Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
1/6/2004 8:09:19 AM EDT
http://www.lewrockwell.com/taylor/taylor55.html




To Vote, Or Not To Vote
That Is The Question
by Linda Schrock Taylor

       

My apologies to Shakespeare, but the phrasing so clearly expresses the dilemma that I have faced since the mid-sixties, when my friends and I discussed our objections to boys too young to vote on matters of war, being drafted and sent to Vietnam. By the time voting rights for 18 year olds had been passed, I was so disillusioned with the government that I, personally, took the stance of refusing to vote.

As a young child, living just twelve miles from where I currently reside, many of my earliest memories are of voting and party choices. A favorite family story told of how my great-grandfather and his brother, one a Democrat and one a Republican, would constantly argue about politics, then ride together to the polls. Their commitment to voting, even though they knew that one's vote would cancel that of the other, never wavered. If it was time to vote, one was honor bound to do it. In my home, the whole family rode to the township hall so that my parents could vote. I am often reminded of those excursions, for that township hall is where we have our family Christmas and special occasion parties. The same voting booths are there, varnished and gleaming.

For many, many years I did not vote; my decision stemming from my gut level distrust of the State. In silence I accepted the stern reprimands from my father, as he attempted to drive home the point that I had no right to criticize anything that the government did since I refused to make my preferences known by voting. Since the schools had only provided me with rewritten history, I lacked the facts and insights with which I might have defended my decision and myself. Still I refused to vote for Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum.

Recently, while reading Murray Rothbard's, The Case Against the Fed, I was reminded of my father's blind loyalty to his Party…

For the "Third Party System," which had existed in America from 1856 to 1896, was comprised of political parties, each of which was highly ideological and in intense conflict with the opposing party. While each political party, in this case the Democratic, the Republican and various minor parties, consisted of a coalition of interests and forces, each was dominated by a firm ideology to which it was strongly committed. As a result, citizens often felt lifelong party loyalties, were socialized into a party when growing up, were educated in party principles, and then rode herd on any party candidates who waffled or betrayed the cause. (Pg. 90–91)

Rothbard continues,

For various reasons, the Democratic and Republican parties after 1900…were largely non-ideological, differed very little from each other, and as a result commanded little party loyalty. In particular, the Democratic Party no longer existed, after the Bryan takeover of 1896, as a committed laissez-faire, hard-money party. From then on, both parties rapidly became Progressive and moderately statist." (Pg. 91)

Even had I been able to put evidence such as this before my father, it would not have modified his thinking. It is almost as if such individuals are caught in some kind of a time warp. They have been socialized to party loyalty without being taught the facts and the intellectual reasoning behind the original stances held prior to 1896. Any belief that they should hold a party to a 'firm ideology' has been bred out of them, or simply lost along the way.

I did, finally, become a voter, although never for my father's party. Still I never felt comfortable about voting, but neither did I feel comfortable about not voting. Possibly I dreaded old messages from childhood returning to haunt me. During the last election I did go to the polls, but I cast only one (1) vote – against a candidate I despised. I have continued to fret – to vote, or not to vote.

Recently I received a brochure from the "Sons Of Liberty" in Central Florida, entitled, VOTING STRATEGY – 2004 – WHEN "THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS" IS NO LONGER AN OPTION. The title caught my eye, and their rationale for voting makes a great deal of sense. They begin with this:

The most effective argument to convince patriotic Americans to support the Republican Party has been that "The Republicans will do less damage to the Constitution than the Democrats will – and besides, what other choice is there?" The conservative vote is taken for granted by the Republican leadership because they believe that we have nowhere else to turn; from a purely pragmatic short-range view, perhaps they are correct. The result has been a Republican Party that ignores conservative values because it has no incentive to do otherwise. The time has come to provide that incentive.

I had to agree with this summation, and I continued reading,

The Republican Party is the dominant party today because it has the conservative vote. Let's look at what Republicans have done with the power that conservatives entrusted to them.

