No not Poltergeist, but be just as wary. The honeymoon’s over and primaries for the mid-term election season are coming up. Typically at mid-term elections, voters sway toward “opposition” politicians promising an alternative to whichever party holds power in Washington, D.C.
Free to Choose, as Long as It’s More of the Same
The mid-term elections serve a useful purpose for the ruling class: by pretending to offer a change, they help maintain social stability when the cattle are threatening to stampede. Pretending voters have a choice is another bait and switch trick our rulers play to channel our energies and tranquilize the herd. There really is no difference between the pols in power and the candidates opposing them.
The trick depends on voters having short memories. For this election, voters dissatisfied with both Rs and Ds are drawn to the Tea Party movement. In this election, a Tea Party endorsement is obligatory for “opposition” candidates to prove to the gullible that they’re outsiders.
Even insider incumbent US senator for Arizona, John McCain, a career politician running for re-election as a member of the “opposition party,” has a Tea Party endorsement. McCain (R) found one organization in the Tea Party movement to endorse his candidacy. McCain hopes the endorsement will help voters forget 2008, when McCain joined then-Senator Obama (D) to support the $700 billion TARP bailout during the Bush (R) administration.
Politicians in America, no matter their stripe, all share one core belief: someone has to rule and it might as well be them. Every mid-term election is the same—only the rhetoric changes. Since Ds currently hold power, it’s the “opposition” R-candidates who are energized these days.
The Only Solution Offered is More Government
"Opposition” candidates rely on hot button issues to get voters emotional enough to overlook the similarity of a candidate’s views to those of the incumbent. In this mid-term election, particularly in a border state like Arizona, the candidates focus on emotional issues:
- Protecting our borders from being overrun is hot this campaign. The Rs want to “keep us safe” with a wall similar to the Great Wall of China, and want citizens to celebrate their freedom by making everyone carry their citizenship papers. The Ds want “open borders” supported by “open taxpayer pockets” for federally-mandated socialist handouts to any who make it across the border. Everyone is too excited to see that both solutions give more power to Big Brother.
- The cost of healthcare is still sizzling hot. Rs don’t want cuts to socialist Medicare; Ds support even more government control with socialist Obamacare. Both sides talk about the cost of healthcare, yet neither side addresses the morality or efficiency of the federal government manipulating the price of healthcare or how much it costs taxpayers for Medicare and Obamacare.
- Fiscal responsibility is another hot issue. Rs want to extend the Bush tax cuts; Ds want to increase taxes to reduce the deficit. “Fiscally responsible” Rs never address the cost of US troops all over the world. Profligate Ds never seem to consider cutting federal spending to reduce the deficit. Both sides advocate increased spending of some kind by the federal government.
- What’s gone cold is foreign policy. Since both Bush (R) and Obama (D) support un-Constitutional wars in the Middle East, foreign policy isn’t much of an issue in this mid-term election. All the candidates pay the obligatory lip service to national security and “protecting” Americans from terrorism.
The Sky is the Limit
I recently attended a “meet and greet” at an acquaintance’s home to listen to an R-congressional candidate ready to climb the next rung up the political ladder in Arizona’s 3rd district. The 3rd district has 10 candidates vying for the R nomination to run for Congress. With Obama in office, I expected an “opposition candidate” to make noise about limited government.
The candidate I met didn’t disappoint (video). Calling herself “a limited government Republican” and “a proud supporter of John McCain for President” at the Republican National Convention in 2008, I wondered how she reconciled McCain’s TARP vote with her “limited government” outlook?
Those two descriptions usually can’t apply to the same person. But she honestly is for “limited government”—it’s just that for her and most of the other candidates, the sky is the limit.
Meat on the Hoof
This candidate explained that the local newspaper endorsed her over her nine opponents, describing her as an “independent thinker.” As an example of her independence, she pointed to her ability to make difficult choices—like supporting the recent Arizona sales tax increase in these hard economic times. For a “limited government Republican,” what must have made the choice difficult was how to explain why a “limited government Republican” supported increased government.
She obviously thinks that not only is she more qualified to manage our money than we are, but that we need to pay even more to the government. She’s not alone. The ruling class often makes “difficult decisions” about why the ruled must pay more. A taxpayer is just meat on the hoof to most politicians.
The main message of this particular candidate is her record as an efficient government bureaucrat. Steepling her fingers, this candidate explained why she deserved our money and our votes. I was naive enough to think a candidate might listen to future constituents. But does a cowboy let the cows decide where the herd is headed? Smart and capable—she doesn’t need anyone telling her different. She promised that she’d do a better job managing resources plucked from the herd compared to everyone else.
Yes, the “opposition” candidates are here again. They come in through your television, making lots of noise about change. Beware, lest they wreak havoc in your neighborhood.
Posts
