If elections could bring freedom, voting would have been outlawed

By David McElroy · November 4, 2014

Republicans are almost certainly going to take control of the U.S. Senate in today’s elections across the United States. Conservatives are excited and progressives are trembling. There’s change in the air. It’s a revolution.

But haven’t we seen this movie before?

In 1994, Republicans gained a staggering 54 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives to take control. They were running against President Bill Clinton and attacking Big Government in a mid-term election. It was the Newt Gingrich-led Republican Revolution. Remember the Contract with America? It was going to change everything and reduce the size of government. How did that work out in the long run?

In 2006, Democrats picked up 31 seats in U.S. House elections to give control back to Nancy Pelosi and Co. In these mid-term elections, Democrats ran against President George W. Bush and his alleged attempts to hurt poor people and wage perpetual war around the world. Progressives promised to use their power to stop Republicans from continuing various wars. What changed for us in the long run?

Time after time, one party or the other has held power and the other party has taken power by promising change. But the two parties simply swap the seats of power like some giant game of musical chairs. If you believe in individual freedom and have watched this long enough, you come to realize that their promises of big change don’t come true.

Republicans tell us that they’re going to reduce the size of government, but they never deliver. Democrats tell us they’re going to stop wars and create more social freedom, but they don’t deliver, either.

Government continues to get bigger under Republicans. The U.S. government keeps killing people around the world and creating new enemies under Democrats. The few signs of good news that appear every now and then mostly arise spontaneously out of changing public attitudes — and then politicians follow along and pretend it was their idea.

In other words, when each party tells you your vote is going to change everything, it’s a lie. All it means is that one group of politicians will win a great game against another set of politicians.

Hiding behind their rhetoric is the reality that very little is going to change. If you vote Tuesday, nothing of substance is going to change — and the odds of your individual vote changing anything is precisely zero. To claim that your vote will change things is a lie, especially if you desire individual freedom for all.

Republicans are now telling you that if you’ll vote for them Tuesday, everything will change. They’ll take control of the U.S. Senate and defeat the Obama administration in various ways. If you’re counting on that happening, you’re going to be disappointed.

I won’t be voting, as has been my practice for years now. More and more responsible and principled people are doing the same, for two reasons.

First, it won’t matter. Your vote isn’t going to achieve anything. And even if the party whose rhetoric you prefer wins, the politicians of that party won’t do what they promise to do.

Second, and even more important, the system is immoral. I don’t have the right to make rules and force you to follow them, even if the majority of people happen to agree with the rules I believe in. It’s immoral to participate in a system that uses force to impose the will of one group on another. That’s all the political system is — a contest to see who gets to control the monopoly of force to impose its will. That is evil.

Politicians aren’t going to save you. They’re not going to bring about the utopia you hope for. Even if they could, the use of coercive power to do it would be wrong.

Real change is going to come when we’re able to find ways to achieve an entirely different kind of system, one in which individuals control their own lives and property. One in which people and groups can set their own rules for their own property or cities or enclaves. A place where groups of people don’t impose their will on each other.

As long as you and your enemies keep trying to impose their will on each other, you’re going to be disappointed and you’ll both be locked into an immoral system.

It’s time to stop voting and start talking honestly about real change instead.

Note: If you’d like to hear more about my own experience in coming to this conclusion, here’s an interview Ben Stone of the Bad Quaker podcast conducted with me almost two years ago.

Share on Social Networks

After I wrote last night about being happy, I thought of an old song that mirrored what I was feeling. After listening to the entire album, I found it remarkable how well the emotions of that music match my own heart at this point in my life. Bob Bennett’s “Matters of the Heart” came out while I was in college. Even after all these years, it holds up really well, and you can listen to the entire album on YouTube. The specific song which matched my feelings last night was “Madness Dancing,” but I still find every song on the album to be strong with the exception of the eighth and ninth. (The song about his parents, called “1951,” is especially poignant.) In fact, the opening and closing songs paint a picture of my heart at its best now in these lines: “A light shining in this heart of darkness, A new beginning and a miracle, Day by day the integration of the concrete and the spiritual.” It’s old music that you’ve probably never heard, but it means a lot to me.

Narcissists tend to turn their children into narcissists — and since a narcissist doesn’t realize he or she is a narcissist, there’s no bad intent. How does this happen? I watched a YouTube video over the weekend from an Australian psychologist who does a nice job of summarizing how it works. None of this is new to me, but I thought it was useful for those who haven’t spent years digging through books and articles about it. The same psychologist has an excellent summary of something which confuses a lot of people about narcissism. You’ve all seen examples of the loud, boisterous and overbearing narcissist, but what about the ones who are more introverted and vulnerable? This type is called a covert narcissist (or a vulnerable narcissist), and this is what my father was. In the first video, I strongly see myself in the ways my father treated me and in the second video, I see what my father was almost successful in making me become.

It’s National Dog Day in the U.S. and Lucy is here to remind you to go express love and appreciation to your favorite canine. Not only does your doggie friend give you love and affection, but he or she also protects your home from intruders — such as birds, squirrels, mail carriers and other undesirables who deserve to be barked at vigorously. Where would we be without that? And if you think this service is actually unnecessary, ask yourself how long it’s been since your home was the victim of a vicious squirrel attack. See? The doggie defense works. Keep barking at ’em, Lucy.

I’ve spent a tremendous amount of time over the last couple of years thinking and writing about love and connection. I’ve come to understand that this lack of love and connection is at the root of a lot of human tragedy and unhappiness, including addictions and depression. As I talked with others and researched the psychology behind the issues, I ran into the surprising fact that researchers are increasingly using psychedelic drugs to allow volunteers to have experiences which are giving them a sense of connection which they’ve lost — something that allows them to feel connected to love and God in a way they didn’t understand before — which is having dramatic effects in combating things such as depression and addictions. In this 15-minute TED talk — without an audience in the age of COVID-19 — Johns Hopkins researcher Mary Cosimano shares her experiences with guided psilocybin sessions being used to treat addiction, depression and end-of-life issues. One of her key observations is the importance of love and connection. She said that it seems love is literally part of the answer. In her role as director of guide/facilitator services for the program, Cosimano is responsible for training and supervising session facilitators.

It’s something I wrote four and a half years ago — in the desperation of loneliness — and it’s become my most popular article. It’s not my best writing. It’s raw and unpolished. But it seems as though a lot of people can identify with it. It’s called Missing someone creates intense physical sensations in my heart. Just to give you an idea how many people still read it, I had 11,586 people visit the page last month — from 2,907 cities and towns around the world. London sent the most readers for it, followed by New York, Westminster, Los Angeles, Chicago, Kuala Lumpur, Melbourne, Sydney, Toronto and almost 3,000 more. I’ve noticed something interesting. It always gets the most hits from an area of the world in the late hours, right after midnight, and that breaks my heart — because I understand why. All these people are so lonely and are missing someone so much that they turn to a search engine looking for answers, so they stumble upon this piece. I wrote this late at night on the day after Christmas because my heart was breaking. I needed to express how much I missed someone, and a lot of people seem to identify with it. If you’re one of those people, I have no way of knowing who you are, but I empathize with you. I know why you hurt. I wish I could do more to help. I hurt with you, because after all this time, I still feel the same way.

Related Posts