President George W. Bush has presided over a dramatic increase in the size, cost, scope, and power of the federal government that would be the envy of even the most radical socialist. He has stated his support of the clearly- unconstitutional Clinton gun ban and has vowed to sign a replacement into law (the current law has a sunset provision that expires in 2004) should it reach his desk. His Attorney General has made it his personal crusade to get ever-greater power for the government to snoop into the private lives of citizens. Bush has used the military to invade a sovereign nation that had no realistic chance of threatening America, while at the same time encouraging a flood of illegal third-world immigrants across our borders. Yet many conservatives continue to support this administration. Why? Because they believe they have no other choice – the alternatives are even worse.

Please excuse me as I continue to quote from this pamphlet, for a summary would not do it justice:

Conservatives have fallen into the trap of only looking at the short range. It is probably (but no longer certainly) true that America would be better off with a Republican administration than with a Democratic administration – in any given year. However, that completely misses the point. The direction that the country is headed in must be looked at in terms of decades and generations – not as a four-year presidential term.

1/6/2004 8:10:16 AM EDT
[#1]

The Sons of Liberty list four options:

1) Continue to vote for the Republican Party candidates. Maybe we won't end up with a Democrat – or maybe we will. Either way, the Republican Party learns once again that they have the conservative vote no matter what they do.

2) Vote for the Democratic candidates. Some on the far edges of conservatism have suggested this as a way to hurry along what they see as the inevitable collapse of America, and see a rebuilding as freedom's opportunity.

3) Don't vote at all. This is a common strategy in other parts of the world. The objective is to demonstrate that the elections are not valid by boycotting the election. Another objective of this strategy is to voice dissatisfaction with all the candidates – effectively saying "None of the above."

4) Vote for a third-party candidate.

The pamphlet points out that Option 1 has already been discussed and points out that a vote for the Republicans will assure a drive off the same cliff, but at a speed within the posted limit. They believe that Option 2 should be dismissed as not lending itself to rational discussion. Regarding the last two options, they have this to say,

Option 3 is based on the assumption that anyone would notice that people were not voting. It is also based on the assumption that the parties would know why people were not voting. Not voting at all simply means that the political strategists ignore you. Being ignored is not our intent.

Option 4 is what we believe to be the best choice at this point. The objective is to show that there are votes available that the Republican Party will not get until they change their ways. The objective is not to find and support a third party candidate who can win an election. For the foreseeable future, that just is not going to happen. Instead, the objective is to demonstrate to the Republican Party that voters will leave the party if they are not represented by that party. The working assumption by the Republican Party has always been that conservatives have nowhere else to turn, and that they are pragmatic enough to not "waste their vote" by voting for a third party. Our objective is to show that assumption to be false.

Again, the point of this option is not to find a third party with any chance of winning, but that the voters "take a long range view and sacrifice in the short term if needed. We are working for future generations, not for ourselves."

The Sons of Liberty end with, "The only important point in making your decision is that your vote must be clearly seen as one that the Republicans should have gotten. Choose your party/candidate wisely." They list conservative political parties: Libertarian Party; Constitution Party; America First Party; and the Southern Party.

Hmmm…"your vote must be clearly seen as one that the Republicans should have gotten." Yes, I think that it is time that we, in the words of Murray Rothbard, "ride herd" on any candidate, and the party as a whole, for "waffling" and for betraying America. We voters have been taken for granted – for far too long. We have gone with our interests misrepresented or un-represented, since that long ago era when the various political parties "were dominated by a firm ideology to which it was strongly committed." When political parties again truly and honorably represent the real wishes of the people, then and only then, should we again loyally support one particular party.

So, I will vote in the next election, but the Republicans have definitely lost my support. I will go to the polls and cast my votes for candidates from one or more of the four conservative groups listed. I will be sure to inform every Republican fundraiser of my decision, asking that they convey my message accurately to their supervisors. Why, I will even send each Republican caller a copy of my Letter to Ken Mehlman, should they profess an interest. Yes, I am relieved to finally have a voting strategy!

