Foreign Policy and Electoral Politics
The case for political activism
Why participate in electoral politics?
This is a question I’m often asked by antiwar activists of all stripes, and especially by young people who wonder why they should bother with a process that oftentimes seems rigged from the get-go. With Election Day coming, and control of the US Senate up for grabs, it’s my chance to explain why antiwar activists – and especially libertarians – shouldn’t be just sitting on the sidelines.
My answer is contingent on the circumstances, however, as questions of strategy and tactics always are. If you live in a dictatorship where elections feature a single candidate, then electoral politics probably isn’t a good use of your time and energy. But even in the most unfavorable circumstances, the mere fact of running or being involved in an election campaign can have a powerful ripple effect.
It’s a definite understatement to say most Americans aren’t ideologues, and don’t think about politics a great deal: if and when they do consider the subject, it’s usually because Election Day is approaching. The great majority are too busy with the details of day-to-day living to consider the pressing issues of the day, but a window opens up around this time – a brief moment when political issues, including foreign policy issues, become a subject of discussion around the dinner table.
What this means is that the days and weeks preceding Election Day are the one time when a good many Americans are open to considering the price they pay for Empire. That’s why alleged "anti-imperialists" who take a "principled" stand against electoral activity in any way shape or form are full of it – or, more precisely, too full of themselves to think clearly about the issue. Their "stance" is more a fashion statement than a political position, more of a personal affirmation of who they are – I’m cool! I’m radical! I’m an anarchist, dude! – than the result of any real analysis of how to effect social change. Such people never understood the difference between libertarianism and narcissism.
Even in an era or a locality where the chances of victory are small to nearly nonexistent, electoral politics can have a powerful impact as an educational device – a way to reach great numbers of people who would be otherwise inaccessible. I can’t even begin to count the number of times I’ve heard people say to me: "I was watching the Republican presidential debate and listening to Ron Paul go up against Rudy Giuliani and I suddenly realized ‘Hey, he’s right!’"
Which is kind of funny, since the Conventional Wisdom – as perceived by our all-knowing pundits – was that Giuliani won that debate, and Paul was finished, vanquished, over. It took a while for the reality to sink in, as events in Iraq progressed, that Paul was absolutely right: many people remembered that moment, and were won over in retrospect. So the fruits of a persistent educational effort aren’t always apparent at the beginning: the Ron Paul Effect, so to speak, was cumulative. So much of politics is sheer repetition, after all, and by the time Paul ran for the GOP nomination a second time the message had finally begun to sink in. It just took a while.
Dismantling the Empire is not a task for the impatient. If you aren’t in it for the long haul then you might as well not even bother. It took over a century for the American people to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the center of the international arena: decades of constant propaganda, much of it emanating from abroad – and from the Eastern financial centers in New York, New England, and Washington – before the natural "isolationism" (i.e. common sense) of the American people was overcome. It will take some time to undo all that – but it can be done.
And electoral politics is a key part of how it will and must be done. That’s because people make policy. The only way to change the policy is to replace the people making it, and the only way to do that in this country is through the electoral process.
Of course we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that if only we elect the "right" people, everything will automatically fall into place from the day after Election Day. That will only mark the beginning of our fight.
An entire stratum of the population lives off of the policy of imperialism: the military contractors, and all those who make their living either directly or indirectly due to the depth and breadth of America’s footprint in the world. And of course there is an entire class of politicians who have made appeasing the war god a lifelong career, and quite a profitable one at that.
These people have a vested economic and psychological interest in maintaining and expanding the Empire: as a class they are our implacable enemies. What’s more, they are well-organized, vocal, and very well-funded: since their economic survival and social status is dependent on our foreign policy of perpetual war, they are highly motivated to keep the war wagon rolling and you’d better believe they are pushing it as hard as they can. It’s really all about public choice theory: those who reap benefits from a given government program, usually a tiny minority, expend enormous amounts of energy protecting "their" piece of the pie.
On the other hand, most ordinary people – non-beneficiaries – are usually indifferent to and/or entirely ignorant of whatever government program is at issue, especially if it involves US intervention abroad. During an election, however, matters not directly impinging on their circumscribed world enter the popular consciousness – and that is our cue, our chance to make an impression and win hearts and minds.
We would be foolish not to take it.
If we look at the two "major" parties, at present, what we have is a perfectly complementary situation: that is, we have two pieces of a puzzle that can conceivably be put together if we look at them the right way.
