Tuesday, October 30, 2012

An Argument For Voter Apathy?

Is it just me or are there others in the United States who get tired of hearing, “never has an election been more important for our country”? It was said in 2004 when John Kerry threatened to pull us prematurely out of Iraq and to start treating terrorists as criminals instead of enemies. It was said in 2010 when the Tea Party started to clean house in the Republican Party and went onto be the force behind one of the biggest turn-arounds in the history of legislative elections. And now it's being said again in this election as the nation teeters on the edge of financial and ideological oblivion.

The problem with these statements aren't that they're being over-used, it's that they've been too often true over such a short time. Too many elections are mattering too much, and why? Because government has gotten too big and plays too important a role in our every day lives. It just shouldn't matter that much but it does.

And, because it does matter as much as it does it is tearing this country apart. People on both sides of this election are threatening to do very serious things if things don't go their way. Many progressives are threatening to riot and some are also threatening Romney's life. Many conservatives are threatening to leave the country (in order to preserve their private property rights), and some governors have hinted at creating a constitutional crisis by simply refusing to cooperate with a federal government that, in their legal opinions, has over-stepped its constitutional authority.

Even if much of this are just frustrated words, the prospects of future elections being less divisive are not looking good. More likely, if something significant doesn't change, elections are bound to become even more and more divisive until we reach a point where some future election can end in no other way but civil war.

“Whoa wait!”, you say? Someone thinks I'm leaping to and really reaching out for that conclusion? Why do I believe it? Here.

Our nation is ideologically divided between big government progressives and small government Tea Party constitutionalists. These two groups between them are the plurality of American politics. The Democrats can't be successful without the progressives and the Republicans can't be successful without the Tea Party (constitutionalists or whatever else you prefer). Sure there are “third way” liberals, big government conservatives, and those smug moderates and independents, but even if they hold a majority between them there are generally no workable compromises to be reached. The progressives will block anything that reduces the size and scope of government and the Tea Party will block anything that increases it. Thus the only way to get anything done is to satisfy one group while essentially excluding the other.

This means whichever group is excluded is going to insist some great injustice is being perpetrated, and from whichever groups' perspective that is, it will be more than just rhetoric. It will be sincerely felt. If it's the progressives they will insist that the poor, the under-privileged, the general welfare of the planet are all being criminally assaulted. If it's the Tea Party they will insist individual liberty and dignity is being trounced and the world's precious resources are being mismanaged to such a degree that needy people are being starved and/or in some other way criminally deprived. Worst of all, they can't both be wrong. One of them will be right and we must choose correctly this election and every subsequent election or millions will suffer dearly for our bad decisions.

As intelligent and well educated as we may be, we the people are not up to this task. It's no slight against us I am making. It's just way too much pressure for a general population to endure, and more importantly it's far too much for any political architect to expect a nation to endure again and again without eventually reaching a point where too many of the people are unwilling to accept defeat at the polls.

Some pundits who are inclined to conspiracy theories suggest that elements amongst the progressives are intentionally driving the nation to this point because they believe only their side will ultimately be unwilling to accept defeat and the other will acquiesce in the interest of preserving the union. I don't buy that necessarily, but even if is true those conspirators have got to be alarmed at what they presently see. The constitutionalist Tea Party movement is here to stay and has thus far proven itself to be far more willing to risk all they have for their ideals than have the OWS roused mobs the progressives hoped to counter them with.

Whether one believes in such conspiracies or not doesn't matter. The unavoidable reality we find ourselves in is one where one of these two ideologies must win in the area of public policy or we will get nothing done. Most should agree this circumstance is unacceptable, whether you be inclined toward either ideology or to thinking productive compromise is the stuff of good governance.

Solutions?


So what are our available solutions, if any? Here are the ones I see.

[a] Dissolve the union. Unacceptable as I see it because it would only be a temporary solution at best. Both ideologies would still be around and we can't just keep breaking into smaller and smaller pieces every time governance in a nation becomes impossible because of the balance between them.
[b] Marginalize one or both ideologies, effectively making them non-factors. The only ways I see to do this are either unrealistic or inhuman. These ideologies aren't going away, either of them. There are even scientific studies suggesting the people who follow them do so for genetic reasons. We have to figure out a way to live in a world with both of them.
[c] Reduce the size and scope of government to such a low level that it is no longer an effective tool with which to advance the cause of an ideology. This of course would be total victory for the constitutionalists and near total defeat for the the progressives. I say 'near' total because the progressives could always go about building the government back up. It does, after all, seem to be the natural tendency of government to grow.

Solution [c] is the closest thing to a workable compromise and, I think, a workable solution to the problem that threatens to tear our nation apart.

But We Need To Do More


Further, I think that we constitutionalists should look for every opportunity we can to amend the constitution in ways that further clarify the limits on government we believe are already there, and wherever we believe government can further be limited without crippling it, we should amend toward such an end.

In other words, we constitutionalists, the champions of individual liberty and dignity, we are the solution. We must triumph in enough elections to essentially reset the government into a smaller and more limited one. That way we can afford to lose a few elections going forward and we can stop having to constantly say, “never has an election been more important for our country”. Just for once I'd like to hear pundits speak of voter apathy and have it be because what the next government will do just doesn't matter.

No comments:

Post a Comment