At the end of my sophomore year of high school, we voted for class officers. A friend of mine, James, was the current president, but was not going to be able to run for office after a string of infractions involving drugs and alcohol. Despite his obvious alcoholism and little to no respect for the rules, I’d have to admit he was a very good class president during the time he served. He was dedicated to his job, and he had great ideas for policy change and fundraising events. When he wasn’t allowed to run for office again, our class was pretty upset. The two students who ended up running for the president position weren’t very good candidates, either. Both were just fishing for college application fillers, and no one really thought either of them would be a good choice for class president. Many people went to the administration, but they wouldn’t budge. We had two choices, and no matter how we felt, one would be our president.
However, the class had another solution. When it came time to vote, instead of voting for one of the options, more than half the class either wrote James’s name in, or left their ballots blank. Of course, the administration still announced one of the candidates as the winner. However, the class had made a point. James was allowed to run for senior class office, and ended up being our president again. Granted, he got impeached after the school found out he accidentally kidnapped a small child while on mushrooms. (He thought she was a lawn gnome; honest mistake really.) But he did a great job during his term in office.
Why did I need to pick a candidate in the first place? Many philosophers have tried to propose models for how we got ourselves into the sticky situation that is the political society. There are many great theories, but they all boil down to two ideas. Either control was taken by intimidation and cunning, or it was willfully given in some kind of agreement. Now, if we accept the claim that control was taken by intimidation and cunning, then we de-legitimize government and technically assert the right to overtake, destroy, or simply abandon the political society, so long as we have the power to do so. However, if we accept the claim that people gave the government power in exchange for someone kind of service, we technically would have the right to simply not conform to the social agreement with government and live without being citizens of any specific country (illegal immigrants have taken advantage of this system quite nicely).
While we would love to accept the second theory as true, because it lends a sort of legitimacy towards the formation of government, I don’t think I can agree with either. I do believe that power was taken illegitimately, but it may have been done behind the mask of something legitimate. A “mafia” style formation of government may have occurred, where a group offered protection to people at the cost of giving them control, when in reality the group offering protection was actually the threat that people needed protection from. This is certainly the case in America. Politicians claim they will protect us from banks that take advantage of us. They claim they will protect us from terrorists who plan to destroy us. They claim they will give us back money that has been taken from us. But, in all actuality, the threats they claim to remove are simply the problems they have created.
I wasn’t aware of this until I received an e-mail from Peter Bond ’88 in regards to my last column. Apparently, the government forced the banks to give out sub-prime loans. To quote Bond’s message: “Am I not correct that it was the U.S. Congress, at the behest of the liberal members of the Banking Committee, that forced banks to issue sub-prime mortgages in direct conflict with the policy you advocate, all in the name of social justice”? Yes, sorry Wesleyan, but it was in fact the Democrats who caused the financial crisis. It was actually two Democrats, Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, who are at the roots of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Jimmy Carter forced banks into the sub-prime world with the Equal Opportunity Lending Act and Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. When the Republicans tried to deregulate these banks so they would no longer be forced to give out these loans to risky borrowers, Clinton threatened to veto it. The bill was reformed, and banks were still forced to be open lenders to people with little credit. Without an accurate idea of a borrower’s credit score, the loan becomes risky. Sadly, deregulation at this time could have saved us from the current crisis, but the liberal Democrats did not think of the consequences of their actions. You’ll probably be even more surprised to find out that Bush proposed the regulation of Freddie Mac and Sallie Mae, but shot down by Congress. He wanted more regulation of their lending, but the Congress, primarily the Democratic portion, would not support it. Interestingly enough, the Democrats are following the exact “mafia” model that I mentioned earlier. The Democrats are actually the root of the economic crisis. Democratic policy is the threat, and the Democratic Party claims that they have the solution.
We have two huge problems here. One the one hand, we have a liberal Democratic candidate who claims he will bring about the change needed to save the country. However, it is the Democratic policy of open lending which is the economic problem, and Obama, instead of admitting the failure of the policy and proposing a new one, claims he will regulate mortgage fraud. Obama has not actively proposed plans to solve many of the country’s problems, preaching of the future without telling us how he plans on getting there.
On the other hand, we have a conservative Republican candidate who is unlikely to pull out of the war in Iraq anytime soon, despite the overwhelming public cry to do so. While McCain has proposed some good plans, he has sidestepped many of the important issues. His ads are almost entirely attacks, and his choice for vice presidential candidate was an obvious political play to attract undecided working class voters.
To make it even more confusing, both candidates are proposing tax cuts: a measure which nearly any educated economist would tell you is the absolute worst solution to the current problem. Tax cuts means less money for the government, which means they’ll have less money to spend on all these programs and goals that both candidates are both proposing. They both counter that argument with the claim that they will cut government spending. Without defining the spending cuts in terms of specific monetary amounts saved by ending failing programs, however, there is no way for anyone to know if the budget will balance out or not.
Why should we need to vote for either of these men? Neither is answering the real questions. Both are proposing illegitimate plans to attract votes from those who aren’t educated on the issues. Both are using a mafia-style approach, promising to be the solution to the problem they created. These men aren’t trying to save the country. They are trying to win an election.
The greatest power an American has is the right to vote. With the vote, we can speak our minds; we have a say. However, the act of voting isn’t the only way to utilize this power. The refusal to vote—the rejection of party politics, lies and propaganda—is another way to speak out. No matter how many voters attend Election Day, a president will be elected. By not voting, you are refusing to give into the dishonest, greed-driven politics at play, and declaring that no politician will have your support until the country’s political system cleans up its act. On November 4, I will not be voting, and I hope that many of you will consider that option also.
Leave a Reply