On the one hand we have the Democrats, whose mass base is ostensibly "isolationist" and whose leadership is militantly "internationalist." On the other hand, we have the Republicans, whose mass base is mindlessly militaristic and yet which harbors a growing and increasingly visible insurgent leadership that is pulling away from the party’s traditional foreign policy stance.
The wild card in this mix is the single biggest category of American voter, the independents, who are thoroughly disenchanted with our foreign policy of ceaseless meddling and who are leaderless by definition. Our task and our challenge is to win control of one or the other of the two main parties in order to give the independents the leadership they need: then and only then will we lift this country out of the quagmire of Empire.
There are many obstacles to the success of an electoral strategy, and there’s no room here to go into the possible pitfalls, so I’ll just mention the two main ones: blind partisanship and even blinder sectarianism.
The idea that either one or the other of the two "major" parties is the party of peace – that is, the preordained vehicle for the anti-interventionist movement in this country – is just plain wrong. History tells a different story. During the Vietnam war era, the antiwar action was on the left, the McCarthy movement and the larger organized antiwar movement: during the run-up to World War II, the biggest antiwar organization in our history, the America First Committee, was founded and funded by conservative businessmen and largely Republican opponents of the New Deal.
In short, since anti-interventionism can arise on either side of the aisle, on the left or the right side of the political spectrum, it would be sectarian madness to demand complete ideological conformity from a prospective candidate. For example, the great libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard – who rightly recognized that opposition to imperialism is central to libertarianism, and not just a peripheral issue – supported the candidacy of Adlai Stevenson even though Stevenson was anything but a libertarian on economic issues. The whole plethora of cold war institutions and legislation, and most of all the militaristic and narrowly conformist mindset of the time, had to be swept aside before we could witness any progress in a libertarian direction.
Today, even as libertarians face an entirely different set of objective circumstances, the operative principles of political engagement remain the same: 1) Parties aren’t the point – peace is the point, and 2) politics isn’t religion. Candidate A wants to stay out of whatever holy crusade the war-hucksters are pushing at the moment, but you don’t agree with him or her on the transubstantiation issue – so then what?
It’s a question of moral and political priorities – because, when you think about it, there aren’t any issues more important than those involving war and peace. To the general antiwar activist, say a progressive or just an independent, it’s a purely moral (and relatively simple) question: after all, what we’re talking about here is opposition to mass murder.
For libertarians, the issue is a moral and a profoundly ideological one, for we recognize that what we are really addressing is mass murder by the State. Government in wartime reveals itself most starkly as an engine of pure unabashed coercion: here is the State at its most statist. This implies much more than actual physical murder, but also all the other unpleasant phenomena associated with barbarism, such as looting, rapine, enslavement, conscription, highway robbery ("taxation"), economic centralization, etc. In short, libertarian opposition to wars of aggression means taking on the systematic racketeering engaged in by the ruling elite, imperialism being the most evil (and most profitable) racket of them all.
Libertarians may think they’re on the threshold of a "libertarian moment," but the first wave of war hysteria can wash that sandcastle away in a single news cycle – and all too many ostensible libertarians with it. That’s why we established Antiwar.com all those years ago – because we somehow sensed that this moment would come and we knew we had to prepare.
Sometimes I wonder – as I see this or that prominent libertarian waffle on a key foreign policy point, like NATO, for example – whether those years of preparation have been enough. Oh well: we do only what we can, and hope it’s close enough to doing what we must.
Correction: Friday’s column, "The Chickenshit Lobby Is Mad As Hell," cited an article in the UK Guardian that quoted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as saying "When there are pressures on Israel to concede its security, the easiest thing to do is to concede. You get a round of applause, ceremonies on grassy knolls, and then come the missiles and the tunnels." A reader has informed me that this is a mistranslation of what Netanyahu actually said: the correct translation is "grassy lawns," not "grassy knolls" – which obviates my speculation that the Prime Minister’s statement contained any kind of threat. I regret the error.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here. But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.
I’ve written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).
You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here.
Read more by Justin Raimondo
- Do We Have a Foreign Policy? – November 4th, 2014
- The Chickenshit Lobby Is Mad As Hell – October 30th, 2014
- Putin’s Complaint – October 28th, 2014
- ‘We Can’t Have Perpetual War': The Realism of Rand Paul – October 26th, 2014
- A Note From the Recovery Room – October 23rd, 2014
[antiwar] Foreign Policy and Electoral Politics | netzlesen.de
November 2nd, 2014 at 10:19 pm
[…] http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/11/02/foreign-policy-and-electoral-politics/ […]
RickR30
November 2nd, 2014 at 10:39 pm
Exactly. The idealistic radicalism of some that a candidate doesn't just have to be good but perfect and a mental clone of them doesn't do anyone any good. Imagine if all those who aren't happy with Congress, or the President, or Democrats, or Republicans went out to vote.
