Voting for the lesser of two evils? A Nation of Sheep will beget a Government of Wolves
- added July 15, 2008
- 38 responses
-
-
-
- shadowtrekker
- authored and added this
-
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves” - Edward R Murrow. When we as citizens cast our vote with the “lesser of two evils” deduction, what we are essentially telling the candidates is that we support them. The politicians know this, the parties know this and the government is more of a quantity over quality scenario because of it.
I hear a lot of “well he’s the best we have” excuses and when I hear that I can’t help but ask who’s in charge of this country? The last I looked it was the citizens who elected our officials and presidents and so it should be the citizens who pick the best of the best, not the best of the worst. We need to come to the realization that our politicians do not want to change too much because they might lose the power that we don’t realize is ours to begin with. This, sadly is the case of our government, not the presidents nor the congress personally, it’s become more than that, it’s the horse they ride on.
To Vote or Not Vote
If you cannot vote with your full heart behind it, or are voting just so the other doesn’t win then you are telling your government that you are a sheep. You are telling the candidate that you support his ways and to keep it up. Think about that for a second, is that really helping you and supporting what you believe or is it supporting the candidate and the government that you really don’t believe in?
If you don’t vote or don’t vote for one of the two obvious winners then you are saying, no I don’t support you, or neither of you for that matter. What would happen if we all held our presidential employees to this standard? What would happen if no one showed up to their rallies, or no one tuned in to biased, time prejudiced debates? What if a presidential election tallied 19,000 total votes? Would it really make a difference if we vote for corruptness or not vote if corruptness is going to inherit our Whitehouse anyways?
What I see in both of our current candidates is differences in diversion, but the same tragic end for this country. If the end is the same, why should we care who gets us to the end slower or faster for that matter? We should tell our leaders (who are essentially our employees) that if you want our time, money and our vote then start calling out the very government that you want to lead. If we keep concentrating on how bad the current president is then we are shooting ourselves in the foot. This gives an easy way for our candidate to tell us why they are better than the last guy and not what the people really need to hear. We need to concentrate on a reformation of our government as a whole, not the Bush administration, or Clinton and his sexual endeavors; they are all really just failed and poor employees. Who’s the man behind the curtain? It’s us, the citizens and we don't even know it. To vote is to vote, to not vote is to vote. Well currently that’s the truth. Change it.
I hear a lot of “well he’s the best we have” excuses and when I hear that I can’t help but ask who’s in charge of this country? The last I looked it was the citizens who elected our officials and presidents and so it should be the citizens who pick the best of the best, not the best of the worst. We need to come to the realization that our politicians do not want to change too much because they might lose the power that we don’t realize is ours to begin with. This, sadly is the case of our government, not the presidents nor the congress personally, it’s become more than that, it’s the horse they ride on.
To Vote or Not Vote
If you cannot vote with your full heart behind it, or are voting just so the other doesn’t win then you are telling your government that you are a sheep. You are telling the candidate that you support his ways and to keep it up. Think about that for a second, is that really helping you and supporting what you believe or is it supporting the candidate and the government that you really don’t believe in?
If you don’t vote or don’t vote for one of the two obvious winners then you are saying, no I don’t support you, or neither of you for that matter. What would happen if we all held our presidential employees to this standard? What would happen if no one showed up to their rallies, or no one tuned in to biased, time prejudiced debates? What if a presidential election tallied 19,000 total votes? Would it really make a difference if we vote for corruptness or not vote if corruptness is going to inherit our Whitehouse anyways?
What I see in both of our current candidates is differences in diversion, but the same tragic end for this country. If the end is the same, why should we care who gets us to the end slower or faster for that matter? We should tell our leaders (who are essentially our employees) that if you want our time, money and our vote then start calling out the very government that you want to lead. If we keep concentrating on how bad the current president is then we are shooting ourselves in the foot. This gives an easy way for our candidate to tell us why they are better than the last guy and not what the people really need to hear. We need to concentrate on a reformation of our government as a whole, not the Bush administration, or Clinton and his sexual endeavors; they are all really just failed and poor employees. Who’s the man behind the curtain? It’s us, the citizens and we don't even know it. To vote is to vote, to not vote is to vote. Well currently that’s the truth. Change it.
