Election 2012

Civic Duty Vies With Cynicism as the 2012 Election Approaches

H.L. Mencken said "every election is a sort of advanced auction in stolen goods." He was right.


It's been years since I cared deeply about any election, yet I find myself back to old habits—tracking polls and dealing with those conflicting feelings that emerge this time of year. My sense of deep cynicism, born from years of reporting on government venality and stupidity, collides with my sense of civic duty.

Few people can watch these loathsome campaign ads without thinking that something is wrong with our system. Then again, we know the losers in all the races will concede and go home without unleashing their militias on the streets, as happens in many other countries. Things aren't so bad.

I always hope that a leader will emerge to guide our country, state, or locality to a better political future through less spending and more freedom-oriented policies. Then I get mad at myself for wanting a "leader." We're a self-governing people and leaders always disappoint.

"Evans Law," named after conservative writer M. Stanton Evans is a reminder of why we shouldn't put much faith in politicians: "When one of our people gets in a position where he can do us some good, he stops being one of our people." I've seen council members in essence switch sides almost immediately after taking office. The few politicians who stick to their guns often end up being ineffective and ignored.

No wonder. Journalist H.L. Mencken argued that "Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods." It's much easier being effective as a pillager than as someone who wants to halt the auction.  And yet my loved ones can't understand the roots of my cynicism.

My idealistic notion that Republicans might actually cut government died shortly into the first Reagan administration. There's so much to cut. But all those programs have constituencies, and their workers are represented by unions, all of which have enough money to bury any politician perceived as a threat.

Between service on the national debt, the defense budget, and entitlements, the federal government already outspends its income. Even those terms hint at the problem: "servicing," "defense," and "entitlements." Few Americans get much service from paying for money that our government already squandered; much of our military budget is not defensive, and why should any of us feel entitled to a government paycheck?

I don't believe Mitt Romney will fix anything, but it's depressing to have a president who believes that the answer to every question has the same 10 letters: "government."

Sometimes, I hope that this year's fine Libertarian Party ticket (former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, and retired California judge Jim Gray) serves as a spoiler in, say, Colorado. If they cost the GOP the election, maybe Republicans will start paying attention to freedom-oriented issues and not just freedom rhetoric. But no one would learn anything, and we'll all be stuck with another four years with economic policies based on the notion that one can take water from the deep end of the pool, move it to the shallow end (after losing some of it on the sidewalk), and then bump up the water level as a result.

It is difficult to make clear points in elections. Individuals have complex motives and ill-formed worldviews. Good-government types often say we should vote for candidates with the best character. But it gets complicated. Some of the most dangerous legislators are honest ideologues who know exactly what they are doing as they regulate our lives. The cad, Bill Clinton (combined with a GOP Congress), seems to be as good as it gets at the national level—yet another disturbing, election-related thought.

Sometimes the most shamelessly ambitious politicians are the most malleable ones, willing to do the "right" thing if the People put pressure on them. Mencken has it right: "The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression." Having just finished a book about the Puritanical and fanatical Khmer Rouge communists who created the "killing fields," I see his point.

Then I think of real reformers—San Diego Mayoral candidate Carl DeMaio, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait—and that civic sensibility rises again.

At the state level, it is ironic that conservatives have come to depend on the Progressive-era creation—initiative, referendum, and recall—to control modern Progressive politicians, but such are the inconsistencies and ironies of the political system.

The big statewide initiative in California on Tuesday is Prop. 30, Gov. Jerry Brown's proposed tax increase. My best advice: Starve the beast. California's government outspends its revenue every year, in boom as well as bust economies. The best hope for restoring some fiscal responsibility is to limit the cash politicians have to spend. Brown and Co. promise draconian cuts if you don't submit to their political blackmail. It's always best to call a politician's bluff.

And then there are those darn imperfect choices.

