Today is the day proceeding Election Day and there is no time where patriotic sentiment runs higher. A competition arises between presidential candidates as to their national pride. And a great argument is engendered among citizens as to what vote will most benefit the country.

Senator John McCain’s nationalist slogan “Country First” implies invidiously that Senator Barack Obama won’t put the country first–as if Obama’s proposed “Change” will be a strike against the country. Obama claims otherwise, that his “Change” will strengthen the country.

But I’m rather put off by all the pageantry and this contest for Mr. Patriarch of America. I’m tired of listening to these unctuous politicians and their meretricious monologues about “this great country.” How can any man look out earnestly upon this society and be proud?

How could you overlook the fact that over 2.25 million Americans are incarcerated (2006)? How could you overlook the fact that 63% percent of American children do not grow up with both biological parents How could you not realize what this statistic indicates about the of our countries social health? How could you miss the fact that 9.5% U.S. adults–that’s about 18.8 million people, suffer from a depressive illness , where millions and millions more self-medicate themselves with illicit drugs or alcohol? How could you dismiss the fact that over 32,000 Americans commit suicide in a single year , even where many suicides go unreported due the stigma our culture attaches to it?

Photo by qwrrty

Is it really rational to get so worked up with anger and hate over this presidential election?

We’re fast approaching Election Day, but I’m not rallied behind one candidate or the other. I’m not struck with anticipation for Nov. 4. Would it be a crime to say I’m rather ambivalent?

Presidential Candidate John McCain even visited my home town, Durango, Colorado, just a week ago. It was the first time a presidential candidate had visited Durango in 48 years, but I really didn’t feel the need to hear him speak. What was he going to say that I hadn’t already heard before?

I could have marched outside the gates in protest with an Obama sticker on my forehead. I could have made myself a fancy McCain sign and cheered in the crowd. But I just can’t buy into that nonsense. How absolutely foolish all these folks look in their big white McCain/Palin sweaters and in their SUVs with “Obama/Biden ‘08″ bumper stickers. What kind of persuasive tactic is that anyway? It’s not an appeal to reason, that’s for sure.

Politics is this big absurdity. We all recognize it. We all know how dirty and unsavory it is. It’s about men with money and connections soliciting the vote. They’re not appealing to any noble standard of truth or harmony or righteousness. We don’t vote for a politicians because they are honest, or because we trust them. Its a big game–a tantalizing theatrical performance–where each player appeals to as many people as possible while revealing the least about what they really think. The candidates hand out promises in the form of tax-cuts and energy policies, like handing out candy to children and asking for their favor. In return, American’s vote for the man who promises them the most sugar and the actual direction of the nation as a whole is an afterthought.

As much as the big two candidates stress their differences, really, for all practical intents and purposes, they’re leading American in the same direction–the way it’s been headed for a long time. They only have trivial differences about the best manner to get to the same destination. Obama might offer government health insurance to citizens, which is just one additional step in many taken in the past toward a more socialist government. But McCain wants to establish a New New Deal, but this time instead of socializing the highway construction like Roosevelt did in the 1930s, we’ll be socializing the construction of nuclear power plants. In addition, both candidates backed the final draft of the bailout plan to spend $700 billion in tax payer dollars to rescue the financial industry, which gave the U.S. government partial ownership of many major banks.

McCain and Obama are both behind the continuing expansion of government. When I first heard Obama speak of “Change” I fantasized for a moment that he really meant to challenge the current paradigm of growing government. But I’ve found he represents the same paradigm with a new face and some unoriginal ideas. He’s just a politician. His message and his campaign are not revolutionizing politics. The supposed “fundamental change” he says he is going to bring this country, just isn’t fundamental enough. It’s not fundamental at all! But at least he is straight-forward about his intent to increase government spending.

