk of the slapdown at the polls. It's also true that non-incumbents always do a little better during mid-term elections, so the Democrats are drooling heavily about their prospects, even though they have little idea how to distinguish themselves from the Republicans... except that they're not Republicans. They're stuck just hoping that big-time dissatisfaction will swing votes away from George and toward them.

Truth is, for a long time the Democrats were afraid that George would have a "success" in Iraq and get all the credit for it, nailing down Republican election success for many more years. So... they haven't fought against the war; it was too big an issue and George and the R's were taking all the risks. (you didn't really think that right and wrong had anything to do with it, did you?)

However, to those of you who hate the war and intend to vent your wrath at the polls, let me give you something else to think about, both in this election and the Presidential election in two years.

Will a Democratic Congress improve the situation in Iraq?
Will a Democratic President?

For years to come, the War in Iraq is going to be George's war... a Republican war. He and they are saddled with it, despite all the complicity by Democrats. They were in charge... the buck stops at their desks.

Suppose angry voters do throw out the warmongers and elect first a Democratic-controlled Congress, and then a Democratic President. You know the war will still be going on, don't you?

What then, is the incentive for the new "Democratic" Washington to end the war? They'll have a big incentive not to end it. All the defense contractors will now be begging at their doorsteps, offering big campaign contributions to their party, and it will still be George's war! They'll be king of the hill, with all the lucre but with none of the blame.

No matter what happens in Iraq... no matter how much worse it gets, the Democrats will have plenty of reasonable-sounding excuses. They didn't start it, and they're trying to end it, but they inherited such a horrible mess that it will take time. It'll take time alright... time to milk it for all the money and increased power they can, until it becomes clear, someday, that it's now THEIR war. Even then, it will be shared blame between the parties, so it will be presented as an unavoidable conflict. There will have been so much collusion by then that nobody in Washington will be pointing fingers.

Bottom line? Both the Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the War in Iraq, but the GOP bears the brunt of the blame for it. They're responsible for a terrible President and administration... but don't think for a minute that means that replacing them with Democrats will improve the situation at all. It really could make it worse. The "lesser of two evils" could actually be the worst choice.

As long as we elect people from power-hungry, money-hungry political parties, we are going to get nothing but bigger and bigger government, and there is no more effective way to increase the size and power of government than through WAR. It has always been true, and it always will be. The real slogan of both the Democratic and Republican parties should be "Promise them anything, but give them war".

What to do about it? Frankly, it may be too late. To be blunt, most of you people have ignored other parties so damned deliberately, for so long... falling for the "lesser of two evils" scam... that many thousands of good citizens have burnt themselves and their budgets out trying to give you the opportunity to make other choices... and been ignored. The Libertarians have been providing a small-government, anti-war platform for over 30 years. Many other parties have tried and given up in far fewer years.

Meanwhile, you've fallen for promises that you wouldn't believe from your best friend, fallen for slick hype (paid for at your expense) and worshiped politicians as celebrities rather than the citizen representatives they're supposed to be. You've made excuses for the people you voted for, even when you knew you were wrong. In short, the American electorate hasn't done a damned thing to correct a situation that, naturally, continues to get worse after each election.

For years, I've distilled the quandry down to this: When you're finally confronted, on the ballot, with a Stalin versus a Hitler, will you still try to choose the lesser of two evils? We get closer to a choice that bad with every passing election.

Choice is being squeezed out of American politics

reprinted from 11/05/2004

In 2000, in an election considered even closer than the mess we just endured, candidates other than Bush or Gore received about 4 million votes. In 2000, Nader got close to 3 million votes, Buchanan got about 449,000, and Browne, the Libertarian candidate got 384,000.

In 2004, the number of votes cast for candidates other than Bush or Kerry plummeted to about 1 million. Nader fell by almost 2.5 million votes. On a somewhat positive note, the Libertarian candidate vote total remained quite constant. Here are the 2004 totals, with some votes still to be counted:

Nader - independent candidate - 394,578
Badnarik - Libertarian party - 377,940
Peroutka - Constitution party- 129,138
Cobb - Green party - 99,666

As I wrote on Wednesday, it was the most expensive presidential election in history, at $1.2 billion. You might assume that with 2 candidates capturing almost all the votes, that their cost per vote might be low. Think again.

Bush spent $306.3 million to get 58,978,616 votes - $5.19 per vote
Kerry spent $241.7 million to get 55,384,497 votes - $4.36 per vote
Nader spent $3.9 million to get 394,578 votes - $9.77 per vote
Badnarik spent .75 million to get 377,940 votes - $1.98 per vote

Those totals don't include the massive amount of money spent on BEHALF of Bush and Kerry through other organizations, nor do they include the massive amount of free media coverage they received all through the campaigns. It also doesn't include the huge amount of tax money spent on the major party conventions, neither of which had anything to do with nominating a candidate. They were nothing but enormously expensive political rallies, at public expense.

