Menu

Home › Forums › Other › Patriotic Not to Vote? Your Opinion Please

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 46 total)
1 2 3 4
  • Author
    Posts
  • September 17, 2008 at 10:31 PM #13867
    Jim Jones
    Participant

    I ran across this article a couple of days ago and can identify with the author. I would love to hear some of your opinions.

    The article was originally published in a Military Times paper.

    As a side note, the political statements that our future leaders have been making over the last few remind me of sitting in the school gym and listening to the students who were running for student government. Noting but superficial statements lacking any detail combined with flipping and spinning all over the other candidates statement with even less detail and candor. Where are John McCain’s and Barack Obama’s manifestos detailing their plans for the major pillars of our government, economy and society. Is that too much to ask?

    Our patriotic duty

    Citizens should take back political power by not voting
    By Joe D. Haines

    Actor Russell Crowe has a great scene as Capt. Jack Aubrey in the movie “Master and Commander.” One evening at the officers’ mess, he tricks the ship’s surgeon into choosing between two weevils crawling around a loaf of bread. Dr. Maturin at first declines, claiming the insects are identical. But Aubrey presses him, forcing the physician-naturalist to finally choose the hardier-appearing weevil.

    The inebriated Aubrey is delighted, erupting, “In the service, Doctor, we always choose the lesser of two weevils!”

    This scene perfectly describes the American voters’ choices in the upcoming presidential election. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain comes close to qualifying as the next leader of the free world. Yet Americans who are disillusioned are criticized for not participating in the political process. The fault, however, is misplaced. It lies squarely with the major political parties who limit our choices to the lesser of two (we)evils.

    Apathy among the citizenry is not a new problem in America. My home state’s favorite son, Will Rogers, put it best during the Great Depression when he said, “Come pretty near having two holidays of equal importance in the same week — Halloween and Election [Day]. And of the two, Election provides us with the most fun. On Halloween, they put pumpkins on their heads, and on Election, they don’t have to.”

    The Republican and Democratic parties have grown so powerful and corrupt that the constitutional republic set in motion by the founders is nearly wrecked. The desires of the people are subverted by the greed of corporations, the lust for power by professional politicians and the demands of special interest groups.

    We used to teach our children the high honor of elected office. But no responsible parent would recommend politics to his child, any more than he would recommend a life of crime.

    Yet complaining about problems without offering some solution is little more than whining. How can concerned Americans best respond? The most patriotic choice Americans can make in the next election may be not voting. As Thomas DiLorenzo of Maryland’s Loyola College writes, “Being patriotic in America means being devoted to the Constitution, if not the natural rights philosophy that motivated much of it. Since neither of the major political parties has any interest whatsoever in enforcing the constitutional limits of the state, they are all traitors to the Constitution.”

    Thus, voting for the current crop of politicians is not only unpatriotic, but it allows them to claim legitimacy. What if we held an election and nobody came? As DiLorenzo suggests, perhaps the unconstitutional regime in Washington would be delegitimized. It may even be possible that some of the more opportunistic politicians would be concerned enough about their loss of power that they’d start upholding the Constitution and actually representing the people they supposedly serve.

    Americans have forgotten that the ultimate power in this country resides with the people. Elected representatives should merely convey the wishes of their constituents. Tragically, Americans have abdicated their responsibility and allowed the representatives to function as if they possessed the power. As a result, we have the worst collection of self-promoting, power-hungry office holders the country has ever known.

    Rogers got it right again when he observed, “This country runs in spite of government, not by aid of it.” Yet today’s intrusive and abusive federal government runs perilously close to destroying the greatest constitutional republic the world has ever known.

    ———

    The writer, an active-duty lieutenant commander, is a student flight surgeon at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Fla. His e-mail address is [email protected].

    September 18, 2008 at 12:32 AM #271910
    urbanrealtor
    Participant

    While the current list of candidates clearly does not seem qualified to the author, there is a problem with what he is saying.

    The problem is the constitution. That may seem ironic considering the thrust of his argument but this irony does not make it less true.

    The constitution has specific qualifications laid out for becoming president. The only one we control is the electors’ choice as a reflection of the popular vote. The constitution does not make mention of the need to be liked. The constitution has no ego. It does not care if you love it or if you have some constitutionally-oriented concept of patriotism. The constitution lays out the rules and lays out the mechanisms for interpreting those rules and for changing them. Legitimacy is the domain of the Supreme Court. Since the only qualification we control is popular approval, withholding our vote does not give us greater control. The constitution already has a category for this. Not acting simply makes us non-actors.

