The point of my writing has never been to tell others how to vote, especially not in elections in countries like the USA where I cannot myself vote.
But even if I was a voter in this election, there is no candidate with a chance in hell of winning who I could support. Obama and Romney are standing on the shoulders of George W. Bush.
Obama renewed Bush’s PATRIOT Act, which gutted the Fourth Amendment, Obama signed into place (and went to court to defend) the NDAA Act that creates a legal framework for the indefinite detention of American citizens, Obama has engaged in six middle eastern wars (two more than Bush), and Obama maintains a kill-list of suspected terrorists including American citizens who — without trial, and alongside their families — are targeted for assassination by drone strike. Romney signs on to all of those initiatives, and boasts the endorsements of both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Both candidates promise to strike first against Iran. Neither candidate talks of downsizing the American Empire, that — at huge cost to the taxpayer — maintains bases in over 150 countries, creates huge blowback, and leaves the American military thinly stretched. And this misallocation of capital means that in areas where central government plays a useful role — infrastructure, space exploration, disaster relief and scientific research — too little is left to invest.
On the economy, both candidates are avowed interventionists who endorse bank bailouts and the bailouts of failed and unsustainable industries. Bailouts result in the malinvestment of capital, labour and productivity — giving too-big-to-fail banks and crooked and fraudulent banksters the opportunity to continue profiting from mountains of central bank liquidity, while small businesses and new entrepreneurs starve from a lack of credit. And neither candidate has any intention of implementing a solution — like Glass Steagall, which worked relatively well for over sixty years — to end the tyranny of public bailouts. Additionally, neither candidate seems aware of the real cause of depressions — excess and unsustainable total debt. Both candidates seem intent to pursue policies of reinflating debt bubbles, only for them to burst again later rather than try to address the underlying problems. This approach is likely to render social spending pledges unsustainable, as the only thing that can pay for Social Security and present welfare commitments is strong organic productive growth, not endless bailouts of crooked banksters, mobility scooters, new social networks and the pointless reinflation of unsustainable businesses.
Both candidates are committed to one-sided free trade deals that end up shipping productive American jobs half way around the world, and rendering Americans dependent on the output of other nations. And while (much like George W. Bush) both candidates have paid lip-service to the idea of energy independence, they also support the idea of a resource-sapping global military empire, which leaves few resources remaining for the task of creating energy independence.
And both candidates promise to continue the expensive, wasteful and liberty-sapping war on drugs — even though Obama was a proud and boastful drug user in his youth.
One candidate will be elected today, and their supporters will surely go wild, while the other side will be despondent. But sadly, both sides will have lost. The only winners under Obama-Romney will be crooked too-big-to-fail banksters, and the military-industrial complex.
azizonomics 
Great last paragraph; this election is a farce.
Thanks for this post. Good summary of the state of affairs in the US. The average citizen has no clue what’s going on.
The pic at the top says it all. May I suggest a second pic: Obama, with the caption, “I second that motion.”
All points well made. Discontent with the status quo is evident in almost all countries. It is boiling over into open rebellion in several. A Romney victory is more likely to bring American discontent to the boiling point. So, in a perverse sense, a Romney victory should be preferable.
Yes! A Romney administration will be expected to produce changes, after all the rhetoric, and will not be able to deliver. That’s bound to produce a stage for the millions of Americans who want a whole new paradigm.
While GW Bush will go down as the worst President in the history of the the USA, many historians will (rightly so IMHO) point out that the Obama years were a wasted opportunity to right the ship.
I didn’t vote this year. No Ron Paul on the ticket. Dipshit Republicans.
George W. Bush may well go down as the worst President in the history of the USA, but both Romney and Obama seem keen to vie for that title.
What!!! You mean the Affordable Care Act, that has and will continue to make healthcare MORE expensive was/is a bad idea?
Thats not what Obama told me!
PS I’ve been reading Krugman again. We just aren’t adding enough debt and inflation into the economy. Yes, he really believes that dribble.
Haha I’ve been reading Hal Varian.
I didn’t vote either, nor will ever vote in what is a meaningless election.
Also, just looked at the price of oil, up %3.64 today. WTF? Is this the, if Romney wins, we bomb Iran tax?
