Who would you vote for: Stalin or Hitler? Hopefully you’re thinking neither, despite the fact that you were presented with what appears to be a choice between the two. I think we can agree the two are brutal dictators and we wouldn’t be happy having either as a leader. Please realize the hyperbole, but many Americans are greeted with two poor choices on ballots. There are the Democratic and Republican Parties, and while there are some things to like about both of them, there is also an increasing dissatisfaction with both. All too often I hear people saying they voted for the “lesser of two evils.”
We’ve been sucked into this game of left or right. There is no down or up. Let me lay out a baseball diamond of sorts as a political landscape rather than the linear model that’s been engrained in us. Suppose on the left, you have the left as you know it: the liberals who stand for social liberties (gay marriage, gender equality, pro-choice, etc.). Similarly, on the right is the right as we know it: conservatives who stand for economic freedoms (lower taxes, business regulations, etc.). As you know, both the left and right stand for freedom but in their respective areas. Add two more directions to this field: up and down. Imagine that if you move up you move towards an authoritarian society. I use the term authoritarian because it’s pretty broad, but this is the category where you have the least amount of freedom (think dictatorships). If you move down on the field you have the libertarian camp where people have the most liberty. The libertarian camp is composed of the liberties the left and right advocate, but combined: both economical and social liberties.
Now I’m definitely in the libertarian camp, but even if you aren’t, I think we should consider this two-dimensional playing field more than the linear model we seem to be stuck on. Even the four cornered baseball diamond idea is somewhat elementary and limiting, but it’s at least a step in the right direction.
I’m describing this model to help illustrate the following: if you’re a Libertarian or a part of the growing segment of America who describes themselves as independent (who are increasingly libertarian-leaning) then it should be easy to see if you want our government to move down on the playing field towards liberty, then you’re never going to get there voting left or right. In fact, I think by voting back and forth between left and right we’re stuck with a system that is increasingly closer to authoritarian. Legislators from each party pass laws restricting freedom in the areas they see as needing restrictions, and then when the power shifts laterally, we get restrictions from the other side. When you couple restrictions from the left and right, you get an authoritarian society, one that is far from liberty.
Even if you aren’t a Libertarian but you agree with the theory that alternating between politicians from the left and right leads to an ever more authoritarian society, you might still want to vote for a libertarian candidate and join the Libertarians as I’m guessing most people from the left or right would rather have a Libertarian society than an authoritarian one. I could be wrong on that though.
It’d be nice if people started voting libertarian (and whether that means an actual member of the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, or even a Libertarian with a Republican title such as Ron Paul, it doesn’t really matter) to actually start moving in that direction. However, due to the linear left or right model we’ve been sticking to for so long now, people are hesitant to vote outside of that model. Thus, we end up with regulations from both sides and end up even farther away from what some Americans want.
Expecting things to get better and voting for the lesser of two evils are mutually exclusive concepts. I think we need to stop worrying about how everybody else is voting and vote for the people who we really want to win. Americans’ political views are just so much more complicated than left and right, even if we discount the Libertarians. How are we going to get the real change I think the vast majority of us want if we keep voting the same ways we always have?
It’s time we thought outside the establishment and voted for the people we think embody the principles we stand for as individuals, regardless of their party. The United States is supposed to be a republic and you get a very poorly functioning one if the choices at the polls are only twofold.
Make no mistake about it; there are more options than just Democrat or Republican. We need to open our minds to the possibilities.
Aaron,
Nice column. I recently made the transition from Republican to Libertarian back in 2007 and a similar analogy as yours ultimately convinced me to do it.
Freedom is a two-way street and if you believe in social freedoms you most accept financial freedoms because the two are one in the same.
My only qualm (and I recognize this is somewhat of a fraction in the Libertarian camp) is with your assertion that abortions are a social freedom. My stance is that abortion is killing a human and should be considered murder.
How do you feel?
Brian,
I guess in hindsight I should have left “pro-choice” out of the list of social freedoms that liberals are proponents of because the implication is that being pro-life is anti-freedom. I’m not sure there is a unified libertarian view on abortion….and personally I’ve yet to define clearly for myself what my own stance on the subject is.
I think some libertarians might say that life starts at conception, and therefore any abortion is tantamount to murder – a violation of the most fundamental right, the right to life.
On the other hand, I think you could also argue that a fetus in its early stages is not an independent being, and a “parasite” (forgive the negative connotation) of the mother. If you take that view, the mother has a right to decide what happens with her own body, and I’d think she’d have a right to remove something inside of her. I think in that way she’d not be “killing” the fetus, but rather “removing” it from her body, and if it dies…well then we might blame that on nature.
I think both positions have merit…it’s such a tough issue.
Since you believe abortion is murder, which I can respect, I’m curious if you then believe in absolutely no abortions; for example, what about in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life?
Aaron,
Thanks for the response. Just a real quick thought before I get to your question. You are correct that in the early stages of development a fetus is not an independent being and is arguably a parasite. But even after being alive for several years a child is still dependent on on another source for its livelihood and is also arguably a parasite in the sense that it is dependent. If we use the “independent or not” question to determine whether or not abortion is okay then where does that end? Is not a person in vegetative state while on medicare a parasite on our public treasury? -Should we then end their live?
Wow not as quick as I thought.
I find myself trying to iron out my stances on the question you posed and at this very moment I do not believe an innocent life should be punished for a heinous crime that they did not commit. In regards to saving the mother’s life, our former Surgeon General Koop made a comment that he had never come across a case where the baby’s life needed to be taken in order to save the mother. I tried to look into this comment more to see if there was any merit to it but have yet to substantiate it.
The problem doesn’t lie in the ethics of murder, it lies in the definition of humanity. The parasite analogy Aaron used is a good introduction to the issue, but it is far from exhaustive. You must define what human life is before you can claim murder or a lack of murder.
Does life start at conception? The first thought? The first ability to recognize pleasure and pain? These are questions that science needs to continue to study and philosophy needs to continue to debate (with the inclusion of scientific data!).
Abortion rights go even further: Is the mother in peril? Where does the mother’s body end and the child’s begin (this is where the parasitic argument could come in to play)? Does the child have Huntington’s? Will the child be placed in a dangerous situation with little to no recourse for public help? Sadly, these are not black and white issues. It’s an interesting topic that will only be clarified with time!
Aaron,
I am glad to see that there are some people other than myself that sees that our two party system really is a problem. More people should know that there are other parties out there other than Republicans and Democrats. The only thing I had an issue with is that you said somewhere around the lines that if we don’t agree with Republicans and Democrats we should just go for the Libertarians, I think there are other parties out there that are pretty good also such as the Green Party or the Peace and Freedom Party and a few others. Like I said though I really enjoyed your column.