Vote For Yourself We hear about it from our friends, our families, our co-workers.

As surely as the waves will hit the beaches, another fast approaching election muddies the water, and its up to us to decide which way to turn our rudder to reach our intended destination. Taking the wrong course could put our crew and our ship in jeopardy. The following short essay is a testament to where we are, how we got here, and the choice before us. We will first review the precepts upon which this United States of America is based and culminate in some specifics of this election should I retain your attention. This limited article is but a snapshot of the numerous issues found throughout volumes of media. Its goal is to promote voting not based upon the premise of others, but our own reasoning resultant from our search for truth. First let us look at our governmental system and one of the greatest fallacies of our time. To prevent any misinterpretation we must first ensure that you and I are using the same terminology. People are commonly referred to as being on the left or the right of an issue, but few can tell you what that means when pressed for an answer. Most will refer to democrats or republicans, and liberals or conservatives respectively, but today well examine this through reason. It is generally propagated (and often accepted) that the far left results in communism and the far right to fascism as seen in Figure-1 below. Figure-1
Communism
Vladimir Lenin Joseph Stalin Mau Zedong Pol Pot

Fascism
Adolf Hitler Benito Mussolini Ante Paveli

But if you take a moment to analyze this, it doesnt take long to realize that both these isms are built upon the foundation of total governmental power as totalitarian or dictatorial. If thats the case, then how can they be on opposite sides of the spectrum and where does the United States fit in? Are we to accept that the U.S. Constitution lies somewhere between these two? A more accurate depiction of governmental systems looks more like Figure-2. Figure-2
(Total Government Control)
Communism Fascism Nazism Etc. Constitution of the United States of America

(No Government Control) Anarchy

This more precisely demonstrates the balance, from total government control to anarchy. Of course, neither of these has been able to pass the test of time (in fact, anarchy historically leads to total government), which is why our forefathers developed a system of limited government that falls in between. A great video that covers this can be found here: A Republic-If You Can Keep It1
2012 Mike Massong. This essay may be reproduced in whole or in part as long as credit is given to the Vote for Yourself essay.

A republican form of government was established for our country to provide a balance between these two extremes. The delicate balance of necessary government and liberty. Even though our government is often referred to as a democracy (the great fallacy) you will not find that word in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States. The Federalist Papers Number 102 discusses why a democratic form of government was not chosen, as they have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths, and more examples of this thought are found throughout the annals of that time. Though there appears an affinity to a total democracy, and some progress in that direction3, history has proven it a slippery slope that always leads to anarchy, oligarchy, and/or tyranny. As you see, this gives a different perspective to left and right, and the determining factor is what direction you think we should go. As James Madison said, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. All societies naturally trend to greater government; hence Ben Franklins famous words, if you can keep it. The fact that ours is currently the shortest written and yet the longest used constitution says volumes, but we must remember that ground once lost is more difficult to regain. Regarding branding as a republican/democrat and conservative/liberal; the former is simply the one whose ideals you better associate with, the latter is relative to your social norm.4 The argument can be made that all of us making educated votes from an independent perspective would be of greatest service to our country. We will now progress from this elementary review of our political spectrum to contemporary issues, and then finally to this election. Speaking of progress, this brings up progressivism, which has been a part of the United States for over 100 years. The word progressive, is currently used synonymously with liberal, the left, and sometimes (arguably unwarranted) with the Democratic Party. This brings up two points. 1.) If man is truly progressing as a being or species, is it not debatable that there would be less need for government? 2.) Why is current progressivism inarguably leading to greater government control? 3.) Traditionally, hasnt greater government control moved societies closer to the left of the spectrum as shown in figure-2? Interestingly enough, many progressives paint the policies of limited government espoused by the right or right wing radicals as moving the country in the direction of Nazism, while any person of critical thought can recognize this misconception. The key is the delicate balance, as too far to the left can lead directly to the aforementioned isms, and too far to the right can lead to a short lived anarchy which typically transitions to an oppressive governmental system. I dont think anyone can debate that the scale has been inched to the left over the past century; the question is when this changes the balance enough to tip the scales. Where is the line of demarcation between big government and total government? Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.5 One grievance heard today is that capitalism is defective and its now time to transition to greater government control. What many people dont realize is that this same argument has been present in America since at least the early 1900s, and the only difference is that now the world has a track record. You need only to review 20th century history to see the effects of greater government control upon their societies, and the effect of a more liberal capitalism among ours. People argue that capitalism has unfairly resulted in distinct classes, but are there not distinct classes in non-capitalistic societiesand often with greater disparities? Generally, havent our poor U.S. citizens been better off than much of
2012 Mike Massong. This essay may be reproduced in whole or in part as long as credit is given to the Vote for Yourself essay.

