Forget scrutinizing the candidates for a minute; let’s talk about the voters!

2010 May 6
tags:
by ruleoflawrestoration

In a recently-published page, I suggest that a candidate who reserves the right to exceed the enumerated powers of his or her office is not to be trusted to behave lawfully in office—nor to help bring the rest of the government into lawful compliance with the constitution or charter that established that office.  This point is so profoundly simple as to cause us to wonder why we never realized it before–and we marvel at how profoundly different it is from our traditional political paradigm.  But let’s table that thought for a moment and deal with the following question, which is ever more fundamental:

Why should we trust a voter who reserves the right to vote for lawless candidates?

Indeed, if a candidate reserving the right of lawlessness is to be viewed with suspicion, what about the voter?  Why would any American want to vote for unruly candidates?

Well, what they’re telling me is that they’re quite willing to vote for lawless candidates in an effort to keep the worst candidates from taking office.  They’d never put it that way, of course.  Rather, they call it “the lesser of two evils”.  And they’ll say, “Well, Smith might not be perfect, but he’s a far cry better than Jones!”

Is it any wonder, then, that our offices are filled with lawless officials?  After all, we seem to have done this on purpose! It is the unintended consequence of mindless politics.

And the major parties, of course, continue to feed us with an endless selection of lawless candidates from which to “choose”.  That “choice”, of course, almost always comes down to only two in any particular race, and those are almost always the chosen darlings of the official party leadership, who are almost certainly vetted ahead of time in an effort to be sure they’ll toe the party line in the heat of battle.

Let’s imagine for a moment that a business owner needs to hire a new employee to fill an open position.  He instructs his assistant to put out a want ad and to deliver all the applications to him after some set time.  The assistant, however, posts the ad, but screens out all the applicants but two:

  • who just happen to be  friends of his,
  • who are wholly unsuited to the job and to the corporate culture of the company, and
  • both of whom reserve the right to break company rules if it suits their own interests.

The assistant then forwards these names to the company owner as being the only  applicants.

Now our attention turns to the company owner.  What will he do?  When he interviews them, which of the following should he be looking for?

  1. Which one is the better candidate?
  2. Is either likely to serve the company’s needs?

If the company owner is like the average American voter, the second question will likely not even come to his mind.  He will take the word of his assistant that these are the only two choices possible, and he will assume that his task is simple:  to choose the better of the two.

If, on the other hand, the company owner has any sense at all, he will ask the second question; he will look to discover whether either candidate in view is actually qualified for the job, whether either could be counted upon to serve the company in a way that suits the company’s needs, and whether he reserves the right to disregard the company’s established rules and procedures.  If he pursues this route, of course, he will quickly discover that neither candidate is good for his company and he would toss them both out. And if he continues to investigate the matter thereafter, he will discover that both candidates are friends with his assistant.  And going on from there, he would discover that multiple qualified candidates were rejected by the assistant without his knowledge.

This would likely lead to the firing of the assistant if it were not immediately and permanently corrected, would it not?

Yes, a proactive and diligent company owner would re-advertise until he found qualified candidates for his positions.  But not so with the average American voter.  “We” are quite content to choose only from those who are officially put forth for our approval—whether they are qualified or not.  And what’s even worse is that far too many of us refuse even to investigate their qualifications!  Instead, we judge by superficial things, like their party affiliation, whether they are good speakers, or whether they are promising to support or to oppose some particular governmental project that we either love or hate.

We do not behave like diligent and proactive owners of this nation, else, we would have insisted a long time ago that a new advertisement go out to bring in a new class of candidates from which to choose!

And that brings us back around to the beginning.  If we saw a company owner who reserved the right to hire employees who would not serve the company well, wouldn’t we be rightly suspicious or disapproving of him?  There’s a perfect example of this in Tennessee,  where one of the very best McDonald’s staffs in the country works just a few miles down the road from one of the very worst.  Are we really to believe that one community is capable of supplying qualified applicants to its McDonald’s while its neighbor community is not?

No.  It’s the owner’s fault.  The owner of this particular restaurant is simply negligent and short-sighted.  As a result, the customers suffer, and the more discerning and sophisticated customers among them don’t come back.  The owner, however, doesn’t seem to figure this out, and is content to be showing diminished profits instead of the high level of prosperity that is enjoyed by the McDonald’s just down the road.

So it is with the average American voter.  He has a “whatever” attitude about hiring public officials.  And then, as if that wasn’t enough, he heaps up the irony as he complains about the very government that was seated on his own watch!

If only the American voter had any clue that a great deal of what bothers him about government would instantly evaporate if our governments were forced once again to obey the US Constitution as the Supreme law of the Land, there would be a swift movement toward re-establishing the Rule of Law in the US.  Instead, however, too many are like the man I met yesterday, who boasted about his diligence in discerning which candidate is “the lesser of two evils”!

Does this man know that this method of voting is RUINING OUR COUNTRY?

Far better to stop voting altogether than to support this corrupt “system”.

This, however, is a hard pill to swallow for American traditionalists.  But is there any other peaceful alternative to cleaning house in our governments?  If we are an “old dog”, it’s time we learned some “new tricks”.  And if we think that’s impossible, then we had better change our thinking.  Indeed, if it is impossible, then there is absolutely no hope for this country.  So this “hard pill to swallow” simply must be swallowed.

Please join with me in helping to convince Americans of the folly of  lesser-of-two-evils voting.  If we cannot learn this simple lesson and insist only on candidates who will pledge to obey our constitutions and charters, then we  are simply unworthy of citizenship in a constitutional republic.  You can start by taking the Voter’s Pledge right now.

.

Share
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.