Pissed at the Government? Then Vote! (A Letter to Tom Gresham)

As a foreword, this post contains an email I sent yesterday to the inbox of Tom Gresham, host of Gun Talk Radio, a show that airs every Sunday 2pm to 5pm Eastern time. I originally got on the wait list to talk on the show, but unfortunately the call dropped and I was unable to get back on, despite redialing nearly twenty times. Close to the end of the show, Mr. Gresham mentioned my viewpoint, saying, "One of the callers says that... if you don't consent to be governed, then you should leave the country... that's weird, that doesn't make any sense. Moving on..." (paraphrased)

So yeah. My comment, out of context, sounds absolutely terrible. And that's to be expected, so no hard feelings. I did, however, want to clarify my words, and to that effect chose to write Tom an email explaining and defending my position. Before I start on that email, however, I will put in a little bit of context: a caller came on the show, and stated that he disliked both  the presidential candidates, didn't have faith in them, and was withdrawing his consent to govern by refusing to vote in the presidential election (for those of you who don't know, the "consent by the governed" idea is simply a social contact between the citizens and the government, whereby the government has ruling power only by our consent. More info here or here). So a caller is wanting to withdraw his consent to be governed, and wants to indicate as such by refusing to vote in the upcoming presidential election. Hope you like it.

---

Hey Tom, I was a caller on your show yesterday, and unfortunately was not able to get on due to the call being dropped while I was on hold. You did, however, mention my thoughts near the end of the show, about leaving the country and the idea of consent to be governed. I wanted to clarify my comment, so that it doesn't sound like I'm saying "get lost" to everyone who disagrees with the government.

The comment was in reply to the gentleman who had decided to withhold his vote in the presidential election as a way of symbolically voicing his rejection of the "consent to govern," due either to the fact that he disagreed with both of the main presidential candidates on major issues and thus doesn't want them governing him, or that he disagrees with the political system as a whole. I must say that I actually agree with his opinion of the government as a whole: the system is kind of screwed up, and I myself would prefer someone other than the two main candidates running for election. For the most part, it seems like the last several elections have been between a bad candidate and a worse one, and I'm looking forward to the day when there will be a candidate to represent the Republican party which I can give my full, whole-hearted endorsement. Hopefully that day will come.

That being said: I don't believe that the caller in question understands the full grasp of what it means to reject his consent to be governed, and just how serious that is. He can protest the current candidates by refusing to vote in the presidential election, but that does not equate with removing his consent to vote, either symbolically or practically. You handled already handled the practical implications of refusing to vote in your conversation with him, so I will merely comment on the philosophical side.

The president is just one third of the government. He may represent the government on an international basis, but within the United States, he is meant to be simply the enforcer of the laws passed by congress and deemed constitutional by the supreme court (the same court which also determines if the president himself is being constitutional in his law enforcement). No matter what law the president may want to sign into law, he can only sign that which has already been passed by Congress, which means that even if the president is a complete nutjob, the country will be okay as long as the Congress passes sensible laws, and the Supreme Court makes sure that the president is acting within the boundaries of the constitution. 

But right now, the Congress is NOT passing sensible laws, and the Supreme Court is only somewhat governing the Congress and the President - so clearly the issue is not just with the president, it's the whole of the government. It's by this that I say that any refusal to vote in the presidential election on a "consent to be governed" issue must be accompanied by a refusal to participate in congressional elections as well, possibly even a refusal to participate in the elections for state legislature, since they all represent the totality of the governing body over the common man. To this, I draw the analogy of a child trying to get his way by holding his breath, or by giving the silent treatment. Personally, neither worked very well on my parents, and towards the government, I imagine it works even less. And as you yourself pointed out, removing a vote for one candidate has the same effect as adding a vote to the other candidate - so in my mind, this level of protest is not only incomplete on a theoretical, but also impractical in any realistic sense.