Foreign Policy and Electoral Politics: The case for political activism | Official site of DJ Michael Heath
November 2nd, 2014 at 10:39 pm
[…] by TonyDiGerolamo [link] […]
Generalissimo X
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:40 am
What this means is that the days and weeks preceding Election Day are the one time when a good many Americans are open to considering the price they pay for Empire.
really? when do the slack jawed rubes even consider any price they've paid in the last 50+ years?? i see absolutely no self reflection in the american "citizen' at all. in fact it seems by and large the typical moron is incapable of this in the early part of the 21st century. they're far more concerned about looking a jennifer lawrence's gaping a-hole than follow the insanity of our foreign policy. moreover i argue there is no political victories to be had when then entire apparatus is stocked with criminals and party hacks who'd sell out there own mothers (and certainly our republic and their constituents) for a few more pac dollars. the system is completely beyond redemption or reform.
as for the excuse of being too busy, i'm about sick of this bullsh*t line too. citizenship requires a responsibility on the part of the citizen to be involved, know the issues and also the dynamics of what your gov't (elected officials) do in your name. "i'm too busy" or "i don't care" has gotten us into this sorry state of affairs. the question remains is how long do the citizens continue to put up with the farce of the state controlled duopoly? how long do they complacently sit by while their future, along with the future of their children (etc. ) is wrecked further by a group of amoral psychopaths? the only thing that will transpire on election day is the fact that one group of criminals will be replaced by a group of new ones and the bankster driven war machine will continue to grind on unabated.
Prinzowhales
November 3rd, 2014 at 2:24 am
The 'State' has no interests beyond those of the men and women who control and operate its various mechanisms. Evil men rule evil States…They may practice philanthropy, but they do it for motivations other than helping those in need. 'Good,' or indifferent men are used…It was either Nock or Jefferson, I think, who remarked that, 'Scoundrels cultivate fools, and fools fancy that scoundrels are their best friends.'
Evil men rule America and they govern through other scoundrels and fools…all of those 'tools' whose 'enlightened self interest,' leads them to betray and lie and murder and abuse and steal…
In a real sense, Libertarianism fails to look into this heart of darkness and prefers to point its ideological finger at the State. The Imperial State arose because evil men on War Street wanted to 'compete' effectively in the world for material wealth and power…just as they have throughout history. These evil men wanted police power at home and military power abroad to protect and project power. They desired the destruction of any and everything that threatened the corrupt system that they hold power over. Libertarianism merely scapegoats their instrumentalities, it does nothing about them.
Many of an anarchical or Libertarian bent, as Justin notes, are more into themselves than they are into promoting freedom through the electoral process…Perhaps, this is why the so-called 'Black Anarchists' have been so effectively used by the State to sabotage street action against various nefarious policies of the Oligarchs' State…why 'Tune Out, Turn On, Drop Out,' effectively replaced the anti-war movement in the late great non-war war in Vietnam…why an immoral, fraudulent and 'see me, feel me, touch me' Left has virtually abandoned any kind of anti-war activism and concentrated on gathering unto itself the green succor of Soros and other villains…Building little caves of political correctness in the distressing badlands of academia, civil services and tax-exempt foundations… even the vapid "Femi-Nazis" to quote a Pillbilly radio personality, have turned to 'nesting'…magpies shrieking on the eves with their sweat shop tee shirts…replete with the bumper sticker wisdom of these noisome creatures.
Anti-imperialism is a day late and a dollar short. Paul's pearls (taking them to be sincere) were cast before swine. The empire has come and it looks to be an empire of the 'Wasteland'…It is slaughtering men, women and children every day…Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Palestine, Chile, Argentina, Libya, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Korea, Iran, Central America…all lie in the wake of this hoard of modern barbarism driven by the powers in Washington and those behind the throne on War Street and in the other 'partner' kingdoms of the Evil Empire. The State is a Golem and the scroll in its dead mouth was put there by the evil men who need a nation of dead heads to fight their wars for oil, Israel, opium, other resources…the dollar and their egos.