    I doubt this will change the complaints of the author. The only difference it will make is that whatever complaints he has about the new administration will sound more like the punchline to a joke after January. This short-sighted thinking leads to unintended consequences (eg: 2000). Irrational acting only leads to unwanted results.

    September 18, 2008 at 12:32 AM #272149
    urbanrealtor
    Participant

    While the current list of candidates clearly does not seem qualified to the author, there is a problem with what he is saying.

    The problem is the constitution. That may seem ironic considering the thrust of his argument but this irony does not make it less true.

    The constitution has specific qualifications laid out for becoming president. The only one we control is the electors’ choice as a reflection of the popular vote. The constitution does not make mention of the need to be liked. The constitution has no ego. It does not care if you love it or if you have some constitutionally-oriented concept of patriotism. The constitution lays out the rules and lays out the mechanisms for interpreting those rules and for changing them. Legitimacy is the domain of the Supreme Court. Since the only qualification we control is popular approval, withholding our vote does not give us greater control. The constitution already has a category for this. Not acting simply makes us non-actors.

    I doubt this will change the complaints of the author. The only difference it will make is that whatever complaints he has about the new administration will sound more like the punchline to a joke after January. This short-sighted thinking leads to unintended consequences (eg: 2000). Irrational acting only leads to unwanted results.

    September 18, 2008 at 12:32 AM #272157
    urbanrealtor
    Participant

    While the current list of candidates clearly does not seem qualified to the author, there is a problem with what he is saying.

    The problem is the constitution. That may seem ironic considering the thrust of his argument but this irony does not make it less true.

    The constitution has specific qualifications laid out for becoming president. The only one we control is the electors’ choice as a reflection of the popular vote. The constitution does not make mention of the need to be liked. The constitution has no ego. It does not care if you love it or if you have some constitutionally-oriented concept of patriotism. The constitution lays out the rules and lays out the mechanisms for interpreting those rules and for changing them. Legitimacy is the domain of the Supreme Court. Since the only qualification we control is popular approval, withholding our vote does not give us greater control. The constitution already has a category for this. Not acting simply makes us non-actors.

    I doubt this will change the complaints of the author. The only difference it will make is that whatever complaints he has about the new administration will sound more like the punchline to a joke after January. This short-sighted thinking leads to unintended consequences (eg: 2000). Irrational acting only leads to unwanted results.

    September 18, 2008 at 12:32 AM #272198
    urbanrealtor
    Participant

    While the current list of candidates clearly does not seem qualified to the author, there is a problem with what he is saying.

    The problem is the constitution. That may seem ironic considering the thrust of his argument but this irony does not make it less true.

    The constitution has specific qualifications laid out for becoming president. The only one we control is the electors’ choice as a reflection of the popular vote. The constitution does not make mention of the need to be liked. The constitution has no ego. It does not care if you love it or if you have some constitutionally-oriented concept of patriotism. The constitution lays out the rules and lays out the mechanisms for interpreting those rules and for changing them. Legitimacy is the domain of the Supreme Court. Since the only qualification we control is popular approval, withholding our vote does not give us greater control. The constitution already has a category for this. Not acting simply makes us non-actors.

    I doubt this will change the complaints of the author. The only difference it will make is that whatever complaints he has about the new administration will sound more like the punchline to a joke after January. This short-sighted thinking leads to unintended consequences (eg: 2000). Irrational acting only leads to unwanted results.

    September 18, 2008 at 12:32 AM #272222
    urbanrealtor
    Participant

    While the current list of candidates clearly does not seem qualified to the author, there is a problem with what he is saying.

    The problem is the constitution. That may seem ironic considering the thrust of his argument but this irony does not make it less true.

    The constitution has specific qualifications laid out for becoming president. The only one we control is the electors’ choice as a reflection of the popular vote. The constitution does not make mention of the need to be liked. The constitution has no ego. It does not care if you love it or if you have some constitutionally-oriented concept of patriotism. The constitution lays out the rules and lays out the mechanisms for interpreting those rules and for changing them. Legitimacy is the domain of the Supreme Court. Since the only qualification we control is popular approval, withholding our vote does not give us greater control. The constitution already has a category for this. Not acting simply makes us non-actors.