New business plan idea. Portable fold-up ladders for dumpster diving.
I enthusiastically agree. It’s good to see one’s own thoughts written by someone else.
One could build a very good argument that George W. Bush was the worst president in American history. He almost certainly was the least intelligent.
We cannot afford such people in positions of leadership, and any people who would happily vote for a man who gave us 9-ll, 2 wars on 2 fronts, doubled the national debt, engaged in war crimes, an unregulated financial industry, the near break-down of the economic world order, gave the wealthiest 1% a $750 billion tax break and the greatest transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top in history, are not capable of casting an intelligent vote.
Democracy requires an informed electorate. America doesn’t have one.
Space exploration?
NASA are (or were) one of the few things worth paying taxes for. Maybe the private space industry will be better in the long run, but right now I’m willing to pay taxes to fund research into space exploration, space mining, etc.
John, I couldn’t agree with you less. How do you figure?
Return per dollar.
http://www.dobeafraid.com/2012_08_01_archive.html
Click to access infrastructure_report.pdf
I agree with a lot of your points. The one thing I would say is that Obama will at least move a little in the right direction, Romney probably won’t – although who knows what the hell he really believes?
As you well know, from my private emails and posts on many of your blog threads, I am a big fan — no, enthusiastic supporter. But, after reading your ignorance-based, incomplete and distorted diatribe on the US presidential candidates, I ask: is it your youth (with exposure to generational brainwash) or your remove from on-the-ground USA that causes you to betray your basic principles* (and my and Ron Paul’s hopes) of diffusion of power, individual liberty, free markets, and protection of people’s livelihoods from government and government-industry conspiracy?
FACTS: Barrack Obama has, from birth, been programmed and personally dedicated to destroying EVERY ONE of the above principles. His values are rooted in Marxism (redistribution enforced by absolute power), Islam, anti-colonialism (anti-white), and Chicago corruption. These facts are known from his youth, college, mentoring, writing, early career, and his campaigning every left-wing, racist, anti-American, anti-democratic group for support in the 2008 Democratic Party primary. Changing costumes for the 2008 GENERAL ELECTION campaign, he quit refusing to wear a flag pin and shake hands with Alliance troops, and ballyhooed fake intentions of deficit reduction, bi-partisanship, ethnic and racial unity, transparency, etc., EVERY one of which he immediately and (and effectively!) set about to violate with as much power as he could muster. This year he is back in con-man campaign costume with flag pin, loving America, individual opportunity, unity, jobs, energy independence, etc. His only consistency is in unrestrained lying to the people, cover-ups, quid-pro-quo deals, voting fraud, scorn for free nations, and sellouts to America’s adversaries, all of which are virtues in Communist and other totalitarian regimes, Muslim and other theocracies, race wars, and corrupt city halls like his Chicago. If Obama wins reelection and succeeds in overthrowing the last vestiges of our Constitutional Republic, I wonder if we will hear King George’s ghost gloating, “I knew that nonsense of self-rule and ‘just powers derived from the consent of the governed’ wouldn’t work!”
Mitt Romney is honest, patriotic, charitable and honorable in his extensive and transparent private and public dealings. But he has, once again, become a politician seeking votes. I’m confident that he would prefer “our” perfect world of libertarian individual and societal values, but he realizes that the majority of voters are, unfortunately — no tragically, too entitlement-dependent to vote for the cold-turkey cure. But he does understand our “excess and unsustainable debt” and would do his best to curb it. He understands finances, and the causes and cures of malinvestment and losing jobs overseas. As far as is known, he has never been party to fraudulent bailouts or other Wall Street-Pennsylvania Avenue bilking of public funds or investors. He is quite clear on REAL energy independence, competitive here and now, not “crony capitalism” or indefinite future gambles. He believes in free market, minimally controlled/regulated enterprise, government fiscal responsibility, and Constitutionally limited government. It’s absurd to accuse Romney (or Obama) of planning a first strike on Iran, even though the latter has false-promised “I will never allow Iran to have nuclear weapons”.
It’s basically quite simple: Romney, like Ron Paul, believes in bottom-up government: people have rights and grant limited/specified powers to government to secure them; people are master, government is servant. Obama, and tyrants since the dawn of human history, believe that people, incapable of self-rule, are fair game to be enslaved by masters.
