More than a referendum on where we are to go, an election is one on where we’ve been. It is but a link in a chain, one of a series of turns, and my only task is to try to turn that bus in the best possible direction at the given moment.
To be honest, treating politics isn’t my favorite pastime. Sure, like other commentators I do it, but it’s not something I can truly sink my teeth into. I’ll explain why momentarily.
This election season, my pen has directed many slings and arrows Barack Obama’s way. I criticized John McCain, too, but that was during the primaries. Now there is what I perceive to be a clear and present danger in the person of a slick demagogue, so my sights – and my site – are trained in one particular direction. Because of this, however, I sometimes receive emails from disenchanted rightist voters. “What do you have to say about McCain?” some ask. “How is he any better than Obama?”
My feelings toward such respondents vacillate between surliness and sympathy. I understand why they feel the way they do, but they don’t understand me. I’m neither a party man nor a doctrinarian. I’m probably at least as dissatisfied with our wanting candidates as those who write me, and I can sum up my reasoning very simply:
Both candidates deserve to lose.
Only, one deserves to lose more.
But there is something else I know. Candidates are reflections, and insofar as they are lacking, they’re symptoms. If you behave as if they are visited upon us by a supernatural hand or secret conspiracy, you’re fooling yourself. An election is simply a choice of exit ramps after a 500-mile leg of the never-ending journey on the eternal highway. You can exit right, you can exit left, but make no mistake, your only decision at that point concerns where to place the power in the locale to which your wheels have taken you. Sure, the hearts of some haven’t driven the leg, staying behind in their Model T; those of others have driven ahead in their Model Z. Then there are those with hearts driving the model Eternity, those rare timeless travelers. Regardless, many of these people want to choose a barely-traveled path that, while it may boast beautiful scenery, can never lead to the throne. Where they wish to reside is just too far from where the bus of civilization has parked.
Some understand this, some don’t. Our culture is light years from the vision I consider ideal. Some of you may feel like a foreigner in your own land, but I could feel like I’m on the wrong planet. Figuratively speaking, the journey I wish to take requires the aid of Captain Kirk; it may even require time travel. I’m not even a conservative, as that is a person who, generally speaking, is content with the status quo. I want to overthrow it. I’m a revolutionary.
This brings us to the point. Revolutions aren’t won or even initiated through elections; they are either launched militarily (which isn’t easy with a government that possesses sound-wave weapons and blinding lasers), or culturally. This is the point. “People get the government they deserve,” as Thomas Jefferson said, because, one way or another, leaders will be a reflection of the people. Thus, if you want better choices come election time, the people need to be transformed.
That is the battle that matters, and it’s one the Left understands well. They have long steered that bus with their Gramscian drivers and navigated with their Gramscian maps, with their control of academia, the media, Hollywood, popular culture, the Democrat Party, and enough influential activist groups to wear out gavels in every courtroom in the land. And, then, when voters find themselves on a desolate stretch of highway gazing at monochrome scenery below gray skies, some wonder, or lament, or both. “How is it we only have these two inauspicious exits?” they complain. They write to people like me and ask, “How come you don’t condemn the right exit as much as the left?”, as if not exiting is even an option, as if picking up your ball and going home will somehow make home better.
But my answer is simple. As per my metaphor, I understand that more than a referendum on where we are to go, an election is one on where we’ve been. It is but a link in a chain, one of a series of turns, and my only task is – just as it was all along – to try to turn that bus in the best possible direction at the given moment.
In other words, write me to commiserate if you must, but understand the silliness of asking me why I fight for right turns now as I always have. For if you do that, you are compartmentalizing politics, incorrectly viewing it as a realm that operates separately from the culture. It is not. It is a reflection of it, and its elections are thus only one of many related kinds in which we vote. We elect our entertainers and entertainment, media figures and news and commentary through what we watch, listen to and read. We elect our educators by what we tolerate in our local schools and what colleges we support with our money. And we elect our activist groups and religious leaders by whom we choose to donate money to and what events and houses of worship we attend. So, while many may view our November choice as a discreet event, it really is just another in a series of elections (albeit a big one), one whose players were, in a very real way, chosen through those other elections. Thus, here is my perspective: My duty in all these elections is to make the best choice available to me at the moment. If those choices are lacking, don’t ask me why I wish to make lemonade out of lemons; I didn’t choose the route. Ask yourself what the people did – or failed to do – that brought us to this desert.
Transitioning to the literal, let us discuss what this means. We can curse the darkness as we note that both major party candidates support amnesty for illegals, but who really is culpable? McCain and Obama? Sure, all people must be held accountable, but they are only two men. Do you think they could hold that view and have ascended politically in a thoroughly patriotic nation? No, they can only bloom in a substrate degraded with multiculturalism, anti-Americanism, and the moral relativism that blinds one to cultural dangers. And many are thus imbued because of brainwashing by the media, academia and other entities. Why? Because of all those cultural elections we lost throughout the decades.
Then there is the specter of socialized medicine. We may dodge it in this election, but the writing is on the wall. There was a time when no one – Republican or Democrat – even contemplated such a thing; now its necessity has become Democrat dogma and Republicans are starting to accept it as well. Mitt Romney – a Republican favorite early in the primaries and a future presidential hopeful – instituted socialized medicine when governor of Massachusetts. And this is no anomaly, as a poll earlier this year showed that 52 percent of Republicans supported the principle of forcing Americans to buy health insurance.
Thus, we would have to be blind to not know where the bus is heading. Just as with amnesty, there will soon come a political election in which the 52 percent has become 67, and both candidates “see the wisdom” in government health care. But what lost elections will have brought us to that point?
Perhaps a famous apocryphal quotation may be instructive:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
This is true, but I must add some nuance. In the case of people of a moral fiber sufficient to sustain a democracy, degradation of that fiber is a prerequisite for the above. Their virtues of self-sufficiency, kindness and generosity must be allowed to wither and be replaced with the vices of a spirit of entitlement, envy and greed. Their grit must be turned to talcum as they are made to believe life should be easy and, if it isn’t, someone is obligated to make it so. Then they will be content to rob Peter to pay Paul – as long as they’re Paul.
So what are the lost cultural elections here? Again, the academics who teach America’s young don’t help. But most of all, when we choose how to raise our children, we also vote. We choose what standards to enforce, and when too many of us kowtow to kids’ whimsy, fail to hold them accountable and over-indulge them, we shouldn’t expect that, upon maturity, they will vote for a civil government any different than the family government that coddled and spoiled them during formative years.
Many of us could provide countless other examples, but need more be said? The people are the vessel and politicians the water, and the latter just take the shape of the former. So, yes, it’s easy enough to criticize any of our candidates, for if you look for the worst in politicians, you’re sure to find it . . . in abundance. But what are we lamenting really? That John McCain is like so many other older men in that, to quote a comedic quip, wisdom didn’t come with age – age just showed up all by itself? That Barack Obama, like so many other black men, was weaned on a diet of pulpit-projected bigotry and Saul Alinsky socialist politics and mistakes foolishness for wisdom? That “conservative” Sarah Palin created a new sub-cabinet in Alaska to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions? That they are all just creatures of the age? What did you expect? We define the age, and they reflect us.
Of course, we could still believe the political is divorced from the cultural, that our current big and bigger-government choices are some isolated political accident. We could, as some did in 2000 and 2004, believe that we will find our shining-city-on-a-hill savior four years hence.
We won’t.
That is, unless we could somehow, some way start winning those cultural elections. To believe otherwise is to be blind to the itinerary of that bus.
So don’t ask me why I won’t level criticism based on quota; don’t ask me to be blind to distinctions between dank, dark, miasma-ridden locales. I know our lost cultural elections have placed us on a highway that bends steadily toward the left, but in the upcoming political election – this referendum on our culture – we will choose the right or left exit. And don’t tell me that neither exit is worth taking, because, well, that I know also.
But one of them is not worth taking more.
An excellent piece of writing. A tip of my hat to you for diagnosing so much of the social malaise that we must deal with or suffer the consequences of.
I like your anolgy of the highway exits. It reminded me of a movie I once saw about an Okie family going to California in thier Model A pickup truck, something like Jed Clampett with Granny riding up in her rocking chair. Gramps, in this case played by Gabby Hayes or Walter Brennan, knew that California was due west and he refused to turn when the highway went south so they bounced off the road down a cow path headed west into a mud puddle. I don’t remember more than that, but it was funny and a good lesson. As the Scots sing: You take the high road and I’ll take the low road….
“‘What do you have to say about McCain?’ some ask. ‘How is he any better than Obama?’”
Winning those “cultural elections” will be moot with two or three more Ginsburgs on the Supreme Court.