-
-
-
-
- shadowtrekker
- 2 months ago
38 responses // Voting for the lesser of two evils? A Nation of Sheep will beget a Government of Wolves
-
Totally agree. It's up to us to change OUR government.we can't just rely on politicians to do it for us.
-
Yes, we have to participate in our Democracy in order for it to work. You don't have to vote along with the popular parties- though I don't think many people view Obama and McCain as two sides of the same coin. They are very different in policies, personality,etc- so at least I don't feel that I'm voting for the lesser of two evils, I support Obama happily and hopefully.
-
-
-
-
- DeliaTheArtist
- 2 months ago
-
-
Well, look at the choices we have for President and tell me how else we're supposed to think. It IS the choice of the lessor of two evils, look at them. What do you expect?
-
You can't put much creedence into this article anyway. Anyone who would call Bill Clinton a "failed and poor employee" obviously has very little grasp of American history. Or anything else.
-
I refuse to vote for the fact that I refuse to partake in a failed system.
I exercise my Right Not To Vote!
I see it as a means to keep the sheeple pacified and thinking that they actually have "participated" in a productive process.
Seems to me that the popular vote is worthless and it's all about the electoral college.
The vote of the planners,plotters, and schemers....
The sheeple continue to seek a new shepherd.
Good luck lemmings..... -
We should certainly vote, but only when it's worth it. otherwise that's a wasted vote
-
-
-
-
- shadowtrekker
- 2 months ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ILiveonaClock
- 2 months ago
-
-
The point is we have to stick up for ourselves. Do you even know all the candidates? (Not just Obama and McCain) There is probably a candidate who you agree more with but you don't know about them because no one has told you. If we accept what is given to us we will never be happy. Not so long as we have the capacity to imagine a better way.
One should always vote. It's always worth it. You can either stand up for yourself or not. Not voting is voting by default. -
In many countries, people can vote "blank" - their vote counts inasmuch as their vote is included in the total votes and percentage calculations. Voting blank is a clear way of expressing that one doesn't back any of the candidates, whereas not voting is no big deal to the candidates since it won't affect their percentages, so to not vote is not a vote at all, it is just absenteeism and non-participation in the democratic process. The right-wing counts on people not voting, it makes victory for them so much easier.
-
-
-
-
- Vierotchka
- 2 months ago
-
-
I agree with your post entirely.
But enough circle-jerking, we all need to face reality.
What can you actually DO? I mean seriously? I know people on current love to say go out and do something, fight for your rights and all that stuff. Sure it's a nice thing to say, but no one does it because no one has any idea what to do.
This is a totally serious question, what do you do when the system is so utterly corrupt like it is now?
Protesting is useless, writing letters to congress and petitioning is useless, rioting is counter-productive and revolution has a low chance of success, would likely lead to implosion and would cause mass misery.
What can we do as such insignificant, powerless citizens?
The sad truth? Pretty much nothing. Without some way to organize tens of millions of people, nothing we do will make any noticeable difference. -
what we need is a leader? I'm sure martin luther king was told the same thing you just said, but hey, leaders lead.
-
-
-
-
- shadowtrekker
- 2 months ago
-
-
@shadowtrekker, "What if a presidential election tallied 19,000 total votes? Would it really make a difference if we vote for corruptness or not vote if corruptness is going to inherit our Whitehouse anyways?"
reminds me of ... i think it was Reagan's election, after which he kept mentioning the "mandate of the people" for his ideas and goals.
as i recall, it was a low-turnout election and his "mandate" comprised a slight majority of a big minority of voters...
if 40% of the voters turn out and you get 51% of the vote, 20+% ain't no "mandate" except in the bizarre minds of the elected.
somewhere i heard that in Nevada, or at least parts thereof, there IS a line item on the ballot for "None Of The Above", or "NOTA."