    I doubt this will change the complaints of the author. The only difference it will make is that whatever complaints he has about the new administration will sound more like the punchline to a joke after January. This short-sighted thinking leads to unintended consequences (eg: 2000). Irrational acting only leads to unwanted results.

    September 18, 2008 at 2:39 PM #272199
    poorgradstudent
    Participant

    Not voting and doing nothing is a great way to support the status quo.

    There are tons of third-party candidates, many of whom are on the ballot in most states. If someone doesn’t like either of the major party candidates, it sends a much stronger message to vote 3rd party rather than not vote.

    On top of that, in California and San Diego there are always a lot of dumb propositions on the ballot to vote no to. (Can we do away with the proposition system yet, or at least reform it?). There’s always at least one that is close to a 50-50 split, so even if your vote doesn’t seem to count on the Presidential election, there are other issues it does matter.

    September 18, 2008 at 2:39 PM #272440
    poorgradstudent
    Participant

    Not voting and doing nothing is a great way to support the status quo.

    There are tons of third-party candidates, many of whom are on the ballot in most states. If someone doesn’t like either of the major party candidates, it sends a much stronger message to vote 3rd party rather than not vote.

    On top of that, in California and San Diego there are always a lot of dumb propositions on the ballot to vote no to. (Can we do away with the proposition system yet, or at least reform it?). There’s always at least one that is close to a 50-50 split, so even if your vote doesn’t seem to count on the Presidential election, there are other issues it does matter.

    September 18, 2008 at 2:39 PM #272447
    poorgradstudent
    Participant

    Not voting and doing nothing is a great way to support the status quo.

    There are tons of third-party candidates, many of whom are on the ballot in most states. If someone doesn’t like either of the major party candidates, it sends a much stronger message to vote 3rd party rather than not vote.

    On top of that, in California and San Diego there are always a lot of dumb propositions on the ballot to vote no to. (Can we do away with the proposition system yet, or at least reform it?). There’s always at least one that is close to a 50-50 split, so even if your vote doesn’t seem to count on the Presidential election, there are other issues it does matter.

    September 18, 2008 at 2:39 PM #272488
    poorgradstudent
    Participant

    Not voting and doing nothing is a great way to support the status quo.

    There are tons of third-party candidates, many of whom are on the ballot in most states. If someone doesn’t like either of the major party candidates, it sends a much stronger message to vote 3rd party rather than not vote.

    On top of that, in California and San Diego there are always a lot of dumb propositions on the ballot to vote no to. (Can we do away with the proposition system yet, or at least reform it?). There’s always at least one that is close to a 50-50 split, so even if your vote doesn’t seem to count on the Presidential election, there are other issues it does matter.

    September 18, 2008 at 2:39 PM #272512
    poorgradstudent
    Participant

    Not voting and doing nothing is a great way to support the status quo.

    There are tons of third-party candidates, many of whom are on the ballot in most states. If someone doesn’t like either of the major party candidates, it sends a much stronger message to vote 3rd party rather than not vote.

    On top of that, in California and San Diego there are always a lot of dumb propositions on the ballot to vote no to. (Can we do away with the proposition system yet, or at least reform it?). There’s always at least one that is close to a 50-50 split, so even if your vote doesn’t seem to count on the Presidential election, there are other issues it does matter.

    September 18, 2008 at 4:38 PM #272249
    NotCranky
    Participant

    If your conscience tells you that abstaining from voting is patriotic than I agree. “Patriotism” is a concept that is slippery to define, of questionable value and easily subject to corruption and exploitation. What better place is there than your conscience to decide on such matters?

    September 18, 2008 at 4:38 PM #272490
    NotCranky
    Participant

    If your conscience tells you that abstaining from voting is patriotic than I agree. “Patriotism” is a concept that is slippery to define, of questionable value and easily subject to corruption and exploitation. What better place is there than your conscience to decide on such matters?

    September 18, 2008 at 4:38 PM #272497
    NotCranky
    Participant

    If your conscience tells you that abstaining from voting is patriotic than I agree. “Patriotism” is a concept that is slippery to define, of questionable value and easily subject to corruption and exploitation. What better place is there than your conscience to decide on such matters?

    September 18, 2008 at 4:38 PM #272538
    NotCranky
    Participant

    If your conscience tells you that abstaining from voting is patriotic than I agree. “Patriotism” is a concept that is slippery to define, of questionable value and easily subject to corruption and exploitation. What better place is there than your conscience to decide on such matters?

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 46 total)
1 2 3 4
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.