However, I believe that the refusal to vote in any election is only a misrepresentation of the concept of consent of the governed. In truth, I think the more important and real discussion lies in the area of American citizenship. The reason is simple: if you are an American citizen, then you are in fact governed by the country. An American citizen is held to the laws of the country, is protected by the country, engages in commerce within the country, and is a part of the country. They are governed. They are governed regardless of whether they voted, who they voted for, or even if they cared to think about voting, because of the simple fact that they are an American citizen in America. If a person doesn't want to be governed by the country, and no longer want to participate in the contract between man and government - aka, the consent to be governed - then he can annul that contract. He would then renounce his citizenship and move from the US.

I'm not suggesting that route (in fact I rather oppose it), but I do want to put in perspective what is being suggested. A man may certainly disagree with the people in the government, and he can even disagree with the policies of the government and their enforcement thereof.: but as long as he's a citizen of that country where the government reigns, and continues to live in that sovereign nation by choice, he is de facto consenting to be governed. This is why I say (with our current state of government), if you really are at the point where you truly have chosen to withdraw your consent to be governed, then you should leave.* I don't prescribe it, I think that the American government (a government of and by the people) can easily be saved with a good deal of work by its people, but if a man really doesn't want to participate in the American system, then he shouldn't be here.

So in essence, I absolutely agree with you that the caller in question should vote. But I disagree that withholding a vote in the presidential election constitutes a rejection of consent to be governed, and I think that when the caller makes that connection, he's very much underestimating the seriousness of that social contract, and overstating his own ire with the government as it stands. In fact, I think that most people underestimate the value of that contract, which is why we have so many people who vote without researching the candidates, or who simply don't vote at all. That is why it is more important than EVER that we move not only to put good people into office, but also do our best to ensure that our fellow citizens also engage in the political process. Get informed, get active, communicate, and vote. And then the government will begin its path back towards being good.

*As a final note, I would mention that the other option to renouncing citizenship and leaving the country is starting a revolution. But I think that option should be reserved for the moment when it becomes clear that the government has no intention of respecting its citizens, to the point that we as citizens can no longer stand to be governed by the ruling authority to the point, and are willing to risk bloodshed to reestablish that right. Currently, the only people in America truly renouncing their consent to be governed are either criminals or people who renounce their citizenship. Those renouncing their citizenship do it officially and formally, and criminals do it in practical manner, mainly through their actions in defiance of governing law. I would follow neither example, and instead choose to voice my patriotism through actively communicating with my state senators and representatives, and only in the fact of true tyranny or economic collapse relegate myself to final option of armed revolution, whereby I would both symbolically and practically remove my consent to be governed by the current governing body, until such time that the government repents of its egregious policies, or a new government has replaced it which stays true to the original constitution which I hold so dearly to my heart.

Sincerely,

(Me)

---

That's my view, in a nutshell. I think a lot of people have major gripes with the government, and I think the best way to deal with what's going on in the political realm is to get involved in what's going on. If a politician has decided that he cares more about power than he does about the will of the people in his state and country, then silence from his people is the very last thing that will have any effect on his decisions. So if we want to make a difference, we need to be consistently communicating with our leaders, and put the pressure on them to change - not just during the controversial votes, but during every day of their elected term. Let them hear the message, "if you don't follow the will of the people, then you will not make it to a second term" - and then if they fail to heed that message, then vote them out. It's that easy.

And to the people who complain about the government, and still either think that refusing to vote will make any sort of statement, or refuse vote because they think it won't make a difference, I have this to say to you:

Look, it's cool to object to and dislike the leaders above you, if they are acting contrary to your positions and are not honoring the views and wishes of the people. It's expected. But if that is all you are doing, and you're not actively communicating your displeasure to your leaders, and aren't doing your best to either change the leader's actions or change the leaders themselves (through voting, informing others, encouraging others to vote, through running for office yourself, etc) - then you are NOT removing your consent to be governed, and you are NOT making an impact. You're just being a whiner-baby. Ironically, it's because of whiner babies (like you) who sit there and do nothing  (for example, refusing to vote as an "act of protest") that corrupt politicians get into office in the first place. So please, for your own sake, do something real. Be there. Don't just complain from a distance. Complaining from be bleachers never did a thing.

Get out there. Get informed. Go vote.






~Protest through silence is probably the most lazy, 
inefficient, and government-approved method of 
showing discontent ever invented.

Make a Difference in the World in Four Easy Steps

Step 1: Figure out what you relate to the world, how you relate to others, and how everyone should relate to the government. Do some research, and come up with a cogent view of the world. Make sure that you compare your worldview with reality. If the two contradict, then your worldview is probably wrong or needs some element of change. Make sure that YOU WOULD BE OKAY IF EVERYTHING YOU PROPOSE IS DONE TO YOU. In other words, if you are of the opinion that everyone who disagrees with you should be shot, then consider what happens if you disagree with someone else. Should they shoot you? Are you okay with this? If yes to both, then your theory is coherent. If no, rethink. This is something that you should be doing on a consistent basis. If not, you may eventually (if not already) suffer from chronic stupidity and poor life philosophy. Fix it. I highly recommend checking out Milton Friedman's series Free to Choose, a ten-part tv show he did in 1980; you can find it easily on youtube in full. First episode here.

Step 2: When any election comes up (once every two years for federal elections, more often for state and local), take a day to research the people running for office. You don't even have to check out everyone, just the main 2-3 runners will do. For local elections, just an hour of research will make you more informed than just about anyone else in the entire country, and when you go to put in your vote, you'll know who you want to vote for and why. For major elections, a bit more than an hour is suggested, which is why I say take the day to do some research. Ironically, even one day of research will make you more informed than the vast majority of the voting populous, and that's for the presidential election. Important things to consider: what is the candidate's positions? How have they changed since he/she started running? What is his voting record? What are his credentials? Who's sponsoring him? Is there anything questionable about his conduct, or the way he handles himself? Also make sure you encourage other people to get informed and get involved in the political process.

Step 3: VOTE. ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO VOTE. Complaining to your friends will never get rid of dirty politicians. Voting them out, and getting your peers to do the same, will.

Step 4: Politicians are currently in office - get in contact with them. Schedule a call, randomly call, or if you're closer, actually visit them - a lot of politicians set aside time daily to hear from the residents of their states, and you might as well take advantage of that time. Do a bit of research before talking with them, find out what they've been up to and whether or not they've kept up with their promises. Most importantly - and this is very important - make sure to be extremely specific when you talk to your senators, representatives of the house, whatever. If there is a bill in Congress that you agree or disagree with, mention what parts of it you are interested in and why. If you think that the bill is something that is unConstitutional (for example, Obamacare's provision putting a fine on people who don't own healthcare), be especially sure to bring it up. Let them know that you'll be checking how they vote on the bill, and that their choices will directly impact whether or not you vote for them in the upcoming election. When a senator knows and is informed on a daily basis that if he does not follow the mandate of the people that he will be kicked out of office, you can bet that it's going to have a drastic effect on how he votes. Surprisingly enough, when politicians are actually held accountable, you'll find that they change pretty quick. That's the nature of PEOPLE. And politicians are simply people, with their heads up their... well, you know.

Going into the military for the right reasons is more important than ever.

I just finished watching Act of Valor, a movie starring Navy SEAL Team 7, based on several real-life scenarios that could very well happen in the world. The movie itself was unphenomenal as a whole, it did not have the inspiring performances of brilliant actors, nor did it have the amazing camera shots and thematic music of one of the movie greats, like LOTR or Braveheart.