If NOTA gets the most votes, whatever office or position remains empty until the next scheduled election.
the Powers That Be, at all levels of government, HATE this idea, but if more communities and states and heck, everyone in the country ... could cast a vote for NOTA, .......... what a message that would be!
how about some websites to include that possibility and keep a tally? LOL!
..... and i'm still voting for the O-man as a hopeful insurance policy against McCain getting to nominate the next Supremes.
all in all, for all of the smoke of the last ten or more presidential elections, there's been more smoke than fire, pretty much every time.
Obama sounds, to me, like the first guy in a LONG time who can put a good sentence together and draw a conclusion from some evidence, let ALONE have enough brain cells to evaluate input and change his mind based on new input.
by the way, the next time someone says McC would be a better Commander-in-Chief because of his "military experience," ask 'em this....
he was a fighter pilot, right?
how much capability of strategic thinking does a fighter pilot need to have or get to exercise in THEIR daily work?????
they don't make the strategies or even choose the targets, other than from a list someone gives them.
THAT's NOT a measure of "CIC capability" in MY mind... how about yours? -
What if Barack wins?
Say he gets 65 million votes. Is it the sheep getting their illusion of democracy. Because those millions of people just didnt get it. Tricked by speeches? Or did they just vote for a lesser of two evils? Or did maybe one or two decide who they thought would do a better job, based on numerous issues that really matter? Not all or even a majority are just stupid sheet that just dont understand whos "our man" like certain enlightened ones.
Once again you did not mention Ron Paul but I will. The reason is because you lump McCain and Obama in the same category saying that both promote "in their own ways the same broken system of government that we have."
You were all about Ron Paul so........
What makes Obama part of the same broken system and not Paul?
I guess he was playing the part of a Republican congressman on alternate universe.
I love a lot of the things that Paul says like calling for an end to the Federal Reserve.
Ive seen that some of his votes reflect his talk but regardless of what he says, hes been part of this broken system for a lot longer than Obama
.
Besides all of that, I voted for Obama because I believe in him.
Im not uninformed
or misguided.
Im not fooled by speeches
or the media.
I believe that change will come when I vote in
November.
The article -
Change will come in November.... change from Bush, that's obvious. the change I'm talking about goes way beyond anyone who's going to win in November
-
-
-
-
- shadowtrekker
- 2 months ago
-
-
I think deep down some Ron Paul supporters want McCain to win
They wont admit it since they cant win a debate about it
Im not saying that what you want but I havent been convinced otherwise.
The fact that they dont care to stop him from winning scares me.
McCain goes against everything Ron Paul preaches
but at least hes a republican and is anti abortion right?
and since Obama favors abortion rights i guess Ithat trumps Rons anti war meesage
as far as the economy goes, im sure McCain will come along
I will make it easy for you closet McCain supporters
neoconservatives are the shit!!
McCain 08!
life is war and war is America -
you cannot have a brain and really mean what you say when you compare Paul and McCain because they are republicans. Their definition of republican is further from each other than jesse jackson and james dobson's definition of christianity
-
-
-
-
- shadowtrekker
- 2 months ago
-
-
I agree, neoconservatives are shit.
-
The point of this paper is not to point fingers specifically at any one person, that's taking the focus off of the true dilemma. I know you believe Obama is the answer, I don't. And for the record I don't think McCain is either. Paul would attempt to start it - his views are extreme when compared to our current system but not so extreme when compared to responsibility.
-
-
-
-
- shadowtrekker
- 2 months ago
-
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, shadowtrekker, but I think that the essence of the essay is that because of an enforced status quo that is propped up by the failed mainstream media (and a public education monopoly), we are no longer offered candidates that are willing to fight for INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
Neoconservatives and Democrats are both happy to pursue COLLECTIVISM and grow government. The only difference is that once their parties control the reigns they pursue their own agendas. They still are both more than willing to sacrifice the rights of certain individual Americans instead of staying true to their one legitimate purpose, which is to protect those rights.
This is not readily apparent to the average American voter because in every election, the debate is automatically framed around the same talking points as the last one. For instance, Barack Obama and John McCain, the two remaining "adversarial" candidates only disagree over which interventionist foreign policy strategy we should adopt. Ron Paul was the only one to raise the idea that we adhere to the Founders wishes of nonintervention.