McCain still speaks of the dying ideals of conservatism, and if I felt he really meant them, perhaps I would even vote for him. I like the “I’m-not-going-to-continue-to-throw-money-at-a-problem” McCain. I like the “freeze-government-spending” and the “I’m-a-Federalist” McCain. But Republicans like McCain will hail free markets, small government and power to the states when everything is fine, and when there’s a predicament like 9/11 or the housing crisis they swipe up unwarranted power and abuse it without a second thought and we end up with the Bailout Plan and the PATRIOT Act.

Whichever way you vote, this country heads down the same path. This is no revolution! Despite this, tensions run especially high between opposing parties. The streets are loose with blue and red zealots. Neighborhoods are split apart, marked overtly by yard signs that might as well read, “We don’t serve blacks.” Idiots from each faction hurl stupid insults at each other. What madness it is to believe so whole-heatedly in any politician! These people look and act like buffoons.

Photo by Bob Bobster

A family divided.

I’m not likely to vote for president in 2008. I’m sure there are folks out their who will hear this and gasp as if it’s an utter sacrilege, but I really think that abstention is the only respectable decision. It’s undignified to cast a vote for the lesser of two evils, especially when they are practically one in the same. And I’m definitely not going take part in this ridiculous political warfare, that divides families and communities.

When it comes down to it, politics is a very limited realm. Only so much can be accomplished with money and power. There is so much more that we can accomplish outside of political systems. It’s time to forgo the presidential rallies; let’s reunite with our neighbors and forget our party affiliations. Let’s take a personal investment in our communities. Let’s have an affect on the people in our lives. This is where real tangible progress is made. In the smiles and the warm embraces of those we love. Let’s have faith in our own power to bring good into the lives of the people nearest us. Whatever we do, we cannot place our faith in politics.

A funny story behind these pictures: My friend and I were looking for the social security office in town, when we happened across this unmarked building. I was utterly flabbergasted to find Homeland Security in my town. When I stepped out my car to take some pictures, a voice from a truck in the parking lot said, ''Can I help you?'' I responded paying him little attention: ''No, I don't need any help.'' Then he stepped out of the truck, pulled a badge from under his blue, collared shirt and asked me a little more aggressively, ''Can I HELP you?'' I told him how surprised I was to find Homeland Security in my home town, and that I was just curious what they were up to. ''Your not allowed to take pictures of this building,'' he interrupted. ''Why not?'' I asked. ''Because'' he reasoned. Perhaps the situation would have escalated, but my friend in the passenger seat of my vehicle, became worried, and told the man we were just looking for the social security office. On our way back, from the social security office I snapped a photo of the building in spite of the asshole who accosted me.

A problem that threatens national security is one of the most compelling reasons for the United States Government to take affirmative action. But let’s consider what national security for the U.S really entails in a global context.

If you listened to any of the three presidential debates this year, you have heard many areas of political concern listed as potential threats to national security. Among them are the economic crisis, energy independence, health care, entitlement reform, and even education. There are some valid concerns in each of these areas as to the stability of a nation, but national security entails more than that.

National security is about power and it is not only about the power to defend a nation’s borders; it’s about power to influence world affairs. It has less to do with fighting off terrorists, than guaranteeing our privileged place as a powerful nation.

Around the globe there is a power-complex. Each nation understands that power is achieved by economically out-competing other nations. Not only does a powerful nation have the resources to fight off threatening forces, it has the ability to influences its will upon other nations. Hence, there is a fear of falling behind in economic competition, that a country will not only loose power internationally, but will be made more vulnerable to the influence of other more powerful nations.

So fundamentally, national security is not really about security at all, it is about a pursuit of power between nations. When one nation has claimed superiority over others, other nations strive to meet or surpass that superiority. The superior state must then protect and improve its economic status, lest it loose power. And even those countries that have relatively little power, are forced to pursue power in order to protect themselves to some degree.

