ESSAY BEGINS
To Vote, Or Not To Vote That Is The Question
by Linda Schrock Taylor


My apologies to Shakespeare, but the phrasing so
clearly expresses the dilemma that I have faced
since the mid-sixties, when my friends and I
discussed our objections to boys too young to vote
on matters of war, being drafted and sent to
Vietnam. By the time voting rights for 18 year olds
had been passed, I was so disillusioned with the
government that I, personally, took the stance of
refusing to vote.


As a young child, living just twelve miles from
where I currently reside, many of my earliest
memories are of voting and party choices. A
favorite family story told of how my
great-grandfather and his brother, one a Democrat
and one a Republican, would constantly argue about
politics, then ride together to the polls. Their
commitment to voting, even though they knew that
one's vote would cancel that of the other, never
wavered. If it was time to vote, one was honor
bound to do it. In my home, the whole family rode
to the township hall so that my parents could vote. I
am often reminded of those excursions, for that
township hall is where we have our family
Christmas and special occasion parties. The same
voting booths are there, varni shed and gleaming.


For many, many years I did not vote; my decision
stemming from my gut level distrust of the State. In
silence I accepted the stern reprimands from my
father, as he attempted to drive home the point that I
had no right to criticize anything that the government
did since I refused to make my preferences known
by voting. Since the schools had only provided me
with rewritten history, I lacked the facts and
insights with which I might have defended my
decision and myself. Still I refused to vote for
Twiddle Dee or Twiddle Dum.


Recently, while reading Murray Rothbard's, The
Case Against the Fed, I was reminded of my
father's blind loyalty to his Party…


For the "Third Party System," which had
existed in America from 1856 to 1896, was
comprised of political parties, each of which
was highly ideological and in intense conflict
with the opposing party. While each political
party, in this case the Democratic, the
Republican and various minor parties,
consisted of a coalition of interests and forces,
each was dominated by a firm ideology to
which it was strongly committed. As a result,
citizens often felt lifelong party loyalties, were
socialized into a party when growing up, were
educated in party principles, and then rode
herd on any party candidates who waffled or
betrayed the cause. (Pg. 9091)

Rothbard continues,


For various reasons, the Democratic and
Republican parties after 1900…were largely
non-ideological, differed very little from each
other, and as a result commanded little party
loyalty. In particular, the Democratic Party no
longer existed, after the Bryan takeover of
1896, as a committed laissez-faire,
hard-money party. From then on, both parties
rapidly became Progressive and moderately
statist." (Pg. 91)


Even had I been able to put evidence such as this
before my father, it would not have modified his
thinking. It is almost as if such individuals are
caught in some kind of a time warp. They have been
socialized to party loyalty without being taught the
facts and the intellectual reasoning behind the
original stances held prior to 1896. Any belief that
they should hold a party to a 'firm ideology' has
been bred out of them, or simply lost along the way.


I did, finally, become a voter, although never for my
father's party. Still I never felt comfortable about
voting, but neither did I feel comfortable about not
voting. Possibly I dreaded old messages from
childhood returning to haunt me. During the last
election I did go to the polls, but I cast only one (1)
vote against a candidate I despised. I have
continued to fret to vote, or not to vote.


Recently I received a brochure from the "Sons Of
Liberty" in Central Florida, entitled, VOTING
STRATEGY 2004 WHEN "THE LESSER OF
TWO EVILS" IS NO LONGER AN OPTION. The
title caught my eye, and their rationale for voting
makes a great deal of sense. They begin with this:


The most effective argument to convince
patriotic Americans to support the Republican
Party has been that "The Republicans will do
less damage to the Constitution than the
Democrats will and besides, what other
choice is there?" The conservative vote is
taken for granted by the Republican leadership
because they believe that we have nowhere
else to turn; from a purely pragmatic
short-range view, perhaps they are correct.
The result has been a Republican Party that
ignores conservative values because it has no
incentive to do otherwise. The time has come
to provide that incentive.


I had to agree with this summation, and I continued
reading,


The Republican Party is the dominant party
today because it has the conservative vote.
Let's look at what Republicans have done with
the power that conservatives entrusted to them.