Paul, regardless of what he says, remained and remains a Republican. His son is an abomination. He coos like a dove, screams like a girl…tries to get a reporter from RT fired…touts banker economics while mincing around for a Fed audit…he's an apologist for BP… He backed Romney…his father backs him. When all is said and done…these two have had their day…Senator Paul, a step-and-fetch for Israel, at least had sense enough to save himself from the disgrace of attending the Republican arse-kissing contest sponsored by Sheldon Adelson and Republican Jewish Goosesteppers…part of the campaign trail of tears in which some hundred million or so 'Mrs. Robinsons' will get to choose the personality that will lead them in the bloody service of Mammon's champions while promoting austerity…and paying for those guitar lessons for illegals who Boehner says a Republican Senate will legalize.
Republicans are swine. Democrats are swine. Their supporters are swine. The non-voters are, indeed, the biggest swine of all. The Pauls are, I think, one of the major reasons that there is no effective Populist Party in America. They are too connected at the hip of the Republican Party to ever win any support from me ever again. Adelson spent tens of millions on Romney…Paul supported Romney. These animals want to be all things to all people…until after the election.
Mark
November 3rd, 2014 at 4:24 am
"politics isn’t religion"
Ahh…yes it is. Tom Engelhardt's new book, Shadow Government, puts forth that very premise in regards to the Military/Security Industrial Complex. For the same reasons he applies that determination toward them, the same can also be said of those in government (and their non-governmental supporters) that engage in various forms of attempted social change, e.g. Drug Warriors, War on Poverty Types, Equal Rights Supporters and Environmentalists.
All view themselves and their causes in religious terms and try to gain control of the levers of government to achieve their aims. Those who think there needs to be a separation of church and state need to step back and reassess their concept of "church". All of the aforementioned act as religious zealots, impervious to reason and empirical evidence of the failures of their policies. They act on blind faith in their cause and will not be deterred.
follyofwar
November 3rd, 2014 at 5:12 am
Unlimited deficit spending ensures that US citizens will never understand the true costs of Empire. At least in WWII they raised money thru war bonds. GWB told the people to go back to shopping and actually reduced taxes (primarily on the wealthy). If the USG was required to have a balanced budget taxes would skyrocket and cause massive street protests. On the other hand, the rubes would blame it on welfare spending instead of realizing where the blame actually lies.
Come election time it's rare that "one group of criminals will be replaced by a group of new ones" as generally 90% or more are re-elected. I agree, the system as it stands is beyond repair. As Vonnegut said "so it goes."
richard vajs
November 3rd, 2014 at 5:17 am
Justin,
You mention Adlai Stevenson – I still remember his supposed response to a woman in an audience that yelled out, "You have the vote of every intelligent person in this country." His reply, "Thank-you, madam; however, that is not enough – I need a majority!". The problem of uneducated voters remains, and seems worse. Maybe if everyone got a blank ballot and the voters had to actually write in the name of their candidates, things would get better.
follyofwar
November 3rd, 2014 at 5:40 am
I'm sorry Justin, but there you go with the "irrational exuberance" again. As long as the system is rigged against third parties nothing will change for the better. To wit, in my home state of PA, the two parties collude to ensure third parties need not apply (every state does this to a greater or lesser extent). Last time there was a race for governor, the Libertarian candidate made the ballot but the party is conspicuously absent this time, and no other minor parties made the ballot either. Both the D&R machines piled up on Gary Johnson last time, forcing the Libertarians to spend thousands of dollars fighting for ballot access instead of using their scarce resources to get the message out. It's harder for third parties to get on the ballot than ever.
follyofwar
November 3rd, 2014 at 5:57 am
Also, I know you continue to be enamored with Ron Paul. But, IMO, Dr. Paul blew it last time when he didn't go third party. What does he have in common with today's GOP? He was well known from his prior run in '08 and was planning on retiring anyway. He could have left the party a year before the election to get on as many state ballots as possible. If he polled high enough, the two-headed snake may have been forced to include him in the debates. Perot did it and got 19% on his first run. With Ron out of the picture, who is left to pick up the pieces and make a significant third party run? Gary Johnson doesn't seem to be able to do it, and labeling oneself a Libertarian is the kiss of death. And Rand? Forget about it.
Monster from the Id
November 3rd, 2014 at 6:15 am
"…the rubes would blame it on welfare spending instead of realizing where the blame actually lies…"
THANK YOU.
Most of the people who benefit from the social spending programs collectively called "welfare" are children, old folks, the handicapped–or people who can't find work which pays enough to survive because the plutocrats have shipped all the jobs overseas, where they can get what amounts to slave labor.
Either way, the recipients are mostly either people no decent society expects to support themselves, or people who can't support themselves because they either can't find work at all, or can't find work which pays enough to live on.
Yeah, a few people manage to chisel a bit out of the welfare system. Meanwhile, the "defense" leeches take godzillions for weapons systems which don't even work half the time. (A "godzillion" is a number as big as Godzilla.)
