The coming election
Socialism Versus Free-Enterprise / The All Powerful Government Versus the Individual —
Collectivism vs Individuality
This article establishes what I believe is the core rationale for the significance of the coming presidential election. I take full responsibility for the manner in which the arguments are presented...
...And so begins the single most important election that will occur in the lives of millions of citizens of a country in what might historically be referred to as: ‘The life or death of a system of government. The election of a new president, or the re-election of an incumbent.
One, the incumbent President, Barack Obama, believes the country must be released from the chains of an archaic system of government (a constitutional republic, and a free-enterprise economic system) which brought it to the standing of the most powerful country in the entire world, but which, he apparently believes, needs to be changed to a system that will transform us into an all powerful government which has the necessary laws and regulations to force citizens into what he believes we must have to function in a world that will live in harmony by insuring that all countries will have similar, if not exact, laws that enable them to interact to the benefit of each with regard to economies and currencies. Put simply: A more socialistic, government controlled, economy. Most importantly, the belief that it provides a basic and supposedly equal social system that guarantees everyone’s needs are met, through a system which utilizes redistribution of wealth.
The other, the challenger, that will presumably be Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts, who will argue that by forcing the United States to conform to this new system will surely set the country back decades, if not generations, since we already have what should be considered as the most effective economy, when left to the ingenuity that allows the ‘individual to reach his most productive potential in regards to the manufacture and production of the ever changing needs of the population of not just the country, but the world.
Basically, the argument is one of socialistic needs controlling the economy as opposed to economic forces that drive the free-enterprise (the entrepreneurial spirit) of the individual to progress at a rate that will force other countries to require their governments to provide the basis for them to use a system that will encourage free-enterprise to control the rate at which social needs can expand to ensure the basic needs of everyone to have equal opportunities. This system relies on competitive thinking to foster growth.
Both systems, when taken with the view that each will perform at its most efficient level when allowed to exist, make bold statements as to what can be done for the country utilizing either one. One system, however, has a proven record of accomplishment, the other is promoted as to what it could do, unfortunately, in my opinion, what it has done has no verifiable record of success in its past usage.
So we find the incumbent President must make the more difficult case that the system he favors will reward the gamble he has already begun to make with regard to funds he believes are needed and which he has already finessed the congress into having to borrow. This gamble has thus far, in only three and a quarter years cost the country five-trillion dollars worth of debt with no turn-around in sight for an economy that threatens to bankrupt itself before it even shows a halt to the rate of decline forecasted by any number of world economists.
This alone would seem to be a losing bet, but for whatever reasons, there is what looks like an almost equal amount of voters who line up on each side. This is what makes this such an important election.
The election will center on economic issues, certainly, but to most people who look a little deeper is a far more important long term problem, and the main reason the event is life changing for the government and the voters.
What is at stake is nothing less than who the people of the United States have always been and what makes that so important. What’s at stake is the interpretation of the actual founding documents of the country: The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, and the bill of rights as well as all of its amendments.
Obama, and his administration, as well as the very far left of the Democratic Party are fanatically pursuing changes in the constitution which will, in all likelihood, render it unnecessary for either party to change it without having to go through either Congress or through the examination/consultation of the Supreme Court, which in effect will give whatever party might be in power the ability to change the way the country operates fiscally and a good portion of the people feel, also morally. This means that all the founding documents will be in jeopardy of having changes made to them which will inevitably weaken them to the point of making changes which will modify or even end the type of government we have always been.
Some people believe this has already been done. Why is this so surprising?
Well, first, is the idea of how we view ourselves as a country. The government of the US was established as a democratic republic, meaning the people vote for those who they wish to represent them in the Congress. The word represent in this system means the people elect people who represent their views as to how the government will operate within its constitution. There is no suggestion that the government may step outside of the wishes of the people and start making laws and regulations which will limit what the people can or cannot do without due process. Meaning, only the people have the right to make these decisions, as long as they are legal and will not endanger the safety of any of the country’s citizens.
The belief of the common US citizen is that we have certain inalienable rights, such as, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which cannot be changed. These are those rights which we believe our ‘maker’ has given us. These rights are where the term, ‘all men are created equal,’ gets its power. Since God gave us those rights only he can take them away. This, seemingly simple phrase, which actually took a civil war to make it truly mean, ‘all men,’ after eighty nine years where half the country had slaves, keeps the Supreme Court, viable and busy. And lest we forget, women could not vote until 1920. (the nineteenth amendment). Even that had to be amended in 1941 to include all races creeds and colors.