January 5, 2004

Linda Schrock Taylor [send her mail] lives in Michigan. She is a free-lance writer and the owner of "The Learning Clinic," where real reading, and real math, are taught effectively and efficiently.

Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

View Quote



Didn't know if any would be interested in this or not.


dave
1/6/2004 8:21:01 AM EDT
[#2]
I'm [u]always[/u] interested in politics and political thinking.

The answer to the dilemna of gun owners and true conservatives alike, is embarrassingly obvious.

Take over the Republican Party just as we did in 1964, 1980, and 1984.

I'm not certain how old everyone is, but I was 12 years old in 1964, and I remember back then that you basically had a choice between two moderate parties. The New Frontier Democrats and the Country Club Republicans.

And then along came Mr. Conservative, himself, Barry Goldwater.

We won the nomination and then badly lost the election, but the groundwork was in place.

A couple of election cycles later and BOOM! we had President Reagan in two back-to-back landslides!

We need to do it again.

We simply don't have enough time to start from scratch.

Eric The(MorningInAmerica)Hun[>]:)]
1/6/2004 8:24:41 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Take over the Republican Party just as we did in 1964, 1980, and 1984.
View Quote


It's refreshing to see acknowledgment that something is awry in the GOP from you, Eric.

How would you suggest we start taking over (or back) the party?

Scott
1/6/2004 8:33:01 AM EDT
[#4]
There are millions of people around the world that would literally die to exercise a right to vote.

I think each and every one of us has an obligation as Americans to decide who will lead our country.  Maybe the major party candidates don't share [b]each and every one of your views[/b].  No politician can please every constiuent on every issue.  One must decide which candidate most closely represents your ideals and CAST A VOTE  
1/6/2004 8:39:59 AM EDT
[#5]
There is an old saying -- If you don't vote, don't bitch.

Always vote,  But also get out there and make the chioces before the election and get candidates that more closely reflect your views to run, or run yourself.
1/6/2004 8:41:05 AM EDT
[#6]
It starts with electing conservative U.S. Senators and Representatives from your state.
1/6/2004 8:45:10 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
I'm [u]always[/u] interested in politics and political thinking.

The answer to the dilemna of gun owners and true conservatives alike, is embarrassingly obvious.

Take over the Republican Party just as we did in 1964, 1980, and 1984.

I'm not certain how old everyone is, but I was 12 years old in 1964, and I remember back then that you basically had a choice between two moderate parties. The New Frontier Democrats and the Country Club Republicans.

And then along came Mr. Conservative, himself, Barry Goldwater.

We won the nomination and then badly lost the election, but the groundwork was in place.

A couple of election cycles later and BOOM! we had President Reagan in two back-to-back landslides!

We need to do it again.

We simply don't have enough time to start from scratch.

Eric The(MorningInAmerica)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote



This is the ETH I look up to....
1/6/2004 8:46:34 AM EDT
[#8]
Post from Scottman -
It's refreshing to see acknowledgment that something is awry in the GOP from you, Eric.
View Quote

I know that I tend to be a real cheerleader for the GOP around here, but you need to read my posts to see how I really think about the GOP.

[u]Any[/u] party that can have John McCain, Christopher Shays, Arlen Specter, John Warner, George Pataki, and Rudy Guiliani in it is bound to be [u]flawed[/u], but not fatally so!

It is, to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, the most horrible political party, except for all the others.

But it a party, nevertheless, that pays lip service to conservative ideals.

And lip service is about as good as we can hope for nowadays, until we can get some real conservatives back in charge.

Sadly, some of our best voices have left us.

Some for health reasons, such as President Reagan. Some for personal reasons, such as Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Robert Livingston (R-LA).
How would you suggest we start taking over (or back) the party?
View Quote

The same way we took it over before - grass roots campaigns. Get to your local GOP party
meetings and get involved in doing the dreary and time-consuming crap that makes you someone that can be depended upon by the Party.

Like poll-watching during elections, attending all the Party functions, canvassing your local neighborhoods, campaigning for folks you never really liked anyway, putting up yard signs, handing out flyers, etc., etc., etc.