“They write to people like me and ask, ‘How come you don’t condemn the right exit as much as the left?’”
Perhaps it’s because there is no such thing as Newton’s Third Law of Social Studies: not every idea has an equal but opposite idea. We are all familiar with the Left’s double standard, and as Auster writes, “…the Left’s double standard is not a mere excess or defect of Leftism, but its ESSENCE. That double standard results automatically from the demand for equality between inherently UNEQUAL things. … Traditional morality and classical philosophy define justice as giving each person his due, with equals getting equal results and unequals getting unequal results.” Therefore, Leftism is an INFERIOR idea because it is inherently anti-American because “Leftism defines justice as the GUARANTEED equality of OUTCOME between individuals of unequal abilities and accomplishments. But equality between unequals cannot be just and is incompatible with liberty (because it requires force to achieve).” So, how come critics of conservative authors don’t go over to the Huffington Post and ask their authors why they don’t condemn the Left exit MORE than the Right?
Hollywood is also responsible for many of our social ills, it wastes our time, money, and pushes a specific view of America that is inherently hostile.
When was the last time Hollywood made a movie that criticized Islamic terror, or celebrated traditional family? Instead it usually spits out hate America trash that the public consumes.
It also wastes our time people spend hours watching TV when they could be spending time with their family, or reading a book. America needs to wake up and turn off the TV.
John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart made some pretty good films and Peter O’Toole made Lawrence of Arabia in 1962.
Phil,
I agree and disagree with your premise that our politicians are us. To what degree are we also shaped by them? After all, this is not, strictly speaking, a one way arrangement. Politics is about message and politicians have more say in the shaping of that message than most though less than the media. Politicians, when in campaign mode, represent a powerful influence over the next cycle with many voters (and even some in the media) changing their tune to conform to the latest message spin.
Bob — not my article. Phil
Oops! I meant to say Selwyn, but I must have taken the wrong exit ramp.
I agree with sedonaman. The views of the Right and the Left are unequal. Using proven methods is superior than using unproven methods.
I always vote for the most conservative candidate and sadly the slightly more conservative candidate is Obama.
The republican party has cowered away from real conservative views (except for Ron Paul and a few others). In fact they don’t even call themselves conservatives anymore, instead they call themselves Neo-conservatives. How can one be New and Conservative at the same time? It would make sense to call oneself Neo-Liberal because liberal ideas are new and untested.
I would assume that the vast majority of folks on this site are against the bailout and against more regulations with our economy. Than why are the Republicans supporting it? If our choice is between two candidates who support more government regulation, wouldn’t it be more conservative to support the candidate whose party has all the experience with regulation?
With regards to waging war the Republican Party is notoriously liberal. Case in point Iraq which was a liberally waged war. With a liberally waged war with no other countries to help pay for it, how is that fiscal conservatism?
Where is the personal responsibility that Republicans used to be famous for? This economic crisis and the largest foreign attack on US soil happened under the watch of the Republican party. Instead of accepting responsibility for these events, Republicans are constantly blaming Clinton and the Dems. Thats like saying Jimmy Carter was responsible for the Reagan years… give me a break.
The Dems are far more conservative when it comes to conserving our environment. Why spend a single dime on ancient fuels and technology when so much of our future depends on new sources of energy. Sure drilling now would help us in the short term but what about the future?
The republican party is vastly more conservative when talking about Social conservatism. However Social conservatism is politically liberal. What we are really talking about is Faith based initiatives. The real conservative view is a separation between church and state. Not more government intruding in the personal lives of its citizens.
Now obviously the Dems have their liberal views on many topics that have been discussed on this site. Social Security and the various social community programs supported with taxpayer money.I’m not saying that Barack Obama is a conservative, far from it. But let’s face it, the Neo-John McCain and the Republican Party is no way conservative either. That is why I will refer to them as Republicrats, all the downsides of both parties. I see a huge difference with Left and Right Ideology but I see little difference with Republicans and Democrats.
That is why I would rather make the Right choice than a prideful one.
Influence
I’m sure interested in hear from sedonaman on your “agreement” with him. I think you “assume” a lot. I can’t possibly respond to all of your wanderings, but I’ll say one thing: You are nuts if you think OHB is to the right of McCain! He might be to the right of Bill Ayres, but we can’t be too sure about that.