President George W. Bush has presided over a
dramatic increase in the size, cost, scope, and
power of the federal government that would be
the envy of even the most radical socialist. He
has stated his support of the clearly-
unconstitutional Clinton gun ban and has
vowed to sign a replacement into law (the
current law has a sunset provision that expires
in 2004) should it reach his desk. His Attorney
General has made it his personal crusade to
get ever-greater power for the government to
snoop into the private lives of citizens. Bush
has used the military to invade a sovereign
nation that had no realistic chance of
threatening America, while at the same time
encouraging a flood of illegal third-world
immigrants across our borders. Yet many
conservatives continue to support this
administration. Why? Because they believe
they have no other choice the alternatives are
even worse.


Please excuse me as I continue to quote from this
pamphlet, for a summary would not do it justice:


Conservatives have fallen into the trap of only
looking at the short range. It is probably (but
no longer certainly) true that America would
be better off with a Republican administration
than with a Democratic administration in any
given year. However, that completely misses
the point. The direction that the country is
headed in must be looked at in terms of
decades and generations not as a four-year
presidential term.

The Sons of Liberty list four options:


1) Continue to vote for the Republican Party
candidates. Maybe we won't end up with a
Democrat or maybe we will. Either way, the
Republican Party learns once again that they
have the conservative vote no matter what they
do.


2) Vote for the Democratic candidates. Some
on the far edges of conservatism have
suggested this as a way to hurry along what
they see as the inevitable collapse of America,
and see a rebuilding as freedom's opportunity.


3) Don't vote at all. This is a common strategy
in other parts of the world. The objective is to
demonstrate that the elections are not valid by
boycotting the election. Another objective of
this strategy is to voice dissatisfaction with all
the candidates effectively saying "None of
the above."

4) Vote for a third-party candidate.


The pamphlet points out that Option 1 has already
been discussed and points out that a vote for the
Republicans will assure a drive off the same cliff,
but at a speed within the posted limit. They believe
that Option 2 should be dismissed as not lending
itself to rational discussion. Regarding the last two
options, they have this to say,


Option 3 is based on the assumption that
anyone would notice that people were not
voting. It is also based on the assumption that
the parties would know why people were not
voting. Not voting at all simply means that the
political strategists ignore you. Being ignored
is not our intent.


Option 4 is what we believe to be the best
choice at this point. The objective is to show
that there are votes available that the
Republican Party will not get until they change
their ways. The objective is not to find and
support a third party candidate who can win an
election. For the foreseeable future, that just is
not going to happen. Instead, the objective is to
demonstrate to the Republican Party that voters
will leave the party if they are not represented
by that party. The working assumption by the
Republican Party has always been that
conservatives have nowhere else to turn, and
that they are pragmatic enough to not "waste
their vote" by voting for a third party. Our
objective is to show that assumption to be
false.


Again, the point of this option is not to find a third
party with any chance of winning, but that the voters
"take a long range view and sacrifice in the short
term if needed. We are working for future
generations, not for ourselves."


The Sons of Liberty end with, "The only important
point in making your decision is that your vote must
be clearly seen as one that the Republicans should
have gotten. Choose your party/candidate wisely."
They list conservative political parties: Libertarian
Party; Constitution Party; America First Party; and
the Southern Party.


Hmmm…"your vote must be clearly seen as one that
the Republicans should have gotten." Yes, I think
that it is time that we, in the words of Murray
Rothbard, "ride herd" on any candidate, and the
party as a whole, for "waffling" and for betraying
America. We voters have been taken for granted
for far too long. We have gone with our interests
misrepresented or un-represented, since that long
ago era when the various political parties "were
dominated by a firm ideology to which it was
strongly committed." When political parties again
truly and honorably represent the real wishes of the
people, then and only then, should we again loyally
support one particular party.


So, I will vote in the next election, but the
Republicans have definitely lost my support. I will
go to the polls and cast my votes for candidates
from one or more of the four conservative groups
listed. I will be sure to inform every Republican
fundraiser of my decision, asking that they convey
my message accurately to their supervisors. Why, I
will even send each Republican caller a copy of my
Letter to Ken Mehlman, should they profess an
interest. Yes, I am relieved to finally have a voting
strategy!


ESSAY ENDS
So, is this Liberal propoganda designed to deprive Republirats of votes by turning their Party against them, or is it logical? If Bush betrayed them, should Republicans support him anyway?