With regards to the economy, they both seem to be trying to reassure voters that their forms of market manipulation are going to inoculate us and save us from facing the consequences of the government tinkering that put us here in the first place. Steve Chapman's recent article in Reason magazine outlines Obama's and McCain's so called "economic plans": "Just because voters will go along with a vague limit on total outlays doesn't mean they are willing to surrender funds going to them or their favorite causes. It's one thing to inform a toddler that he shouldn't eat too much candy. It's another to take the Tootsie Roll Pop out of his hand.
The Republican standard-bearer, however, acts as though the task will be easy. Among the methods offered in this plan: 'Eliminate broken programs. The federal government itself admits that one in five programs do not perform.' How about naming one? How about promising to pound a stake through its heart?
When it comes to spending, though, Obama is even worse. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation added up all the promises made by the two candidates and found that McCain's would cost taxpayers an extra $68 billion a year. Obama's add up to $344 billion a year.
The Illinois senator's pledge to get tough on unnecessary expenditures is as solid as cotton candy. Among his vows is to 'slash earmarks to no greater than what they were in 2001,' but earmarks make up less than 2 percent of the budget. Trying to restore fiscal discipline by cutting earmarks is like trying to lose weight by adopting an exercise program for your left index finger."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/127477.html
Any concerned American interested in witnessing a politician who is armed with a solid grasp of economics and is aware of the problems facing our economy would be well served by tuning in to C-SPAN (or searching YouTube) to see Congressman Paul putting Ben Bernanke's feet to fire. -
I know that I have exhausted this excerpt from a BREAK THE MATRIX article by theskeptic all over Current. But I think that it does a good job of explaining the problem and offers a solution:
[U]nderstanding libertarianism is vital if the United States is ever to reverse the current 100-year trend away from freedom. What most Americans don’t know is that libertarianism is simply the modern political label given to the philosophy that the United States was founded upon. It is the philosophy of individual liberty. Without rediscovering what that means, the United States may soon be a glorious experiment with self governance by a free people that ultimately devolved into just one more socialist mediocrity or authoritarian nightmare...
... While most Americans still consider the United States the “land of the free,” few probably understand that “free” means individual liberty. Most Americans in 2008 have either never heard of individual liberty, or haven’t heard about it in so long that they have forgotten what it means. After decades of immersion in collectivist ideology, most Americans have been led to believe that freedom is “democracy.” Most Americans are content to be told that they are free, so long as the evening news explains why the most recent decisions made about their lives are really in their best interests. They are content to derive their “freedom” from government.
Imagine the presidential campaign of 1796 with today’s political frontrunners and today’s American psyche. John McCain is promising a generous helping of warfare, without neglecting essential welfare. Barack Obama is promising a generous helping of welfare, without neglecting essential warfare (at least on behalf of Israel). As these two titans battle for the prize, Thomas Jefferson, the Libertarian candidate, and John Adams, the Constitution Party candidate, answer the occasional question from the debate moderator in those states where they are able to get onto the ballot and into the debates at all. What might our country have become if this had been reality in 1796? What is it becoming now?
Certainly there will not be a Libertarian Party candidate elected president in 2008, nor likely in 2012 or 2016. The most successful LP candidate for president was Ed Clark in the 1980 election, with a whopping 1% of the vote. While it would be wonderful to see the Libertarian political party gain prominence and power, this is not the essential priority. What is much more important is that the American people start rediscovering libertarianism, the philosophy of individual liberty, and once again start demanding to be free. Libertarianism must again dominate the platforms of all political parties, as it once did, if the present trends toward socialism and authoritarianism are to reverse. Only when a libertarian Republican runs against a libertarian Democrat, with perhaps even a libertarian third party candidate in contention, will we have a chance to restore the freedom that fueled America’s mercurial rise to greatness. Only by restoring individual liberty will America return to prosperity, and once again become the land of the free.
(End of excerpt)
Full article at link by theskeptic// BREAK THE MATRIX
http://www.breakthematrix.com/node/13847
Login/Registration is required to add a response.