Well, I’ll make it two things. For me it’s simple. Anything or anybody that moves this country closer to the world of Orwell’s 1984, or more descriptively, Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago is an anathema to me. In this election, that person is B. Hussein Obama.
First off Ivan being dismissive and name calling (nuts) does not stimulate intellectual discussion. Secondly, I agree with you that we are moving closer to George Orwell’s 1984 only that it’s John McCain and the Republican party that are the perpetrators. When McCain last night spoke of a league of Democracies, to me it sounds like he is interested in a one world viewpoint, coupled with the Republicans instance on being the world police, indeed very similar to the book 1984.
Now it may be that I assume too much, however I thought this was a Libertarian site and I think people here need to ask themselves one question. Do we have more or less liberties than we did 8 years ago?
Hmm.
Democrats are behind “Fair Market” expression of speech, meaning that failed Liberal talk shows must be subsidized, lest they fail in the marketplace.
Democrat strong-arm legal tactics are applied to the Media to try to abort anti-Democrat messages.
Facts are not only misrepresented, pure lies are expressed by the Democrat party on a daily basis.
Shall I continue? Who states, “the VP’s daughter is a WHORE?” Who claims “The Senator lied?”
I know who I see doing so daily, and it isn’t Republican.
Influence
I can’t imagine what gave you the impression that I would like to stimulate any kind of conversation with you. I’m just a believer in free speech and I see it as my duty to respond to people like you. We know the Gramscian tactics and we can point them out when we see them. We can see the lies told by your friend OHB when he tells McCain “That’s just not true” in response to his offer to meet Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad without preconditions. And when he invokes the name of Doctor Kissinger in his lie it goes beyond the twisting the facts level and joins with the Ministry Of Truth rewrite of history.
Yes, you are dismissed.
Ivan you have just shown what a coward you are. When challenged you would rather insult than spare intellectually and you even admit it under the guise of some superiority complex. I don’t know anything about you other than a few lines that you’ve written. Yet you claim to know me, that is very liberal of you to say. Obama is not my friend, I do not like supporting Democrats nor am I a liberal. I think it is important to call a spade a spade and the difference between Republicans and Democrats is indistinguishable. The Democrats and there laundry lists of problems with their ideology is well known to me. However if you think Republicans are conservatives then you are fooling yourself.
Influence
I guess I’m not only a “coward”, but I’m also stupid, as I don’t know what “spare intellectually” means. As far as “knowing you/knowing me” is concerned, you must be new here. I’ve commented extensively at IC for several years and even if some readers disagree with me, I’ve made several friends among the columnists and regular responders. Being a long timer gives one an ability to recognize a troll, like you, very quickly.
Re-reading your comments, I will note that you do not give ONE example of Obama’s conservative, or libertarian, positions, nor do you refute any of my substantiative examples. Now I’ll just slink off to my corner and waste no more bandwidth on you.
Influence:
Re: “Liberal” and “Conservative”
I agree that the Republican Party has move away from Reagan-type conservatism, but does that mean the Democrats are now more conservative? I submit that both parties have moved to the Left, the Democrats even more so.
However, these terms have changed meaning down through the years. Your definition of “conservative” would fit the Soviet Union’s Communist Party, because once it got into power, it wanted to “conserve” the status quo. But how much further Left can you get than the communists?
“Liberal” use to mean, in the classical sense, one who was for self-government, individual rights within limits, and the ability to rise on one’s own efforts and merits. The modern liberal is more correctly called a “Pseudo-Liberal” or a “collectivist”, as Baker points out here http://www.orgonomy.org/article_terrorism_trueliberal.html .
Can McCain be described as a collectivist? I hardly think so. On the other hand, can Obama, Hillary, and most other Democrats? I think they certainly can. (Please note that they are like the Soviet Union Communists in that they want collectivism for everyone except themselves. They are in it solely for power; otherwise, how do you explain why already rich Democrats [read: Ted Kennedy] want to get elected? So they can redistribute their own money?)