If we move from who OUGHT to win to who is LIKELY to win: the ruling Democrats have two major constituencies. Told by parable:
A school election for class president had two candidates. One presented a well thought out and well received plan of working with the faculty and administration for popular new student privileges. The other candidate’s speech was brief: “If I’m elected I will buy ice cream for everyone.” The latter won by landslide.
True story here in our Texas town: Our donut shop gang includes Oscar, an African-American pastor. We persuaded Oscar to attend a local book-signing by Herman Cain, African-American REPUBLICAN presidential candidate. We ran into Oscar in the lobby of the two-story book store, and started up the stairs to get in line to meet Cain. Oscar balked: “I can’t — someone might see me!”
* I am NOT disputing your condemnation of counterproductive mistakes like Viet Nam, drug over-regulation and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
FOOTNOTE: Bush II is not even competitive to Obama and the Clintons for Worst President. The sub-prime (mortgage-backed securities) mega disaster was done by Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank, and their appointees at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They, and their Wall Street henchmen, were the criminals; Bush, who warned but did not veto, was a weak cop.
Don I held off and basically stayed out of the race until it was over because I had too many people — on both sides — insisting that I jump in and endorse Obama or Romney. That was out of respect for people like you who supported one of the candidates. Perhaps at heart Romney is philosophically closer to me than Obama but, I am just judging them on their platform and I think most Ron Paul supporters will agree with me that beyond rhetoric there is very little to say that Romney is better than Obama. Ask the Ron Paul supporters here. While I respect your choice to support Romney (just as I have to respect some of my friends’ and family’s choices to support Obama!), the majority of libertarians and Ron Paul supporters did not see enough common ground to get behind him. Ron Paul said it himself.
Was Clinton worse than Bush? Maybe. He created a lot of the legislation that led to the problems…., e.g. Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
Bill Clinton, a certified liar and the accused rapist of Juanita Broaddrick, is very popular among millions of Americans. I’m not sure what that says about the national I.Q.
To be fair it must be said that he kept us out of mindless wars and produced a balanced budget, but it was under his administration that no regulation of derivatives was allowed and, if I’m not mistaken, the repeal of Glass-Steagall occurred. These two acts laid the foundation for the economic melt-down. Bush’s refusal to regulate the financial industry, a subdivision of organized crime, was the coup de grace.
Conclusion: Virtually no national leader is ever held accountable for the damage he does. His portrait is hung in the White House, he continues to have millions of devotees, he is protected from harm, given large sums of money, consulted for his ‘expertise’, and lauded for his ineptitude.
We cannot have an effective democracy and a low I.Q. electorate.
Don,
Obama is possibly an apostate Muslim, or the son of an apostate Muslim he does not support Islam. Apostates usually hate their former religion. I certainly see no love of Islam from Obama, nor do I see him raising the living standards of Afro-Americans. He is actually mixed race and working for the ruling elites.
Democarcy is a farce, it is all stage managed. Both parties support the rich ruling class, any differences between them are superficial and based on peripheral matters. The Banksters rule.
I tend to agree about democracy, particularly as it applies to us. I do think, however, that there are countries where there is a degree of competence and integrity and where democracy seems to function fairly well.
When we invited millions of immigrants to live among us who did not share the same value system or commonality of language, religion, culture, etc., we destroyed a sense of ‘us’. The already super-individualistic characteristics of the West then became a source of division in a country where every man for himself was already a national inclination, and take the money and run became a national theme song.
Daniel Quayle’s statement, “Diversity is our greatest strength”, has to be once of the most ignorant thoughts ever to occur within the human brain. Unity, on the other hand, could be
a great source of strength.
I’m curious as to which immigrants don’t share our values. Certainly Hispanics do; they are probably more socially conservative than most non-Hispanic Americans, but otherwise they are strongly influenced by a political culture that has run parallel to our own, and belong to the same religion(s). People from eastern and southern Asia may not share our religious history or a culture that went through the Enlightenment, but nevertheless they seem to believe in order, respect for one’s elders, learning, work, and engagement with material reality, values which other Americans at least profess some of the time. So who does that leave? Living in New York City as I do, I really don’t see the supposed corruption and degradation of life immigrants are supposed to bring. On the contrary, I’d say most of them raise the tone of the place.
