McKeever: I would shrug
Paul McKeever would shrug
Paul McKeever - November 3, 2008
A sufficiently clear understanding of the situation requires that Barack Obama and John McCain be caricatured; that their most prominent features be focused upon, leaving non-essential differences in their properly minute proportions. Last September, I provided such a caricature. In what was a comparison of the underlying philosophies of Obama and McCain, I essentially concluded that the two men were, philosophically -- in terms of their essentials -- indistinguishable. Both men appear to allow their decisions to be founded upon supernatural beliefs; neither accepts that beliefs must be rationally-obtained in order to be knowledge; both believe that it is morally right to sacrifice of oneself for others and to expect others to sacrifice for oneself; both are comfortable with the idea that government should seize control over your person or property, rather than defending your control over same; and both Obama and McCain are committed to government intervention in the economy (witness that they both favoured a bail-out in an attempt to prevent a natural correction in the banking system).
The notion of in any way endorsing Obama would be contrary to every philosophical fibre of my being. Obama is openly collectivist and I would not intentionally inflict such a man upon the most pro-individualist country in the world. At the same time, neither would I endorse a man so stoked as McCain by the notion of sacrifice that his defence of capitalism is not only impossible, but counter-productive.
There is no active U.S. affiliate of Freedom Party International just yet. Were there one offering up a candidate for president, I would certainly vote for him/her regardless of his or her prospects for electoral success in the immediate election. However, given the absence of a presidential candidate who is solidly committed to strictly rational governance -- hence to individual freedom and capitalism -- a message must be sent: "none of the above". The notion that the majority of the governed in the United States of America opposes reality, reason, the pursuit of ones own happiness, individual freedom and capitalism, must be undermined entirely. To vote for the lesser of two anti-reason evils, in this case, would give everyone an over-estimate of American support for mysticism, irrationality, sacrifice, and tyranny.
Arguably, there is no stronger way to use electoral machinery against the enemies of reason than by turning one of their most powerful tools -- the perception of popular consent -- against them. When popular support for Democrats and Republicans combined falls below 50%+1, anti-reason politicians in both the Democrat and Republican parties will no longer be able to say that they offer what the people want. With the popular myth -- that one must cater to the socialist "middle" in order to win -- shorn away by poor voter turn-out, those parties or others may even be encouraged openly to advocate strictly rational governance.
At present, those casting a ballot for in the US presidential election cannot decline their ballot or vote for "none-of-the-above". Therefore, if I could vote in the U.S. presidential election, I would not exercise my right. I would stay home, and thereby help passively to defeat my enemies by witholding my sanction and allowing voter turn-out to fall below 50%+1. In short: I would shrug.
Paul McKeever is the leader of the Freedom Party of Canada, an Objectivist-based political party. He blogs here.