the non-poor throughout the world? Is the consideration as poor not relative to each country? As we are told that capitalists are greedy and power hungry; are we to believe that those serving in government are less so? Thousands of years of history gives answer to this last inquiry, and brings us to question the level of government intervention. The beneficial effect of State intervention, especially in the form of legislation, is direct, immediate, and, so to speak, visible, whilst its evil effects are gradual and indirect, and lie out of sightNordo most people keep in mind that State inspectors may be incompetent, careless, or even occasionally corrupt; few are those who realize the undeniable truth that State help kills self-help. Hence the majority of mankind must almost of necessity look with undue favor upon government intervention. This natural bias can be counteracted only by the existence, in a given society, of a presumption of prejudice in favor of individual liberty, that is, laissez-faire. The mere decline, therefore, of faith in self-helpand that such a decline has taken place is certainis of itself sufficient to account for the growth of legislation tending toward socialism.6 The never ending civil war of ideals as to governments role is evident in the crossroad of this years election. Are we to choose the equality of rights or equality of opportunity? How much more of a role should government have (most bills/laws increase the size of government)? Can the federal government be more beneficial than the private sector? What examples demonstrate the federal governments greater efficacy than the private sector? Of course the egalitarian will want to go further, He will defend taking from some to give to others, not as a more effective means whereby the some can achieve an objective they want to achieve, but on the grounds of justice. At this point equality comes sharply into conflict with freedom; one must choose. One cannot be both an egalitarian, in this sense, and a liberal [liberal is used in the old context according to the author, see endnote 4].5 Yet, for the government to do more, or provide more, it requires the finances to do so. U.S. public debt currently exceeds $16 trillion and the gross debt to gross domestic product (GDP) ratio is almost 105%. One candidate is saying we need more government projects and government involvement, the other says government needs to get out of the way to allow private business and capitalism to take its natural course, and both are betting on a better economy improving tax revenues and subsequently lowering our debt. Only one of these theories holds water for one very simple reason: the government has no way of creating revenues for itself other than changing the tax code (quantitative easing doesnt count since its purpose is to stimulate the economy, not direct tax revenues). For example, when the government hires more workers it suffers a net loss of money since the taxes paid back to the government are a fraction of what it paid to the employee in salary and benefits. When the government gives money for projects, only a fraction of that money makes it back through taxes (unless its a government loan and the company does not go bankrupt). The only way government can increase tax revenue, short of changing tax code, is not through government, but through private capital. The only way that private capital is produced is in the private sector (small businesses, corporations, etc.). So if the balance of the economy sways more towards government from the private sector, even in small percentages, it results in the government spending more, but on a smaller tax base. The current demonization of some of the governments source of revenue, the hand that feeds them, always baffles me since government makes the rules of the game. I personally believe that a flat tax of 20% on all income over $30,000 (adjustable for inflation) with only a handful of possible deductions would be the best bet. Most everyone would have skin in the game (which may result in
2012 Mike Massong. This essay may be reproduced in whole or in part as long as credit is given to the Vote for Yourself essay.

greater interest in what our government is spending), the code would be simplified dramatically, loopholes would disappear, and it would level the playing field. Sounds virtuous to me.
There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams

So, what are our moral responsibilities regarding contemporary issues and what is their basis? Morality or virtue can generally be said to vary with the people, but as Benjamin Franklin cautioned, only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. A lover of freedom should quake at the unraveling of moral fiber. Religion, or lack thereof, can be a major influence, and yes, Ive met atheists more virtuous than others professing their Lord; but this is less common in my experience. Since evaluation of atheist values is too lofty a subject to dwell upon here, having no written code of conduct, I am forced to forgo such a discussion in favor of religion, of which there is a measure. Ill specifically refer to the Christian faith due to its prevalence in America, but this exercise can be adapted to any religion/value system. Do you vote according to the precepts of your religion (beliefs)? Moral issues at odds with the Christian faith surround us, yet numerous Christians believe themselves justified voting in favor thereofand this begs the question of whether they serve Jesus or a political party. If someone calls themself a Christian, yet turns from the teachings when casting their ballot; is it worth the 30 pieces of silver? Why would the Christian vote for a person (or party) encouraging ideals antithesis to those contained within the Bible? If theyre only a partial Christian, does this demonstrate their lack of commitment, or faith? I personally believe there is no halfway, a person is either a Christian, or they are not; just as a person is an architect, or they are not. Jesus sacrificed his life for all mankind; yet we fear the sacrifice of comfort. The point being that not voting according to ones professed beliefs makes them a hypocrite, which cannot be hidden from the little eyes upon them, the little feet behind them, or the eyes above them. One cannot avoid Supreme law. Realizing that supreme law is not only evident in nature, but required for the success of our governmental system, it was woven into our constitution. A Supreme Court made up of judges with lifetime appointments (during good behavior) in accordance with Article III; making a vote for president not only applicable for the next four years, but possibly decades. The classic example of this was Justice William Douglas who took his oath on April 17, 1939 when Franklin D. Roosevelt was president and was one of the judges deciding the case of Roe v. Wade 33 years, and five presidents, later.7 Its in the best interest of our republic to take this into account when voting for our next leader and to ensure that we dont get extremist judges legislating from the bench; but according to what measure? Another interesting label, but do we consider the extremist the strict constitutionalist upholding the document from which their powers derive, or is the extremist the one who invites foreign/international interpretation into their decision? Some past and present justices believe the latter appropriate.8 My question is how valid is it, or how fair is it to us, to have foreign/international law influence our court decisions? Do we as a voting populace have any say in the development of those laws? Are we able to vote foreign legislators out of office if were not happy with their laws affect upon our justices decision, or can we repeal that law? Who makes the determination on which foreign law can be utilized and which one cannot? These same questions are applicable to the increasing pressure from the United Nations to fully implement the international court, international taxes, international internet fees, and other international laws. I contend that the use of foreign/international law by our justices in anything other than treaties or other international issues is contemptible. Our final questions on this should be
2012 Mike Massong. This essay may be reproduced in whole or in part as long as credit is given to the Vote for Yourself essay.

which presidential nominee expresses a desire for a strict constitutionalist, and what is his track record of choosing such justices at their respective national or state level? You can see that this is not the ultimate primer on voting or todays issues, but a glimpse of considerations; as to go into greater depth or subject matter would turn this into a book. As titled, you should vote for yourself. Do not depend on what others tell you; they are biased. Do not depend on one news source; they are biased. Do not depend on limited knowledge; seek more. Our constitution is covered in schools (in some better than others), yet its philosophical basis is largely unknown; as evidenced by how few people have actually read the Federalist Papers, or are even aware of their existence (Im always amazed at this as I ask around). Educate yourself as if your kin depend on it, because they doif you wish them to avoid the road to serfdom. The condition of our country federally and internationally must be heavily weighed. Morals and virtue lost will find a republican form of government on their tail. I have great faith in the people of this country, but if were too easily distracted by the hands with the white gloves and those upon the stage, the trick will be on us. We must stand strong. We must be educated. We must be virtuous. Vote for yourself! I appreciate you taking the time to read this and ask that you share this with as many people as possible if you believe it beneficial. We are the guards of this grand experiment of mankind.
1 2 3

A Republic-If You Can Keep It video (Creator unknown), http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YGL8CiUtXF0 Federalist No. 10, James Madison, November 23, 1787, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_10.html

17th Amendment, U.S. Constitution, ratified April 8, 1913, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html This changed how the Senate is elected, arguably moving power away from the states and toward a democracy. 4 Much can be said about whether an idea or person is either conservative or liberal, but it is completely based on your social norm. Until the beginning of the 20th century liberalism (classical liberalism) was stamped upon those believing that freedom is the most effective road to equality and prosperous welfare, as todays liberal label is placed upon those that regard welfare and equality as either prerequisites of or alternatives to freedom.5 Even today throughout Europe, and most of the word, the United States system of governance is referred to as liberal due to its balance of freedom, and its short life relative to the rest of the world. 5 Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (Fortieth Anniversary Edition: The University of Chicago Press, 1962, 1982, 2002)-This book is referred to frequently due to its pithy expression of ideals and references, and should be required reading by the academia of this country and encouraged in other countries. 6 A. V. Dicey, Law and Public Opinion in England, (2nd ed., London: Macmillian, 1914) pp. 257-85
7

Justice Douglas served from April 17, 1939 to November 12, 1975. Supreme Court of the United States website: Members of the Supreme Court, http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members.aspx. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (decided January 22, 1973) 8 One example of this is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgs speech on July 30, 2010 titled, A decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind: The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication, International Academy of Comparative Law, American University. http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/viewspeeches.aspx?Filename=sp_07_30_10.html While Justice Ginsburg makes a good number of valid points, I contend that the use of foreign/international law in other than international and treaty issues before the court is inappropriate. If outside laws are to affect our county in any other than those two areas, then it should be deliberated within Congress before the law is ever passed. Should any justice take upon the learning of extraconstitutional law for their own contemplation, it is their prerogative.

2012 Mike Massong. This essay may be reproduced in whole or in part as long as credit is given to the Vote for Yourself essay.