I will not say that I have held this belief for particularly long, but I do currently believe that no election, or series of elections, will "save our country", no matter who or what is on the ballot. Why? Well, the answer is fairly simple – America’s problem is not, has never been, and will never be her politicians. America’s problem has always been, and will always be, the people who put those politicians into office.
And you cannot vote them off the island.
As the saying goes, we get the government we deserve – those politicians finding ways to control, limit, and outright destroy our freedoms and liberties would not be doing such things if people had not elected them into an office capable of doing such things, and, worse, re-electing them to the same. The sad truth is that the majority of Americans either want our country to be the way it is right now, and headed down the path it is right now, or they simply do not care enough to do anything substantial about it in the voting booth; what makes you think they would do anything substantial about it anywhere else?
Which brings us to this outstanding post, culminating in the following quote of the day:
I am responsible for my actions and my inactions. If I do not extend my hand to help you, I deserve no better when I’m down on my luck. It is in my own selfish interest to help others. It is in my best interest to not allow the government to choose the winners and losers by granting them the authority to punish and reward those who help or hinder their campaigns. My life is easier when I expend the effort necessary to better my environment and community.
Far too many people of far too many political bents seem to be of the erroneous belief that "I do not want the government to help X group" is logically equivalent to "I do no want to help X group at all". Obviously, this is not the case, any more than "involuntary redistribution of wealth" is equivalent to "charity". However, it is that exact mentality, among thousands of others, that has encouraged people – either through believing it themselves, or allowing themselves to be influenced by it – to craft our country into the current state we find it in, despite the simple truth that helping our community is something that is both our own individual choice and our own individual responsibility. If you do not want to help your community, then knock yourself out, but do not be terribly surprised when the community does not want to help you. Alternatively, if you want to help the community, help the community your own damned self – getting the government to force other people to do what you want them to do is neither charity nor indicative of your own supposed "good will".
So, no, we are not voting our way out of this. What that means in the long run, I have no idea, but I do know that history will look back on this era and wonder why we squandered such a wonderful country in some moronic effort to recreate that which caused us to found it to begin with.
(As a brief aside, this belief is why I tend to regard anyone who advocates a shooting war to "return America to what it was" or whatever the hell those folks are going on about with a certain degree of amusement, if not outright disdain. The people you are advocating shooting are not "the government", they are not "the cops", and they are not "the military"; you are advocating shooting your neighbors, your friends, your family, and all those other folks who wanted America to be how it is now, and want it to continue that way in the future. You up for that?)
Your brief aside, in the context of the rest of your post, is the best-articulated and succinct argument against the Threeper position I’ve yet seen.
Elections with the current electorate will not do much, and re-educating said electorate is neither swift nor simple. Another revolution (the ‘soft’ Threeper path) would really on reset the clock to zero, leaving us back here in another 200 years (likely less). So, the question is: what new idea, new approach is there that might make a real difference? And a pragmatic one as well — perfection is not the goal, and perfect is the enemy of pragmatic and adequate solutions.
I see you found the subtext
.
The problem is that you have to convince at least a simple majority, and hopefully some significantly larger fraction, of the American public that they simply cannot keep living off the income of others, and that means getting rid of such programs as Social Security, Medicare/caid, governmental subsidies, and countless other things. Until that happens, people will keep electing politicians who promise to route them as much of the government’s (read: “your”) money as they possibly can, and we keep ending up with the same future ahead of us.
And, no, I do not see “that” ever happening…
That convincing you speak of is the “re-educating said electorate” I mentioned. The issue now is of timing — it appears that long before changing said voters, the government(s) will collapse, unable to meet their obligations. So, is the only way to wean these folks is to have the teat dry up? The two concerns there are the screaming hungry babies that result, and the possibility that they may accept another teat that has significant strings on them and their progeny (and us as well).
Oh, I know we were both going in the same direction, just reiterating the same point
.
But, as you said, it is tremendously, if not completely, likely that the government will fold long before we convince the populace that the fold is inevitable… After that, I sincerely doubt it will really matter what our plans or intentions are. At this point, my only major concern is the timing, and how much we have left.