But the rubes, who are mostly white (as am I), bitch and moan about the handful of welfare chiselers who chisel a few bucks out of the rubes' tax payments, because the rubes have been brainwashed to believe the majority of welfare recipients, honest or not, are nonwhite. Meanwhile, the rubes ignore the godzillions which the "defense" leeches chisel from the rubes' tax payments.
The rubes complain night and day about the mosquito, but ignore Dracula.
Monster from the Id
November 3rd, 2014 at 6:16 am
As I've said before, I wish the site would provide a list of words we should not use in order to avoid moderation limbo. :p
Monster from the Id
November 3rd, 2014 at 6:20 am
Quite a bit of truth to that. Communism was a religion, although it lacked a god or an afterlife.
John V. Walsh
November 3rd, 2014 at 7:40 am
To my mind the most interesting paragraph in Justin's piece is:
"What this means is that the days and weeks preceding Election Day are the one time when a good many Americans are open to considering the price they pay for Empire. That’s why alleged "anti-imperialists" who take a "principled" stand against electoral activity in any way shape or form are full of it – or, more precisely, too full of themselves to think clearly about the issue. Their "stance" is more a fashion statement than a political position, more of a personal affirmation of who they are – I’m cool! I’m radical! I’m an anarchist, dude! – than the result of any real analysis of how to effect social change. Such people never understood the difference between libertarianism and narcissism."
While directed at the libertarians, this passage might be equally well directed at the "progressives" and the sectarian Left.
See for example: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4…
These folks either stay away or vote for a third party (more or less like staying away).
Little do they know that those of their predecessors who actually accomplished something, whether one agrees with it or not, did not hold themselves aloof from elections. Lenin sent the Bolsheviks into the Czarist Duma to make their case.
This is not a question of Right or Left – it is a question of common sense. Ralph Nader sees this as does Ron Paul. Those who are so rigid as to be incapable of seeing this will accomplish nothing. I guarantee it.
Sam Lowry
November 3rd, 2014 at 8:10 am
"Unlimited deficit spending ensures that US citizens will never understand the true costs of Empire."
This point can't be stressed enough.
The plutocracy has a money-printing machine called the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul might have been a Republican, but he was a threat to the politically-privileged exactly because he was drawing too much attention to the massive fraud that is fiat currency. It's the real reason the rich get richer while real wages have stagnated since the 1970s. It's the means by which the war party is funded without creating riots in the streets.
Well-paid intellectual apologists spew a blizzard of scientific-sounding nonsense in excuse of their money-printing privileges, and education has become (always was?) indoctrination. The establishment always spins the topic of "deficit spending" in terms of political ideology, not factual economics.
Never-the-less, it would seem to me that discrediting the Federal Reserve is a more tractable goal than fixing politics. The former, one would think, is ultimately just a matter of logic and information.
ralph
November 3rd, 2014 at 8:34 am
and had to vote for the choices at hand. No way. A non vote is one that says none of the above.
curmudgeonvt
November 3rd, 2014 at 9:34 am
just spell them such that the BOT doesn't recognize them…
curmudgeonvt
November 3rd, 2014 at 9:52 am
Yeah, that would be the only way Palin could get elected…not a very good idea.
Mark
November 3rd, 2014 at 10:35 am
I think you have it wrong as to who benefits from the social(ist) welfare programs, it's not "children, old folks, the handicapped–or people who can't find work ", it's the folks that ADMINISTER said programs. The end user recipients get just enough to keep them on the hook but, if they try to get off(by getting a job) their benefits are cut so they are worse off than being in The System.
It's the folks making 40, 50, 60, 70K a year with benefits including 30&Out retirement that are getting the benefits…aka, your local parasites.
geokat62
November 3rd, 2014 at 10:58 am
"Our task and our challenge is to win control of one or the other of the two main parties in order to give the independents the leadership they need: then and only then will we lift this country out of the quagmire of Empire."
I didn't notice a recipe for effecting this change, did anyone else? Justin mentioned the process is a very lengthy one, my sense is that waiting to take control of either party could take several generations!
I guess it comes down to whether one supports reforms or revolutions.