And then when it comes time to vote, you vote for the most conservative candidate you can and pray that he or she wins.

But if your conservative candidate doesn't get the Party's nomination, you must persevere and continue to support even that moderate GOP POS that you didn't like anyway.

You don't have to vote for the POS in that voting booth, but you do have to support the POS visibly and vocally in public.

Because that's precisely what you would expect that other, more-moderate Republicans would do if [u]your[/u] conservative candidate got the nomination, right?

Politics is simply the art of the possible, and for better or worse, we must engage in it, for it will surely engage with us!

Eric The(TriedAndTrue)Hun[>]:)]
1/6/2004 8:50:34 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Politics is simply the art of the possible, and for better or worse, we must engage in it, for it will surely engage with us!
View Quote


That is, with out a doubt, the most profound and enlightening political statement I have ever heard on this board.

Bravo ETH
1/6/2004 9:01:24 AM EDT
[#10]
Linda Schrock Taylor [send her mail] lives in Michigan. She is a free-lance writer and...
View Quote


...she is also known as a wierd but lovable guy that lives in Oregon.

[snoopy]
1/6/2004 9:01:36 AM EDT
[#11]
Thanks, y'all.

I appreciate y'all even paying attention to what I say!

Eric The(HonestToGod)Hun[>]:)]
1/6/2004 9:14:43 AM EDT
[#12]
And the dissenting point of view walks in....Eric, How long are you going to keep getting screwed without lube before you give up?
If you guys would quit sucking at the teat and leave the party...maybe chage would come. But you guys keep getting screwed and keep going back....I will just call you the battered republicans wives club.
1/6/2004 9:24:07 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
And the dissenting point of view walks in....Eric, How long are you going to keep getting screwed without lube before you give up?
If you guys would quit sucking at the teat and leave the party...maybe chage would come. But you guys keep getting screwed and keep going back....I will just call you the battered republicans wives club.
View Quote



Oh change would come alright! But it wouldn't be for the good.
1/6/2004 9:30:37 AM EDT
[#14]
Ok gus how would it be worse?
The country is steadily going to hell in a handbasket. Illegals killed 3000 people in New York and shrub wants to let more illegals in?
Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws and the highest murder rate and shrub says he supports the AWB? Bill Clinton was taken to task for getting a BJ and lying about it...not for selling half of everything to the chinese.
We invaded Iraq...for what I have no idea...and Saudi Arabians are still welcome at the White House. Instead of deporting enemies of the US, now we are strip searching citzens and fingerprinting visitors from Brazil. Go on tell me how could it possibly get worse....
1/6/2004 9:42:40 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Ok gus how would it be worse?
The country is steadily going to hell in a handbasket. Illegals killed 3000 people in New York and shrub wants to let more illegals in?
Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws and the highest murder rate and shrub says he supports the AWB? Bill Clinton was taken to task for getting a BJ and lying about it...not for selling half of everything to the chinese.
We invaded Iraq...for what I have no idea...and Saudi Arabians are still welcome at the White House. Instead of deporting enemies of the US, now we are strip searching citzens and fingerprinting visitors from Brazil. Go on tell me how could it possibly get worse....
View Quote


How can it be worse?  Let's see.

With a Democat in office...

When there is a clear and present danger facing the security of the US, we will be sure to get the UN's permission before taking any action

Despite the fact that the top 5% of wage earners pay 59% of the taxes in this country, they will take even more and create more social programs for those who can or won't do for themselves.

Forget the Heathcare plans that Bill Gates, Rush Limbaugh, and the very rich have in place right now.  We will create a tax-payer funded universal health care so that you and I can pay for their health benefits as well as those who have none.

Despite the fact that most teachers state that the biggest problem with education is lack of parent involvement, Democrats will continue to throw money at the schools because it has worked so well in the past.

Jobs.  Well, Howard Dean's answer is to create hundreds of thousands of GOVERNMENT jobs further inflating our tax burden and expanding our government.

