Fellow believers remind me of the ultimate truth that is far greater than politics. We are sojourners. This world is not our home. That said, while we still occupy this present dimension, we are to remember that we are the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13 -14). We are supposed to influence those around us, not allow ourselves to be carried away by the crowd (Ephesians 4:14). Pray before you vote. Seek wisdom, not expedience.
Forget for a moment that you want to get rid of Obama (OWHNI) and consider who you actually want to win the 2012 presidential election. Back in 2008 I remember a bumper sticker that said, “Anyone But Hilary”. They got their wish, but I’m not sure they are happy about who was elected President. Suppose Romney wins this time. I can hear the collective sigh. At last, he’s gone. Now what? Is there any reason to think that Romney will be any better than Bush? To me, all he offers is more of the same.
We’ve been taught that because of our superior intelligence, humans don’t behave instinctively, as animals do. But I wonder. Supposedly, our ability to learn and adapt to changing circumstances enables us to come up with creative solutions, as opposed to being locked into predictable patterns of behavior. But I have my doubts.
Political power brokers heavily depend upon what can only be described as the herd mentality. They invest their time and money in selling the public a marketable image of their candidate — based on perception — to generate political support. It isn’t so much a question of who a candidate really is that gets votes, but how that candidate is perceived by the public. Voters have gotten so used to approving “style”, they no longer have the tools to examine “substance”.
Every election cycle, the candidates increasingly give me the impression they are products of a cookie-cutter assembly line. They are as believable as cardboard cut-outs, no more real than decoys — not only in how they look, but in the way they talk. Once they attract your attention, they say things designed to keep it. That is, they repeat the fresh catch-phrases circulating in the media, giving the impression they are on top of what is current. And the public just goes along with it … charmed.
The purpose of focusing on style over substance is to maintain the power of the two big political parties. Individual candidates are less important. Once they are elected, the party will tell them what to do. And so, American political power has remained in the hands of two political parties, rather than in the hands of the people, as the Constitution intends.
We remain in this state only because the people let themselves be duped into accepting all the political glitz and buy into the herd mentality. Here’s how it works: As the voter is deciding how to vote, he thinks, “I’d like to vote this way, but if the rest of the herd (political party) goes the other way, I’ll be all alone and the herd will be weakened.” So, for fear of being separated from the herd, the voter decides not to go his own way, but the way of the herd.
This kind of voting is predicated on two factors: conceptualizing elections as a “them or us” proposition, and making the presumption of how the rest of the herd will vote. This sacrosanct, so-called two-party system is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. It doesn’t have to be “them or us”. Plus, I’ve discovered that some of “them” are more like “us” than some of “us” are. And yet, with a little help from the media, the party “line” is made known, most voters follow suit and the election becomes a self-fulfilled prophecy.
If the majority of voters were to think for themselves and vote like mavericks (individuals), elections would not be won by political party group-think. But is thinking for oneself even within the grasp of most of the American voting public? Like someone addicted to drugs, the American voter seems to be totally dependent upon being told how to vote by the power brokers. I wonder if they have the commitment to just say “no”, or the determination to get clean and stay clean.
P. T. Barnum built his circus empire on the principle, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” And building a political empire is exactly what the Democrats and Republicans have done. Their empire is able to thrive because the public accepts their cardboard cut-outs as real and their constantly repeated talking-points as true. Rather than learning from experience, the voting public continues to accept the same, old, deceptive routine as if they were a herd of cattle being driven to holding pens.
If thinking for yourself is a bit of a challenge, all you need to do is exercise your brain. The more you use it, the easier it is to think for yourself. Here are two thinking exercises (one on taxes, one on fuel consumption) you can use for practice:
The liberal argument persists that cutting taxes means cutting revenues. The talking-point goes something like this: “How can we pay for (“afford”) these tax cuts?” The premise for their question is simplistic: Since taxes produce revenues, reducing taxes will reduce revenues. But that is utter nonsense, and ignores the revenue produced by tax cuts previously enacted. History has demonstrated that when taxes are cut, more money is made available for investment into the tax base, which creates more jobs, and produces increased revenues.
So why do proponents of big government spending deny that fact? Because as long as they can keep the public herd looking at distractions with bovine eyes, the future of their empire is guaranteed. Big spending keeps them in charge — Republicans as well as Democrats. It’s all about staying in power. They want taxpayers willing to pay and willing to remain dependent upon Big Politics’ promises of salvation.
Secondly, we are told we must reduce our carbon footprint. We must not consume so much gasoline. So then, why are automobiles that get exceptionally good gas mileage not allowed to be sold in America? (See Dr. Theo’s article of May 16th at http://www.americanclarion.com/7768/2012/05/16/high-milage-vehicles-allowed/.) Proponents of big government don’t really want better gas efficiency because to them, that means less gas consumption, resulting in the loss of tax revenues. But just as they are wrong to think tax cuts result in revenue losses, so they are wrong to think fuel efficiency will reduce fuel consumption.
As fuel efficiency increases, not only are private car owners able to drive more, but the capacities of both commercial production and commercial shipping increases, boosting commerce in general, which stimulates the economy and in turn produces more tax revenues. You have to understand that fuel consumption drives the economy. Increased fuel efficiency translates to increased economic efficiency, which means greater production and economic growth.
There are other mental exercises available, such as examining the myth of man-made climate change. If you keep your eyes and ears open, you’ll be sure to find lots of things that deserve your consideration. Please, see yourself as above the animals. Think for yourself. Don’t be a sucker. Don’t be carried away by instincts or stampeded by the herd mentality. Seek wisdom. Gain insight. Use the brain God gave you. Our political freedom depends on it.