Zephyr
November 3rd, 2014 at 11:41 am
The type of "democracy" that is practiced in U.S. is nothing more than collective dictatorship. Elections only serve the purpose of spreading the blame and deflecting from the fact that you don't need an individual as a focal point for dictatorship. In the U.S. – the system itself is the dictator. Elections only produce figureheads that are mostly spokespersons for the system. This is especially visible in the U.S. foreign policy. The changes of administrations never produce any changes in foreign policy, because no matter how disastrous the results of a foreign policy is, nobody ever has to pay any price for it. The price is paid by the foreign lands being terrorized by those foreign policies.
muggles
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:04 pm
Unfortunately, you are wrong. A non vote isn't seen as none of the above. While it is often just that, it is perceived (and the political establishment never tires of this) as merely laziness or stupidity, somehow "unpatriotic."
Since there is no good way to distinguish between principled non voting and mere zoned out in ones own personal bubble behavior, the message you want to impart is lost. And no major media source will ever report on the deliberate non voter. That is seen as heresy for the State religion of State.
muggles
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:13 pm
There is a real danger in the libertarian ethic of non voting and (as seen here often) terminal cynicism. Every proposed measure is "hopeless" and every somewhat decent political candidate is seen as trying to trick us, ultimately not trustworthy. But we aren't getting married to these people, merely trying to replace someone worse.
The learned helplessness of too many, who see much of the truth, but adopt a passive approach to everything, is a recipe for continued failure. In cases where the candidates do not significantly differ, voting is a waste. But often this isn't the case. Locally, government bond issues and similar measures like propositions, initiatives, and constitutional amendments can make actual change, with little political interference.
That the GOP is significantly more libertarian today than it was 20 years ago "is no accident."
If you ride the horse of helpless hopelessness, that is where you always end up.
RickR30
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:47 pm
That's exactly what they're counting on. Resignation is more powerful than revolution, as Sloterdijk said.
RickR30
November 3rd, 2014 at 12:50 pm
Well said. It's a unique position indeed to try to accomplish something by doing nothing.
ANU News.net Foreign Policy and Electoral Politics
November 3rd, 2014 at 2:02 pm
[…] Dismantling the Empire is not a task for the impatient. If you aren’t in it for the long haul then you might as well not even bother. It took over a century for the American people to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the center of the international arena: decades of constant propaganda, much of it emanating from abroad – and from the Eastern financial centers in New York, New England, and Washington – before the natural “isolationism” (i.e. common sense) of the American people was overcome. It will take some time to undo all that – but it can be done. And electoral politics is a key part of how it will and must be done. That’s because people make policy. The only way to change the policy is to replace the people making it, and the only way to do that in this country is through the electoral process. Of course we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that if only we elect the “right” people, everything will automatically fall into place from the day after Election Day. That will only mark the beginning of our fight. An entire stratum of the population lives off of the policy of imperialism: the military contractors, and all those who make their living either directly or indirectly due to the depth and breadth of America’s footprint in the world. And of course there is an entire class of politicians who have made appeasing the war god a lifelong career, and quite a profitable one at that. http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/11/02/foreign-policy-and-electoral-politics/#.VFd1hGSefUA.em… […]
Monster from the Id
November 3rd, 2014 at 3:14 pm
Ah, so the non-literal use of the Anglo-Saxon word for a female dog ist verboten. I'll need to remember that.
Monster from the Id
November 3rd, 2014 at 3:17 pm
Did you get those reactionary talking points from Pillbilly Rash Limpbough or Faux Noise?
follyofwar
November 3rd, 2014 at 3:23 pm
Well, since our system is beyond any significant reform, where does that leave us?
PokeTheTruth
November 3rd, 2014 at 4:48 pm
Mr. Raimondo wrote, "We would be foolish not to take it."
Call me foolish, but to vote is to perpetuate war, to give sanction to the continuation of the killing of innocent people. What Americans fail to grasp is there is no more republican democracy. The Washington politicians do not represent the people, they serve the international bankers, the multinational corporations and foreign State lobbyists i.e., the shadow government global syndicate.
When a vote is cast it gives the national system of electoral fraud the credibility and legitimacy to continue to rob the citizenry of their wealth, property and natural rights of the freedoms each and every one of us are entitled to enjoy. The idea that change is possible in the federal government is folly. It is a red herring, a certified letter of approbation and subsequent permission for the elitists' machinations to swell the current state of totalitarian fascism. Their unrestrained minions watch every word and action, ready to pounce with criminal force against any dissent. They will devise more and more Intolerable Acts to oppress the population to the point where we will become utter slaves to be dealt with as they see fit.
Many people believe third parties will eventually grow in popularity, size and strength to overcome the kakistocracy. Those individuals don’t realize the breadth of perfidy that exists in the hands of powerful men who have a co-opted corporate national media at their fingertips and use it to smear and ultimately squash any discourse away from mainstream statism.