What this movie did have, however, was amazing action run by the clarity of thought and strength of will of professional Navy SEALs. It was clear from the very beginning, from the first shot to the last echo of fleeing footsteps stopped cold that these men were professionals at what they did: every movement, every thought, every eye movement that occurred in those battle scenes in the movie had something remarkable to them, something that I haven't seen in very movies. These gunfights were not acted out. Sure, there were cameras in the room, and cameras mounted on every helmet, and rehearsed lines, but every movement and behavior of those men breathed, even screamed to the world, "I am a military machine. I save lives, and my greatest hope in this world is to return home safely to my wife and kids. To be able to see their smiles one last time, and know that I'll get to see them be beautiful." This movie didn't have rogue officers, it didn't even have a lovable ruffian soldier who back-talks during playtime but pulls through when things get tough. This movie didn't have any of the push-pull dramatic BS that most directors put in their movies to spice things up and appeal to the audience. The Lieutenant was even clear about that right from the beginning of the movie, when he said to his platoon,

"Once we step off on campaign, once this bird's ready and we're down range... everything back home needs to be in balance. We're not going to be worth a damn to each other, ourselves if we get over there and something's out of whack, I mean if things aren't right with the family, things aren't right with the finances, or something's off - it's going to put us all out of balance, so, we need to have that all tight before we launch - if somebody's got an issue, bring it up: Chief can take care of it, I can take care of it, everybody's got each other's back. Let's make sure we lock that down so that when we're ready to roll , all our focus is on the mission."

There is no ego there. The focus is purely on making sure each guy is emotionally, mentally, and physically healthy so that they can go in, do the mission, and come back alive to their families. It may have been a scripted speech, but I'll bet it's not far off from the real deal. These soldiers care about each other more than themselves, and because of that they are easily one of the deadliest forces known to man. I think the truth of this is summed up near the ending of the film: the platoon is going through the tunnels, trying to find the remnants of the terrorist group. Upon entering a room, one of the men they're chasing drops a live grenade into the center of the room. At that moment, the Lt makes a move that didn't even cross my mind until I saw him do it.

The Lt dropped down right on top of that frag grenade, sacrificing his life for the other members of the platoon. As the camera panned around, it became clear that there was nowhere anyone could have hidden, no corner that the platoon could have ducked around, nothing. It was only that fall, the Lieutenant diving on that grenade, feeling its rounded steel shape bite into his chest, waiting nearly a second for it to take his life, while his teammates looked over, only realizing what was going on as the explosive detonated against flak jacket and flesh. If the measure of a man is given by what he would give his life for, then Lieutenant Rorke chose well.

And it's because of that example, from a movie, played by SEALs who played in the most realistic battle I've ever seen, that I've come to this one conclusion about the army: regardless of whether you agree with the military, regardless of whether you agree with the wars we're in - if you're thinking of joining for the military, don't join just for the academic package and financial benefits. Just don't. When you're in the military, you're playing with people's lives, whether you're the soldier holding the gun or the analyst who figures out where the enemy is located at, or the receptionist who books the general's luncheons. Every part part counts, and goes to make sure that our men come back alive. So if you're not in the military to save lives, or save our country, or defend our countrymen, or stop those who would destroy us, then please. Stay a civilian. Because when the grenade drops, I want to know that at least some of the team is going to survive. I don't want to see twenty obituaries in the paper, because the one guy who saw the grenade in time thought to himself, "you know, I can't spend that financial package if I'm dead - maybe I'll just duck around the corner and yell a warning instead." Life isn't that kind.

That's why I love Act of Valor. It isn't trumped up, it isn't over dramatized - it's real. And at the end, it becomes painfully obvious. This isn't  a story about happy endings, or about how the the bad guys always die at the end and the good guys - the ones you really care about, anyways - always come out okay. It's a story about doing whatever it takes to make it to the goal line, and come back to your family and friends at the end. It's a story about making the right choice - even if that choice really, really sucks for you. Even if it requires your life. Because that is life. Life isn't about everything being perfect or ideal. Life is about doing what matters to you, and seeing it through to the end. I salute every Lieutenant Rorke, and any man who put his life on the line for the sake of others.

Five stars.