Two good articles about the 2012 elections

Last month I pointed out that for economic reasons, 'the US presidential elections are essentially irrelevant'. I summed up as follows:

All the Presidential campaigning that will plague us over the next year is completely and utterly irrelevant if it doesn't take this economic reality into account . . . but it won't. It can't, because none of the likely candidates, from either party, dares to face up to economic reality. They know they would never be elected if they did. As far as the Presidential election is concerned, we are truly screwed.

Our only recourse is to seek out, nominate and elect Congressional representatives and Senators who understand economic reality, and who will have the courage to work towards policies that acknowledge and address that reality. I don't care what party they're from. If they're honest people, who will do what's right, I'll support them. They'll have to understand that if they do the right thing, they'll see the electorate turn against them: but they have to have the moral courage to do it anyway.

That's our task in the coming year. It may not be enough to get us out of this mess . . . but it's the only hope we have.

Like many others who are negative about the forthcoming elections, I've had e-mails and messages from others claiming that it's essential to elect a Republican president for fear of the Supreme Court justices a Democrat president may appoint, or to prevent further erosion of Second Amendment rights, and so on. I think all such arguments are irrelevant, because there's no guarantee whatsoever that a President who's a career politician, a 'creature of the system', will give any consideration to conservative and/or libertarian interests in his judicial nominations and other policies. He'll be guided by the 'system', by 'crony capitalism' and the many éminences grises who control the levers of power and pull the strings to make their puppet politicians dance to their tune.

Now Borepatch and Frank W. James have both put up blog posts that articulate those concerns very well. Borepatch points out (as he's done before) that all the candidates for the Presidency, and both major parties, are essentially Fascist in their underlying policies and assumptions.

... both of the Tribes on offer are pretty indistinguishable, other than the speed they would have us lurch towards the abyss. There's "Bad" and "Worse" to choose from.

Or you could phrase it as "boil the frog fast" or "boil the frog slow". Obama has done something unique in American history - he's rallied perhaps a million people to take to the streets to protest Big Government overreach. The Stupid Party is stupid of course (this memo brought to you by the Department of Tautology), and so there's reason to think that the "boil the frog fast" option is preferable - because turning up the heat may actually make the frog jump out of the water.

. . .

The arguments to vote Republican have so far been entirely unconvincing. Sure Obama will be a disaster. Mittens will be better? I'm willing to listen, but quite frankly, Romney himself has been very careful indeed to avoid saying anything about what he'd do once in office. So all I can do is look at the record he put together when Governor, and the record of the recent GOP Congress. Those records are "boil the frog slowly".

The others are in the same ballpark, other than the Wookie who doesn't have a chance because he's the only one not a fascist, who explicitly rejects increased Government power, who explicitly says he would devolve power to the States and to the People; stick a fork in him, the GOP will work to elect Obama rather than him.

And so, they're both objectively fascist. Both of them.

There's more at the link.

Frank W. James points out that appeals to vote Republican in order to defend the Second Amendment, or ensure 'better' appointments to the Supreme Court, are equally ridiculous.

If you examine the record, gun owners and the 2nd Amendment do best when at least one house of Congress is controlled by the Repubs and the rest belong to the Democrats, but when the White House has a Repub President, we get the shaft.

. . .

As for the Supremes, by what logic does anyone think that Mittens will do better than President Unicorn when it comes to appointing a Supreme that continues to protect our 2nd Amendment rights?

. . .

Mittens is an East Coast super-rich guy who has no connection whatsoever with the working class or those who pay the taxes that fund this insanity. I don't trust politicians in general, but I trust Rich Republican candidates even less.

My greatest fear, if Mittens does get elected, is he will prove compentent and shove shit through that will be far worse than anything President Unicorn and his crew could even dream about, Holder and his FAST & FURIOUS scandal included . . .

Again, more at the link.

I agree with both of my fellow bloggers, and I reiterate my position as outlined at the beginning of this article. Those of us who care about the Constitution, individual versus collective rights, and the maximum possible degree of freedom in our society, may as well write off this year's Presidential election. There isn't a candidate in the pool who both offers policies that meet our requirements, and sane, sound, realistic methods of implementing them. (Ron Paul has some of the first, but very few of the second.) Instead, let's concentrate on finding and encouraging suitable candidates for Congress and the Senate, and do all we can to get them elected. It matters not whether they're Democrat or Republican, provided that they're honorable, honest and moral according to the light they've been given.

(Let's be honest: right now, even to a centrist libertarian like myself, Ralph Nader looks more honorable and honest than most of our existing Congressional representatives and Senators. He may be far to my left in political terms, but at least he's honest about it! As far as I can tell, he's never made a habit of lying in his teeth to his constituents. Yes, at this point I'm sufficiently fed up with most 'establishment' candidates - of both parties - that I'd probably vote for Mr. Nader in preference to them, given a choice!)

*Sigh*

Peter