So the United States government is not going to think twice about a decision to abridge freedoms in the name of ensuring economic power. The state only exists to perpetuate itself. Concerns for rights and freedoms of the people are always secondary. Just consider a few examples in recent history such as the governments purchase of mortgage giants Fanni Mae and Freddie Mac, their partial ownership of banking institutions, or the enactment of the Patriot Act. These are all incredible infringements upon the peoples freedoms, for the sake of national security.

This pursuit of power requires the sacrifice or freedoms. Often, this sacrifice is justified with the intent of garnering more freedoms in the long-term, but over the long-term it is obvious that this pursuit of power among nations becomes a perpetual course with no end in sight. It follows logically, that as the power-struggle between nations continues, more and more freedoms will be abridged in the name of national security. The struggle for power is an unending process, and the freedoms sacrificed along the way are not likely to be returned to the people.

And really just about anything can constitute a threat to national security if it threatens to damage a nations power status. If it simply bares an effect on the economy it can become a national security issue. Free people aren’t inclined to be efficient, and so freedoms by themselves can be considered a national security issue. The Chinese government knows this well, and can thank its success as an economic power to it’s people’s lack of freedoms. And if there are too many homosexuals and not enough offspring to populate the military and the work force, gay rights could potentially become a threat to national security as well–the way it has in powerful nations of the past, and still is in China.

Is it not obvious how the pursuit of power is the enemy to freedom? Is it not obvious that social harmony between peoples cannot be accomplished through means of power?

Considering all this, national security should be more appropriately recognized as the reckless pursuit of power it is. It should be recognized as the violation of respect and trust for our fellow human beings around the world. It should be cited as the sole evil of modern society.

A month or so ago I received a call to action email warning against the governments ever- increasing interference with the “American ideal” of the free market economy. The author warned that the United States government is ever approaching an “anti-thesis to freedom” in the form of communist socialism. The email was specifically criticizing the government’s recent rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a subject appropriate for the author–an ambitious capitalist who operates a Down Payment Assistant program. He drew an illusion to each act of government interference to the loss of a star on the flag. I made the following reply:

Photo by fauxto_digit

The fist of power so-commonly represented on the hands of monuments to our forefathers.

Dear Sir,

Perhaps, you’ve yet to realize that government does not exist separate from economic systems. It is in the state’s best interest to maximize, or at least stabilize, the economy, in order to secure a position as a world power. The government must interfere with laissez-faire capitalism (as you can see by the recent failure of several high-profile financial institutions) otherwise it collapses in upon itself in due time. A free market economy is volatile on a large scale and can only survive with a government entity to manipulate and regulate it. As markets grow, the government will have to interfere more often, and there is a necessary decrease in freedoms.

But what would you prefer? Would you prefer to live in a powerful nation or a free nation? Do you see what happens to free nations, which are not powerful? Take Tibet for an example, a country whose government is in exile and has been occupied by a powerful country, China. Now, I imagine you would rather lose all of the stars on the American flag, than loose the benefits of being an American and live in Tibet. I on the other hand, would prefer to live in a free nation because this is the only right way to live.

The pursuit of power requires the sacrifice or freedoms. Often, it is justified with the intent to garner more freedoms over the long-term,but over the long-term it is obvious that this pursuit of power among nations becomes a perpetual course with no end in sight. You see, when one nation has claimed superiority over others, other nations strive to meet or surpass that superiority. The superior state must then protect and improve its economic status, lest it loose power. And even those countries that have relatively little power, are forced to pursue power in order to protect themselves to some degree. The struggle for power is an unending process, and the freedoms sacrificed along the way are not likely to be returned to the people.

And the whole bit about communism is so out-dated. I certainly am no communist sympathizer, but if you think that the United States government is going to think twice about a decision to abridge freedoms in the name of ensuring economic power, you’re wrong. The state only exists to perpetuate itself. Concerns for rights and freedoms of the people are always secondary. It’s just that the Communists were more upfront about it.

Sincerely,

Preston Benson