If you have not read George Orwell’s Animal Farm, I highly recommend it. It is an easy read of only 125 pages or so. It is a parody on the Russian Revolution and full of allegory, most notably the pigs who gain control of the wealth of the farm. And that is the defining element of collectivism, or Leftism as I prefer. Examples abound: High taxes, taxation for its own sake, income redistribution, affirmative action – the list goes on. However, it is not the only element. In order to get control of their wealth, you must get control of the people. This is done primarily by revolution: creating disorder and chaos by dividing people into “conflicting” groups, and also by encouraging people to become slaves to their passions, then the presenting of the Left as the salvation of all mankind. Once in power, the first task of the revolution is to prevent a counter-revolution. Hence speech codes, political correctness (invented to hide truth), persecution of tradition (especially the Christian tradition), and even the redefinition of truth and goodness because Leftist ideology cannot withstand the scrutiny of these ideas. To paraphrase Selwyn Duke, Leftist ideology is one which is not rejected when it conflicts with truth, but where truth is rejected when it conflicts with the ideology. The most brilliant talk I ever heard on Marxist/Leftist nonsense was given by Bishop Fulton Sheen on his TV program. Explaining the concept of truth and the difference between how Communism and Western thought arrive at it, he posed the question, “Where are your sox?” Western thought turns to REALITY [and tradition] – you look for them in your dresser drawer. Communism answers by stating, “Wherever the Party says they are!”
Because it appeals to man’s baser instincts, there is nothing new about Leftism.
A conservative could more correctly be called a traditionalist. In the process of solving any of life’s many problems, you must start somewhere, and the only place to start is to consult tradition. (Note here that tradition does not mean, “We do it that way because we’ve always done it that way,” but the distillation of human knowledge down through history.) While tradition might not always be right, it can’t help being the starting point, as Feser points out http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092006B . In a way you might say this is a collectivist approach because it represents the collective knowledge of all the generations of history. (But then again, the idea of a society represents a collective approach in some way; that’s why they are called communities.)
A question to ask ourselves is whether we want each new generation to redefine society from scratch, or do we want one built on knowledge gained through the experience of many generations?
So, are you a liberal or a conservative?
Sedonaman, Thank you for your response I thought it was both intelligent and thoughtful. I do not get to discuss what it means to be conservative or liberal with the general masses. That is why I came to this site and I think you are right that the definition of Conservative and Liberal need to be clarified.
As to whether I’m a liberal or conservative under the definition you defined well I have a achieved a very comfortable life with my own hard work and I do not like giving handouts. Communism and Collectivism certainly has shown throughout history as an utter failure.
With the Republican party as you put it “moved to the left” what are my choices? Should I condone the Republican Party for moving to the left by voting for their candidate? I have never voted for a Republican and I have never voted for a Democrat and I have always voted for the Libertarian candidate. I feel like my voice is being lost. I thought maybe I’ll do a protest vote this round and see if other Libertarians were thinking the same.
I think really I was trying to convince myself to not vote republican. I needed a sound argument for me to vote for McCain and I thought the readers of this site might give me that argument. However with the argument being “McCain, at least he’s not a total liberal” along with rude comments from Ivan it made me completely want to give a giant F*** You to the republican party for not standing up for what their core principles are. Instead I think my best option is for my voice to become lost again and vote for Barr. At least I’ll be standing up for what I believe in.
I think having liberal politics is the only way to have a contrast. However I think Europe should be the Guinea Pigs of liberal politics not the republican party. Ron Paul was obviously a fantastic candidate and would have been a no-brainer to vote for but sadly there are very few who take the time that is necessary to understand governance. In fact I am still trying to understand the intricacies of politics.
Ivan thank you for taking the time re-reading my comments, unfortunately it took me calling you a coward for any real discussion to happen. When you criticized me for assuming, I think you need to look in the mirror. You assumed I was just another “troll” because I am new here not someone who is desperate for some sense of truth. If my comments are not welcome on this site than isn’t it hypocritical saying only liberals cannot withstand scrutiny?
Influence:
Re: “…what are my choices? Should I condone the Republican Party for moving to the left by voting for their candidate? I have never voted for a Republican and I have never voted for a Democrat and I have always voted for the Libertarian candidate. I feel like my voice is being lost. I thought maybe I’ll do a protest vote …”
Although a little dated [last Feb.], still the best explanation is given in an excellent article by Dr. Phil Jackson:
“The American political system operates in a certain way, and has certain consequences attached to that operation. Ignoring this reality will serve only one purpose. It will not advance your cause, promote your political philosophy, or teach corrupt politicians a lesson. Instead, it will reduce you to an irrelevant afterthought and do far more to damage the beliefs and ideas you hold dear, than advance them.” [Emphasis added]
You will have to read the rest here http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/02/01/to-vote-or-not-to-vote-that-is-the-question .
Sedonaman,
I realize I’m a little late, so thank you for your time.