I’ll admit it; I have a definite feeling of kinship toward white Europeans, and I can identify with their values, cultures, traditions, etc. I have never accepted the idea that diversity for the sake of difference was a good idea, and I will never understand why we actually discriminate against the very people with whom we share the most commonality. I definitely do not believe in cultural relativism. Moslem societies, for example, represent cultures which are diametrically opposed to virtually everything we hold dear.
As a landlord, I do not and never will rent a home to anyone I would not live in myself. I routinely rent immaculate houses to minorities only to find them turned into roach infested hovels within a few months. The most disgusting thing I ever saw: Feces smeared on a bathroom wall.
It’s time we faced a few realities: a) Race is real. Physical and behavioral characteristics are heritable, b) All races, cultures are not equal.( If they are, then someone is discriminating against white sprinters). c) There is a heritable component to I.Q.. No genetic anthropologist will deny it. d) crime rates, work ethic, STD rates and multiple sex partners are exponentiallylarger in some minorities.
The Declaration of Independence declared all men created equal despite the fact that John Adams, a vehement opponent of slavery, tried to have the phrase removed. It is simply untrue no matter how much we might wish otherwise.
I believe that all people are created equal in front of the law and in front of God (for lack of a better word). The idea that people are actually “equal” in intelligence, skills, talents, etc, is absurd. But I think it’s really important that everyone gets a fair shake in life, and I certainly don’t think that the state should be in the business of endorsing any one particular culture. I think that the GOP should move to a more racially and culturally inclusive — but economically conservative — platform, along the lines of what Gary Johnson ran on. Civil libertarianism — live your life as you want, but not at the taxpayers’ expense.
I believe that what the writers of the Declaration of Independence meant by ‘created equal’ was that everyone, or at least all English males, were, or ought to be, politically and legally equal with respect to the government. This was opposed to the more conservative view of that era which was that people were born to a certain station in life — royal, aristocratic, commoner, slave, etc. Obviously it didn’t mean that everyone had the same physical size or competencies.
My agents in the real estate world tell me Mexicans are preferred because they are, by and large, cleaner and more orderly than certain other ethnic or cultural groups. In any case, the ideas of ethnicity and race are so ill-defined that it is hard to say anything about them which corresponds to physical reality; they seem to be mostly socially constructed in answer to some deep need, possibly something engraved on our genes because we evolved for a couple of hundred thousand years as primates trooping about in small groups. Now we have to live in a different sort of world where this sort of tribalism seems to lead to ruinous wars on a grand, indeed, world-wide and maybe world-ending scale. Science and technology enabled us to step out of Nature, but as yet we’ve only got one foot out.
Where I live, the Mexicans have a reputation for hard work, and they displace many other minorities from jobs such as roofing, carpentry, construction and other labor intensive jobs.
But they have problems: Alcoholism ranks as one of them, and my experience renting to them does not agree with the one you referenced.
Homes soon fill with cockroaches, bagged household garbage, and people totally unknown to the landlord are frequently found living in the house
The Sicilian Mafia?
Anarc. & Aziz, if you will give me a few days to round up voting data, I will see if we can discern a picture of voting (an indicator of values) by Hispanics, descendents of slaves, descendents of “melting pot” era immigrants, etc. You can help watch out for my biases — I’m aghast at Mexicans escaping one class-rigid society only to help create another, and descendents of slaves willingly subserviant to a new set of masters.
Afterthought: Before you libertarians chide me, I confess that Orwell has explained why I shouldn’t be surprised!
I think we know how those sets of people voted already. In the case of Blacks and HIspanics, maybe it is too bad they’re not all libertarians or anarchists, but I don’t think they feel that kind of political space in their environments at present. Explaining the politics of the Jews and certain Roman Catholic ethnic groups is more interesting since they are reasonably well-off economically and have a certain amount of political and economic strength.
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html
You and Ben Franklin hit one of the biggest nails on the head!
Pingback: Links 11/7/12 « naked capitalism
Pingback: Links 11/7/12 « naked capitalism