Nader's performance was embarrassing to an extreme... not only a lot of money spent, but a lot of free coverage as "the only other candidate". Even if Nader had spent only the tax money he accepted ($799,000), he still would have spent $2.02 per vote.

Just for fun... how many votes might Michael Badnarik have gotten if he had had just the tax money that went to Bush and Kerry? They each received $74,620,000 in tax dollars. At Badnarik's $1.98 cost/vote, that translates into 37,686,868 votes. If those 37.7 million votes were taken equally from Bush and Kerry, these would have been the results:

Bush 40,135,182
Badnarik 37,686,868
Kerry 36,541,063

That was with only the tax money. If Badnarik had spent even what Kerry spent ($241,667,000), at $1.98 per vote that would hypothetically yield 122,054,000 votes. That's more than the number of voters.

$1.2 billion gathered and spent to purposefully polarize the nation.
$1.2 billion spent to on deception, on empty rhetoric delivered with the emphasis of an evangelist, as if the candidate was on a holy mission to save us from the "evil other", when we all know that there is very little difference between them. Media fawning over the two powerful candidates, reporting their slightest movement, every word they utter, and every rumor that rears its head.

As a Libertarian, supporting a candidate running only on voluntary contributions... accepting not one dime of your tax dollars... you can imagine my disgust at finding every web site, every newspaper, and every TV news show displaying only the 3 "anointed" candidates in contention for the Presidency... Bush, Kerry, and Nader. While the vote totals for those 3 people were plastered all over the TV, and updated as results came in, it was difficult to even FIND the national totals for Badnarik. Without the Internet, it would have been impossible. While we were presented, for the major candidates, with detailed counts by county and even key districts, complete with talking-head interpretation and historical relevance, I heard not ONE mention of Badnarik, Peroutka, or Cobb. That isn't reporting, it's controlling the information the public receives. It's simply deliberate neglect. The source of vote totals is the individual Secretaries of State of each state, and they are obliged to treat each candidate the same... they accumulate totals for all candidates. Of those I checked, they do a thorough and complete job. Media has access to all those numbers, but they choose to present only part of it. For over 600,000 Americans, their votes went ignored... unimportant... invisible.

Perhaps the major media covers only those candidates who receive federal election money? Isn't that sort of like rewarding thieves at the expense of their victims?

If you think it's just too much trouble to cover more candidates, think about sports news coverage. Not only are ALL teams covered in ALL sports, but they're covered in intricate detail... every day of every year. Are presidential elections once every 4 years of less importance?

It's clear that media works in their own self-interest. Their access to government information depends on maintaining friendly relations with those in power. The result is that those in power effectively control U.S. major media. If you doubt that, try reading foreign news for a change. You'll find them a lot more outspoken and critical of government... the way our own press used to be, before our government had so much power.

What bothers me most about our elections is two facts about public opinion... that a large majority of voters believe government is too big, and that they DO want more election choices. Will we ever have those two desires satisfied? It should be clear that neither will come from the two major parties. Neither is in their own self-interest. Each election cycle, the D's and R's increase the power of government, which increases their own power... which further handicaps any competition to them. Voters could overcome that, but there are now so many voters "on the take" from big government that they seem to be sweeping the rest of us along. Massive contributions from unions, corporations, and thousands of organizations that receive government money are purchasing our government... and it gets worse every year. The recent "campaign reform" legislation was a farce, intended, like all regulations, to increase the power of those already in power and handicap all others.

Will it just continue to get worse? Is there anything the citizenry can do about it? There is, but it would require abandoning the silly idea of choosing the lesser of two evils in order to avoid the worst. That ignorant idea has polarized our nation to the point of each half of the citizenry thinking that the other half is dangerous... even evil.

Both parties play a vicious game... telling lies about each other, trying to make us believe that each campaign is of real importance and that the other party is a danger. They each, with a lot of help from media, present their candidates as saviors... the only one standing in the way of the other side destroying what we hold dear. They work hard at telling us not only what to believe, but what to fear. Putting a stop to this insanity will require a real leap of intelligence and common sense on the part of a LOT of citizens.

Libertarians have been there, working hard and waiting for 32 years for that leap. It should be clear that no other party can survive the incredible power of the Democrats and Republicans. That should make you think. If you voted for either Bush or Kerry, you're playing right into the hands of the power-brokers... you're part of the compliant, easily-deceived electorate. If you expect conditions in our nation to EVER get better, you must reconsider, think hard, and resolve to do something about it. There is no alternative.