I'd love to see my congressman, Republican Dan Lungren, booted from office because of his long advocacy of civil-forfeiture measures that allow police agencies to take the cars, homes, and other property of people, many of whom have never been convicted of crimes. It has led to countless abuses because it marries police powers with the profit motive. But Lungren's opponent is a left-wing Democrat who seems to get everything wrong and has not raised this issue. No matter who wins, no message will be sent, no political punishment will be meted out. Oh well.

I hope that if Romney wins the presidency, Americans will be reminded that wealth and the private-enterprise system are good things and should not be the subject of envy and scorn.

Then again, I don't expect much. No matter Tuesday's results, I console myself, again, by Mencken: "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under."

NEXT: Cuba Accuses U.S. Diplomats of Subversive Activities

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A word-use quibble: When you say, And yet my loved ones can’t understand the roots of my cynicism, I think you mean to say “the roots of my skepticism and low opinion of cynical politicians.” Note that when Mencken says about government, One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane, he is not being cynical but clear-eyed. Politicians and other thugs are cynical. We, the uncooperative subjects who call politicians on their dog-like cynicism, are in turns curmudgeonly, disappointed, disillusioned, skeptical, bitter, doubtful, and realistic.

  2. No alt+text? WTMFF???

  3. “Then again, we know the losers in all the races will concede and go home without unleashing their militias on the streets”
    Ha, if the incumbent loses, I wouldn’t be too sure about this statement. Even if the threat of riots turns out to be largely false, I wouldn’t put it past some of the “47%” to be a little feisty in the streets.

  4. It’s like he read my mind!

    Well done. I’ll be sharing through other various social media.

  5. And the best Mencken quote: Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

    But I still favor C.S. Lewis: Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

    I think we are far more likely to succumb to a surfeit of Bloombergs than Blagojeviches.

    1. That is a great quote.

      He also wrote my campaign planks, if I ever run for office (which I wont):

      To live his life in his own way, to call his house his castle, to enjoy the fruits of his own labour, to educate his children as his conscience directs, to save for their prosperity after his death — these are wishes deeply ingrained in civilised man.

  6. Believing you have a “civic duty” is just a lingering effect from your childhood programming. To be free, we have to move beyond following the rules and accepting the standards we were told to accept, and start reasoning for ourselves.

    Is it moral to take money from one group of people and give it to another? Does it suddenly become moral if 51 percent of the group approves of the theft? Is it right to force everyone to live under the rule of a person or a party that 49 percent of them loathe? Why can’t everyone decide on their own which government they will live under, if any?

    1. Why can’t everyone decide on their own which government they will live under, if any?

      “Because fuck you, that’s why.”

      s/Your Betters and Overlords Wif Teh Gunz

    2. CE| 11.2.12 @ 12:58PM |#
      “Believing you have a “civic duty” is just a lingering effect from your childhood programming.”

      Agreed. It’s substituting the government for your parents. As a youth under your parents care, you might properly have negotiated a later curfew for good behavior, but by no means do we, as free agents, negotiate our ‘rights’ with the government.
      They are, correctly, unalienable.

  7. My idealistic notion that Republicans might actually cut government died shortly into the first Reagan administration.

    Mine died about the time Reagan named Bush as his running mate.

    Eight years later, they disinterred it and drove a stake through its’ heart when – with Jack Kemp in the running – the race came down to Bush v. Pat Robertson.

    This is why I want to punch in the face of people who say we should support Romney instead of Johnson because Romney and the GOP at least talk more libertarian than Obama and the Dems. If the GOP keeps getting rewarded with votes simply for talking about smaller government, what incentive do they have to ever actually produce any results? As long as we keep voting for Tweedledum instead of Tweedledummer, what incentive is there for politicians to ever be anything else?

    Or as PJ O’Rourke said: Don’t vote! It just encourages the bastards.

    1. And that’s exactly why

      the republican party must be destroyed

  8. It’s like listening to a http://www.cheapuggsbootsforwomen.org/ story heard half of the back, but I do not want to know that people are not able to carry below. In http://www.cheapfootballcleatsmall.com/ addition, Mr. Wu was the second conversion is also very intriguing.

    1. You’re goin down, nikebot!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.