And last but not least, what party was responsible for the ban on Assault Weapons and magazine capacity for handguns.  And wasn't it the Democrat Administration that used the tax-payer funded HUD to start the ball rolling on firearms manufacturers?

How can it be worse?





1/6/2004 9:58:43 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok gus how would it be worse?...
View Quote


How can it be worse?  Let's see.

With a Democat in office...
View Quote


You didn't mention judicial appointments.  Don't EVER forget that particular perk of sitting in the Oval Office.

You think the USSC is ambiguous about the Second Amendment now?  Let the Dems pack the court for a term or two and we'll long for the good old "ambiguous" days...
1/6/2004 10:02:09 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Ok gus how would it be worse?
The country is steadily going to hell in a handbasket. Illegals killed 3000 people in New York and shrub wants to let more illegals in?
Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws and the highest murder rate and shrub says he supports the AWB? Bill Clinton was taken to task for getting a BJ and lying about it...not for selling half of everything to the chinese.
We invaded Iraq...for what I have no idea...and Saudi Arabians are still welcome at the White House. Instead of deporting enemies of the US, now we are strip searching citzens and fingerprinting visitors from Brazil. Go on tell me how could it possibly get worse....
View Quote



Hound, no offense, but it sounds to me like in your world view, nothing could be worse than it is now anyway! If we let the Dems back in power, you will have a whole new definition of "bad times". And voting libertarian will be nothing but a vote for the Dems.
1/6/2004 10:13:11 AM EDT
[#18]
He shoots, he misses...every point you brought up has already been tried by a democratic president and defeated by the republicans....unfortunately now everything is passed. I prefer grid lock.
Let's take a swing at this
Bush versus clinton
Iraq----Bosnia...both stupid and senseless..both gave reasons that are not true for military involvement. Neither one declared war....both unconstitutional.
Taxes....crap on both sides...Bush just spends the money faster
Health care--at least Bill didn't agree to send billions to another country for their health care.
The problem with education is.....I don't think either party has any idea how to clean up that mess.
Shrub craeted thousands of new government jobs...the TSA, etc......swing and miss..
Firearms.....both parties suck.
Judicial appointments...that's the safe fall back isn't it.....the Supreme court has only made a handful of constitutional decisions in the last 100 years and you have hope for them?
Oh and now we bring up the other last resort..libertarians....I am a register republican. And I have never voted for a libertarian.....I don't remember being so scared at the airport when Billy was in the chair.....
1/6/2004 10:22:43 AM EDT
[#19]
What is the answer then?
Don't vote Repub, don't vote Dem, don't vote Libertarian, Green party???

Given the three choices, I'm sticking with Republicans.
1/6/2004 10:26:54 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
...Judicial appointments...that's the safe fall back isn't it.....the Supreme court has only made a handful of constitutional decisions in the last 100 years and you have hope for them?...
View Quote


If the USSC goes solidly to the left, our Constitution isn't worth the paper upon which it is written - so, yeah, I'll ALWAYS bring that issue up because it is always valid.  It is the primary reason that I always have & always (unless the GOP platform changes VERY dramatically) will vote Republican, in every election...
1/6/2004 10:26:55 AM EDT
[#21]
Wow, great article. One of the best I have read for a long time.

Personally, I don’t feel that I OWE the Republican Party anything, including my vote. If they put a good candidate up for election, fine, I’ll vote for him. But if they don’t, I have no problem voting for a third party candidate.

Quoted:

Take over the Republican Party just as we did in 1964, 1980, and 1984. ...

A couple of election cycles later and BOOM! we had President Reagan in two back-to-back landslides!

We need to do it again.
View Quote


Reagan passed the Gun Control Act of 1986 into law after his 1984 election. This is the one that made new machine guns illegal and is the reason why legal ones now cost 10x that they normally would. AP ammo was also outlawed that year. I don’t call that “winning one for the cause of liberty.”
1/6/2004 10:31:47 AM EDT
[#22]
Come on, Hound

Was the AWB and Brady Bill defeated by Republicans?

