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.
---
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment