(c) 2012 Earl L Haehl – Permission is granted to redistribute this in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.
In my last missive in this string I went into reasons the President should be defeated. I harbor no illusions that this may not occur. I anticipated that Bubba Clinton would would not win in 1996 based on 1994 elections. My dislike for Bubba’s policies is exceeded by my respect for his political abilities. And I expected W Bush to go down in 2004—but he evidently learned the principle of keeping the war going through the election. And it looks like Mr Obama is also learning this lesson.
So this is a range of alternatives to bring about freedom. The open revolution option is off the table—there may be a time when the level of chaos is such that it might become an option but I do not see it in my lifetime. We need to realize that we did not get in this situation overnight. See my article Smith to Keynes at: https://loboviejo.com/2012/03/08/a-quick-trip-f…es-and-krugman/
Alternative one: Vote for the Republican. This follows the strategy of a successful municipal campaign that took about five election cycles to get its point across. These things tend to be more dramatic on the local level so the message has to be emphasized. A large movement called “No Incumbents Without Cause” or some such that keeps tabs on officials is important.
Disadvantage: In this case it means Mitt Romney. The overall similarity between Obama and Romney is strong. Both are progressive who believe in big government and while Romney talks about reducing the deficit, he is unlikely to make any substantial cuts. The only difference I can see is that Romney would probably appoint vanilla judges as opposed to committed socialists. Considering the performance of Justice Roberts in the Obamacare case, this may need reconsideration.
Alternative two: Vote for an alternative party. Gary Johnson (L) will be on the ballot in all states. A Green Party candidate is also available. Enough third party votes could force the election into the House of Representatives—the result would be dependent on who takes the house.
Disadvantage: The last election decided by the House was in 1824 when John Quincy Adams was elected over Andrew Jackson—that year the political parties suffered meltdown. The last third party to receive electoral votes was the American Independent Party whose 1968 ticket (Wallace-LeMay) garnered 46. 1n 1912 the Progressive Party took second place with 88 electoral votes. In the 1992 election, Ross Perot’s performance in key Republican states gave Clinton the win. The minor parties played no significant role in 2000 despite Democrats’ contention about Nader. Harry Browne and Pat Buchanan took as many votes from Bush as Nader from Gore.
Alternative three: Do not vote. This is a principled decision as well. It is not my decision but it has a rationale that the lesser of the evils is still evil. Part of the theory is that extremely low turnout will discredit the electee and the real change comes from that.
Disadvantage: Low electoral turnout is a fact of life in the United States. Staying home to get energized may help but it may not translate into action afterwards. It is not really easy to get motivated by an event that is two to four years away.
Whatever the immediate strategy, it will probably not be enough to effect a change in and of itself. My next installment will be After November What?!