EDITOR’S NOTE: Dallas Hyland is a columnist for St. George News and blogs as The Amateur Broad Thinker. The opinions stated in this article are solely his own and not those of St. George News.
For the first time in my adult life I think I fully relate to people who do not vote in our elections.
I have, for the most part frowned upon people who do not participate in our democratic process touting the familiar rhetoric that those who do not vote forfeit their right to an opinion on matters. But this year’s typically contentious bid for the presidency with its ever constant theme of forcing the American public to choose from the lesser of evils has me wondering if a choice not to choose would better state my decision in the matter.
“Cake or death?” A British comedian would say, to which I would likely reply, “neither.”
And it seems our choices for the next leader of this country are almost as absurd.
Where, oh where, are the bold and brazen leaders who forged this great land and set into motion its principles of limited government and individual and states’ rights?
Not in any of the current contenders, incumbent or otherwise, that is for sure.
Put down the remote or the smartphone or whatever trinket currently has your attention, and put your brain into gear. Then do some research on these men and find out which of them helped to create or support any of the legislation that has our country in the conundrum they all propose to solve?
Find out which of them supported the recent passing of the National Defense Authorization Act, subsequently abdicating the most fundamental and core tenets of our constitution as a country.
Find out which one of them drafted and supported the legislation that allowed for deregulation in our financial industries and laid the groundwork for the most catastrophic financial condition this country has ever faced.
Find out who among these candidates has shown themselves through time and temperance to exact themselves with impunity and hold themselves to the standard which the office of the presidency demands, that of a sworn oath to uphold and defend the constitution, not find ways to get around it, disavow it, or “change” it altogether.
The oath reads, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
It is all good and well to demand the leader of the free world possess good moral character; and differences of opinion on what that is exactly notwithstanding, I have to say I am less concerned with a potential president’s martial status or stand on any of the other polarizing election distractions used in every campaign as I am concerned with his or her track record in doing the things that maintain the fundamental purpose of their job.
What good is it to the American public if a candidate has been married to one person and has earned a wad of cash if he supports legislation that abdicates the principles of liberty that allow all Americans to do the same?
History is a tireless and merciless teacher that repeats lessons until they are learned; collectively, we seem to not be learning from it.
The past four administrations can be distinguished in difference by microns. While they hold fast to their party’s ideologies and pit groups of Americans in opposition to each other with similar and redundant polarizing tactics, there is a transcendent agenda becoming more and more evident.
That agenda is the removal of civil liberties and the extraction of wealth from the American people and it is not only happening, it is gaining momentum.
But in the end, choosing not to decide is still a choice, but when one chooses not to vote, their choice is ipso facto given over to those who do.
I do yet wonder if we the people could simply say we do not like the choices and demand better ones?
Read people. Get informed. It matters.
See you out there.
Copyright 2012 St. George News. This material may not be published or rewritten without written consent.