What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

If the Emperor has no clothes, is he still the Emperor?

In the comments of a post on my personal blog, Steve G writes:

Zippy DOES have a position that is compelling to me, but I haven’t seen him argue it as forcefully as the negligible vote position. His more compelling argument is that the whole electoral process is a myth, or a sham, that we take part in. That it’s not to choose a leader, but to validate the ‘system.’
To which I replied:

That the election itself is primarily about choosing the kind of leader we want is a myth; a myth connected to the fact that our votes do not exert a significant influence over how we are governed, but exert a large influence over our acceptance of things done in our name. The election itself isn't necessarily a sham, any more than a coronation pageant for the king is a sham. Under the mythology of what elections are about it is a sham, but it is the mythology itself which is a sham not the election itself.

More generally, a lot of the damage which occurs to us under the rubric of voting for mass murderers has to do with reinforcing the lie of what elections are really about.

Comments (18)

But if elections are not really about what they self-evidently purport to be about - outcomes - then how is it that elections are not a sham? In my opinion the "mythology" of elections, as you call it, is the only legitimate justification for having them in the first place.

Maybe it is mythology, but if that's true, then why should anyone take part in them?

Maybe it is mythology, but if that's true, then why should anyone take part in them?
For the same kinds of reasons one might go to a parade and carry a sign, or clap at a State of the Union address: that is, submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good.
For the same kinds of reasons one might go to a parade and carry a sign, or clap at a State of the Union address: that is, submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good.

This still begs the question: How is the common good effected by voting if one's vote has no possibility of contributing to the outcome of an election?

Submission to authority is not persuasive as there is neither a legal nor a moral obligation to vote in most contexts.

Granted, a vote has secondary effects. For example, one's vote may help send a message that a certain losing candidate or issue has political support. But these secondary effects derive their only significance from the primary intended effect, whether achieved or not, which is the vote's potential influence on the outcome of an election.

Jeff:

Well, you asked for a reason. I'd love to give you a better reason to vote for President than there is to march in a parade of 80 million people carrying a sign with the name of the Prince you favor to succeed the King on it; but I don't think there is a better reason.

Zippy,

You've evaded the very question I posed to you earlier; that is:

If everybody's vote in our American election doesn't count, then whose vote is it exactly that ends up electing the President?
...then whose vote is it exactly that ends up electing the President?
The great mass of people who watch American Idol and think that Jack Bauer solves a difficult moral conundrum each week, who do in general and quite predictably what they are inculturated to do, and who don't read What's Wrong with the World or Zippy Catholic.

Zippy,

The great mass of people... who do in general and quite predictably what they are inculturated to do...

Isn't that the very same argument usually advanced by these people here:

Atheists Plan Anti-God Ad Campaign on Buses

LONDON — London buses have God on their side — but not for long, if atheists have their way.

The sides of some of London's red buses will soon carry ads asserting there is "probably no God," as nonbelievers fight what they say is the preferential treatment given to religion in British society.

Organizers of a campaign to raise funds for the ads said Wednesday they received more than $113,000 in donations, almost seven times their target, in the hours since they launched the project on a charity Web site. Supporters include Oxford University biologist Richard Dawkins, who donated $9,000.

The money will be used to place posters on 30 buses carrying the slogan "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." The plan was to run the ads for four weeks starting in January, but so much money has been raised that the project may be expanded.

SOURCE: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,443705,00.html

Isn't that the very same argument usually advanced by ...
It isn't an argument, it is my reported observation of what actually happens in reality, as opposed to mythology.

You can't stop sophistry with reason.

Hans Herman-Hoppe points on in Democracy: The God that Failed, that democratically elected governments are able to engage in such undemocratic behavior because of the illusion provided by elections. The citizens imagine that they themselves are responsible for the policies enacted so there is no sense of a separation between the government and the governed.

"There is probably no god." Now there's a slogan that inspires confidence! Someone should write a song about it; one that we can sing around the campfires, whilst we give the whole world a Big Hug... I wonder what the probability is anyway.

Libertarians like Hoppe want to separate themselves from the responsibilities they have for the way things are in the real world. Hoppe (and most of the Austrian school) is great with freedom and bad with obligation.

But reality isn't what libertarians are good at. That's why they vote for candidates like Ron Paul. Despite all the libertarian hoopla regarding Ron Paul, he and Homer Simpson will end up with precisely the same number of electoral votes -- only Homer will not have wasted millions of dollars and millions of votes in the process. In short, libertarians back candidates who can't even beat cartoon characters.

I wonder what the probability is anyway.

No need to investigate that question any further. Just do whatever the signs on the city buses tell you--it's what I do.

Michael,
"But reality isn't what libertarians are good at." AMEN. They have created the mythic figure of Homo economicus and placed him within a fantastic struggle-revelation-redemption narrative. Like their fellow Utopians, the Marxists, which they so strangely resemble, they can offer invaluable insights. The Hoppe quote qualifies as one. As for Paul, he is the only pro-life candidate with direct, hands on experience in battling the culture of death. From that we all should draw inspiration.

Funny how the notion of folks evangelizing nonsense via signs on a bus is getting ridiculed while, on the other hand, the notion advanced by this thread's host that the American election is nothing but a Soviet election in disguise is regarded with such implicit (and, in other instances, even explicit) high esteem.

Perhaps we should go further and say that not only is the election but an illusion, but also is democracy; not only Democracy, but also the Government known as the United States; not only a government known as the United States, but also even a religion known as Christianity; in fact, let's just jump further ahead and say that all Reality is but an illusion;

-- an illusion being fed to us (i.e., we who are, in all actuality, merely brains residing in vats) by a mad scientist who goes by the name of Zippy Catholic.

Skepticism Rules!

Ari,
The time has come for us to be skeptical of skepticism, to be liberated from libertarianism, and to vote down not voting.

Note to Richard Dawkins: When it come to enjoying life -- even enjoying life in the face of dungeons and of death -- few people do as well as the Christians. The joyless, humorless, self-indulgence of the anti-God shock troops on their best days pales in comparison to the heart-deep and life-wide joy that Christians historically have exhibited time and again, even in the valley of the shadow of death.

Ari,

I have to say that I think your hysteria isn't helping your case, but hurting it. You are clearly capable of good argumentation when you are staying calm, but you're not calm at the moment, and you're getting irrational. Where in the world is the obvious, or even not-so-obvious connection between the bus flap and the election controversy? I think it should be admitted that if John McCain is really who Lydia and Zippy think he is, then their arguments have merit. They think that we have crossed the line at which the "lesser of two evils" justification fails to make any sense. Now, you've made some good points, some very strong points, all along the way, but I haven't heard anything new in a while and I, for one, just think you are getting more and more shrill and less and less coherent.

Note to Richard Dawkins: When it come to enjoying life -- even enjoying life in the face of dungeons and of death -- few people do as well as the Christians. The joyless, humorless, self-indulgence of the anti-God shock troops on their best days pales in comparison to the heart-deep and life-wide joy that Christians historically have exhibited time and again, even in the valley of the shadow of death.

Preach on. Spoken like a true Chestertonian. "The men signed of the cross go gaily in the dark."

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.