So the system, at times slow, did eventually function well. But now that system faces what could be major changes that many people have no clew their votes could effect drastically.
Now let’s add something into the mix.
Over the last forty or fifty years the tax paying base of the country, mainly those collected by the Internal Revenue Service, (income taxes) has gradually changed— and this is primarily due to the machinations of the liberal left wing of the Democratic Party.
I have no provable thinking to believe their reasons were anything but altruistic, so I must say the obvious reasons for their manipulations or negotiations on behalf of people with lower incomes were to offset a number of tax advantages given to businesses and wealthier individuals. Regardless, the net result of these negotiations was to put almost fifty per-cent of the voting public into a tax bracket that allows them to pay no income taxes.
Now, here’s why, I believe there is a major problem looming for the coming election, and why the Democratic party has so many voters ready to pull the lever for what they think will be a change in government that will greatly benefit them. And also why they may be making the biggest mistake they could ever make for themselves.
Let’s look at the probable reasoning from the view of the lower-income voter. He sees himself as having finally caught a break. With his deductions and exemptions for taxes he won’t have a chunk of his paycheck to lay out for Uncle Sam. He is not thinking about anything but his own personal situation, especially if he has children and a wife to consider. He, or his wife, might possibly face losing their jobs or having their hours cut due to the sluggish economy. Therefore, because the Democratic Party is telling him he needs to vote for his own interest to protect what little bit he has, he listens. His needs are now, they are immediate. Is their any doubt how he is going to vote? Not likely.
Next is the middle-income voter. He has been bombarded with ads, videos, a very liberal media, and maybe even a union boss who is emphasizing how the very rich have all the tax breaks in the world, and if the Republicans (the party of the wealthy) win the election, they will vote even more tax breaks for themselves and could possibly even move him up to a higher tax bracket to pay for their greedy needs. He or his wife, maybe even both could be in danger of job downsizing. Wouldn’t you say there is more than ample reason for him to vote for his own interest to put the odds of maintaining what he has in his favor? Oh yes, extremely likely.
So here’s a very reasonable outcome. The odds are favorable the lower-income voter votes heavily in favor of the Democrats. Even if the voting record of the past demonstrates there are more lower-income voters who don’t show up to vote, those who do will, overwhelmingly, vote Democrat. This means the Dems only need to persuade a marginal amount of middle-income voters to carry the election. And don’t forget the arts and entertainment world as well as the sports figures who usually vote heavily Democratic. Add to this the liberal leaning media, and the Hollywood movie makers, and the Republicans have an uphill battle to change the probable outcome, even with a huge money infusion for advertising and a necessary, perfectly run, campaign. Do they have a chance?
I would say, yes, they do. So let’s discuss what will be necessary to salvage a victory.
First and above all, Romney will need to stay focused on what this election is truly all about. The financial solvency of the government of the United States of America is very much in question for the first time almost anyone living now can remember. It is doubtful even the Great Depression was close to what threatens our country at this time.
Mitt Romney is the most logical choice to manage the strategies needed to put the country back on solid fiscal ground. His team will need to deflect all the senseless distractions the Democrats and Obama will throw at him because they have no viable solutions of their own and cannot make a real defense for their inability to even start a recovery plan. They are obviously relying on the fact they have what they consider to be a superior advantage in pre-committed votes.
I believe a strong vice-presidential candidate can be used to appeal to the lower and middle-income Democratic base that their votes may be sadly misplaced, especially if the country is in financial chaos and they are faced with higher and higher taxes which are the Democrats normal solution.
Next. An ad campaign which is aimed at the many gaffs the Democratic elitists have made with consequences that show just how uninformed many of their leaders, including the VP and the President himself. These should be serious ads not humorous.
I believe, with the proper tone, many people can be enlisted from the ranks of Independents and even Democratic voters.
The major point is that a broke nation can do nothing for any of its citizens. The kind of money being spent by this administration, the Obama Democrats, will not save us, it will brake us for years to come. Everybody loses. Everybody!
D. Kenneth Ross
Any comments, for or against are more than welcome.