Others feel they must support the ‘good’ politician, the one who stands for equal justice, intelligent debate void of hyperbole and unfettered markets of commerce where private business invests to earn profit and accepts the risk of financial loss due to poor strategy. This man or woman would do well inside a principled and moral government. But the central authority is Orwellian, controlled by the deep State whose agenda is far and away from the basic needs of the nation. The system of power is dictatorial and no matter how many honorable men or women are elected to the congress or even the presidency their ideals will be compromised. One only needs to think of Dr. Ron Paul and how hard he worked to foster economic prosperity and international goodwill but ultimately over decades of service accomplished little in congress to stem the tide of corruption.
Still some would say if those who know of the evils of government don’t engage in the electoral process then only the ignorant who rely on the coerced taxpayer largess would ensure the prolongation of Washington’s tyranny by their vote. I disagree, we must continue to not support the racket. We must stand for what is right.
When Americans participate in national federal elections they sanction the government to:
1. Further the degradation of the value of the nation’s currency through excessive printing of fiat money to pay for a bloated budget to support the Department of War and inefficient social programs. This drives retail price inflation by distorting the purpose of financial capital.
2. Perpetuate the ‘Three B” foreign policy (bribe, bully and bomb) to force other sovereign nations to submit to the will of the syndicate’s plan for global domination.
3. Sustain an indoctrination system of public welfare to hide the agenda of destroying private employment opportunity by creating centralized channels of dependency.
4. Engage the entertainment and sports industries to promote superficial social exchanges and the integration of popular media icons with government functionaries to facilitate Washington mainstream propaganda.
The only way to stop these men is to withhold our consent and deny them the authority to perform. We must educate and appeal with logic and common sense that if they vote they support: the loss of the purchasing power of paper money, theft, coercion, manipulation of commercial enterprise, unconditional murder of innocents, the ruination of the economic foundation and communal fabric of the country.
Anx Plaino
November 3rd, 2014 at 6:29 pm
^This. IMHO, best comment of the day. Thanks, Poke.
follyofwar
November 3rd, 2014 at 6:34 pm
Let's see – The R's & the D's are swine, as well as all of their supporters. And the non-voters are the "biggest swine of all." Gee, I'd like to know which group(s), in your opinion, are not swine?
Generalissimo X
November 3rd, 2014 at 6:44 pm
my implications in my original post to the idea of "costs" are simply not relegated to financial but the legal costs to our liberty and of course the moral costs of murdering untold millions for the greed and profit of war street and the mic. this seems to never into the calculus of the propagandized imbecile. the money is probably the least important of the 3 in my opinion but that is debatable.
JJJihad
November 3rd, 2014 at 7:16 pm
I'm not afraid of being called a narcissist. As long as the touchstone of "libertarianism" remains the mystical machinations of the uninhibited market, its profoundly rational antiwar — call it "peace" – goal will remain in the grip of that invisible dead hand. Peace and capitalism cannot coexist. They never have. And the utter frivolity of partisan politics and elections, the decision to participate or not, any involvement or not–all inconsequential. The fundamentally corrupt government, political, media, institutions, the theoretical points of contact through which the general population decides how it should be governed, provide a rationalization for the failure to act decisively–not unlike how the Church functions, with its fairy tales of post-death reward. And the glorification of the almighty "Constitution," another mainstay of at least some "libertarians"–is oblivious to the fact that the essential corruption of these institutions is rooted in and compelled by that charter. The Constitution is not about the establishment of freedom–it is about the sanctity of private property (including, at least originally, human chattel) and the power to exclude all others. Some formula for "anti-war".
There is only one solution–and patience (just another form of weariness and self–delusion) is not its spirit.
Sam Lowry
November 3rd, 2014 at 7:27 pm
"my implications in my original post to the idea of 'costs' are simply not relegated to financial but the legal costs to our liberty and of course the moral costs of murdering untold millions for the greed and profit of war street and the mic."
Of course. My point was that they wouldn't be able to get away with the other two (to current degrees) were it not for the careful and deliberate obfuscation of the first. There is much history to back this up.
"For the people wars do not pay. The only cause of armed conflict is the
greed of autocrats."—Ludwig von Mises
Ben_C
November 4th, 2014 at 1:41 am
Justin…
I’m sorry, but I'm just not quite following this…
Who doesn't:
“live in a dictatorship where elections feature a single candidate”?
Out of this population, who/which candidate(s) should these people specifically vote for?