Ask the guys who were flying the F-16's getting shot at while enforcing the No-Fly Zone if the Iraq War was stupid and senseless.  There is alot about Iraq that is yet to be discovered.  Also, it is not unconstitutional for a president to take military action without declaring war.  Don't forget that he also had consent from Congress

I will put a Republican's idea of tax reform up against a Democrat's any day.  The Democrat tax idea is income redistribution and the fall of Capitalism.  Nothing less.  If you don't believe me, ask Joe Lieberman

My wife is a teacher and despite the fact that she is in the NEA, she has stated that the No Child Left Behind Act and school accountability will go a helluva lot further than throwing more money at schools.  

Yes, GWB created Homeland Security and the TSA.  But what would you have done in response to hijacked airplanes killing thousands of Americans?  Business as usual?


Sure, both parties suck regarding firearms but I defy you to write a letter to every member of Congress regarding the renewal of the AWB.  Tally up the Yea's and Nea's and what party do you think is going to be more in line with your position?  Care to guess before writing all those letters?
1/6/2004 10:48:46 AM EDT
[#23]
Come on, Hound

Was the AWB and Brady Bill defeated by Republicans?..who signed them and voted for them?

Ask the guys who were flying the F-16's getting shot at while enforcing the No-Fly Zone if the Iraq War was stupid and senseless. There is alot about Iraq that is yet to be discovered. Also, it is not unconstitutional for a president to take military action without declaring war. Don't forget that he also had consent from Congress.
I don't know which version of the constitution you are reading is...but the last constitutional war was declared in 1941.
It is stupid and senseless to beat up Mike's cousin when Mike hit you. You don't go and finish Daddy's war.


I will put a Republican's idea of tax reform up against a Democrat's any day. The Democrat tax idea is income redistribution and the fall of Capitalism. Nothing less. If you don't believe me, ask Joe Lieberman. You are correct...so the rep give a little back and then spend everything--good plan

My wife is a teacher and despite the fact that she is in the NEA, she has stated that the No Child Left Behind Act and school accountability will go a helluva lot further than throwing more money at schools. I respect and thank your wife...I am sorry that she has to do that..still there is no easy way out of the mess.

Yes, GWB created Homeland Security and the TSA. But what would you have done in response to hijacked airplanes killing thousands of Americans? Business as usual?
Kill the people responsible..simple really.
The governments of Afghanistan and Iraq had tenuous links to that event. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were much more heavily involved.

Sure, both parties suck regarding firearms but I defy you to write a letter to every member of Congress regarding the renewal of the AWB. Tally up the Yea's and Nea's and what party do you think is going to be more in line with your position? Care to guess before writing all those letters?
This arguement just doesn't hold any water...the Dems KNOW not to say anything about Guns...now we got to teach the Republicans
1/6/2004 11:02:50 AM EDT
[#24]
Yes, Republicans signed the bill but wasn't your point that a Democratic president and republican congress will cancel each other out?  

This Daddy's War Bullshit is so annoying.  So you believe that GWB was sitting in his ranch in Crawford TX and got the idea that he will run for President, get elected, and then wait for some excuse to go and attack Iraq just because Daddy didn't finish it.  All the while he was able to hide his devious intent from most of the Democrats in elected office that defy him every chance that they possibly can?  

And as for taxes, sure he has been spending like a madman and that is a sore spot with me as well.  But atleast he is giving me some of my money back.  The Dems think it is your responsibility to pay for ecery hair-brained program that they come up with.

I agree that we have been treating the Saudi's with kid gloves and it is irritating. However, 9/11 showed us that our Security and Intelligence was seriously lacking.  So we go and wipe out the Saudis and Pakistanis.  What does that do to prevent Egyptians or Syrians from hijacking planes?  Or do we allow them to do crash a couple more planes and then go kill them.

My vote is going to who I think most closely represents my views.  Sure I don't agree with the Bush Administration on everything.  But I would rather deal with the problems of Bush Administration than those of a Dean Administration.  This, unfortunately, is going to be our choice