If I recall (and I do): two years ago at this same time (late September or early October 2012) you announced you would not be voting in the 2012 Presidential Elections and gave a mealymouthed endorsement of Barack Hussein Obama over the candidate Randy Paul endorsed over his own father prior to the Republican National Convention—which was Mitt Romney. Needless to say, Randy endorsed Mitt Romney over his own father for "Libertarian" reasons…I'm sure…
So, if possible, can you please clarify: who should actually vote, and of those who should vote, which particular candidate(s) should be voted for? A “why” would also ‘help’ me ‘understand’ exactly what you’re trying to say here.
Thanks in advance!
—Ben_C
Prinzowhales
November 4th, 2014 at 2:55 am
The abhorrent policies and practices of this Regime over the past decades did not 'just happen.' Regardless of what those folks who like to fob off responsibility say–"Sh*t happens, dude…" and the like. These polices and practices were put into effect by Democrats and Republicans working for War Street. Their supporters, who can be likened to the Gadarene swine followed them off this cliff.
Those who don't vote, don't count. They by default accept the system…the practices and policies of the Democrats and Republicans and won't lift a finger to try and accomplish change through the peaceful means available at the polls. They are unwilling to be 75th or 81st monkey in the hard road to getting that 100th fateful monkey to rise to the occasion on behalf of freedom and peace.
I think the Libertarians, despite their faults, are a good choice. I have to think that Ron Paul is at heart a good man, but a sorry leader. Cynthia McKinney has proven her metal in the fight for justice…There are many good Greens out there. Kucinich is there…Rocky Anderson and the Justice Party come to mind. Ralph Nader has been there for decades fighting the good fight against unbridled Corporatism…These are good people…
They didn't support terrorists…they didn't give away the farm to the banks…they didn't fight wars for empire…they didn't have the support of Adelson and creatures like him…they didn't have the blessings of War Street
taco
November 4th, 2014 at 8:09 am
You should vote, because being relatively well informed and not participating in the charade, err process throws off too many red flags.
Mark
November 4th, 2014 at 9:52 am
No Mr. Monster, I don't listen to or watch either. It comes from being involved in politics, primarily at the local level, for a couple decades. It comes from going to county budget meetings where the local DSS head stands before the commissioners and states that if the entire county were on Medicaid his office would be rolling in dough. It comes from being told that I need to vote for soandso for skool bored because he dedicated his life to children by being part of the government school structure for 43 years and is now collecting his government supplied retirement. In all my years of being told more money is needed for "the children" my kids never received a check while attending school.
Monster from the Id
November 4th, 2014 at 1:59 pm
OK, what's your answer to taking care of the victims of capitalism, given the plain fact that private charity, however good and useful, has never been enough?
And no, "expanding the economy so that every able-bodied person can make a living" is not an answer, because Mommie Dearest Nature won't allow us to expand the economy much farther, if any farther–unless you know a few more Earthlike planets in this solar system which the astronomers haven't found yet.
Mark
November 4th, 2014 at 2:46 pm
Dear Mr. Id,
Your initial post implied that the beneficiaries of "welfare" were children, etc. My point is that the system, as it is currently structured, is set up to benefit The System and its administrators. As it is, The System has no motivation to see people actually GET OFF WELFARE and every incentive to keep them trapped in a horrific system that allows for them to be dependent on GovCo and provides them no incentive to escape this slave-like system.
To call these people "victims of capitalism" is a bit off the mark, they're victims of socialist programs that do more harm than good. Look at the Native Americans, herded on to reservations and unless they manage to get a casino are pretty much trapped. It is the same mindset that destroyed the Cherokee Nation that is running the federal welfare programs.
Also, why do you demand a utopian solution from me simply because I point out the failings of the current system? Second, how old are you? Are you old enough to remember a time when Government DIDN'T seek to provide all the "welfare" needed? Besides, private charities often come with religious teachings, something Caesar has NEVER been fond of…he doesn't like the competition.
Monster from the Id
November 4th, 2014 at 10:11 pm
To answer one of your questions, I am 51.
Apparently, our differences cannot be reconciled. Neither of us accepts the other's initial premises as valid.
Caesar has never been fond of religious teachings? Tell that to the Emperor Constantine, and all his successors in Christendom, who twisted the teachings of my Savior Jesus Christ into the blasphemous "throne and altar" myth to justify the exploitation of the many by the privileged few.
Monster from the Id
November 4th, 2014 at 10:15 pm
Up $#!+ Creek, because all "successful" revolutions ever accomplish is to replace the existing gang of thugs and their justifying ideology, with a new gang of thugs, who use a different justifying ideology. Examples: Every Communist revolution ever.