poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (11/02/84)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 1 Nov 84 Volume 4 Number 98
[This is the "ordinary" poli-sci material. The electronic democracy
stuff forms a separate issue.]
Contents: politics,running for office
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed 31 Oct 84 09:39:05-PST
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Running for office
"If the people come to realize...."
Josh
I trust, of course, that you are not holding your breath! Your thesis
might have some merit in a society of, say, a few thousand people, where
it might actually be possible to talk to and persuade everyone that
government interference is bad. Trouble is, there is an enormous amount
of inertia in the existing social structure of the US (a broad term
I use to include economic trends, political systems, social systems and
values, etc), and the overall path of society is not going to change
quickly unless there is some equally enormous external force (nuclear
war, the arrival of the visitors, or some such).
I want to change the system in the direction of more freedom. I control
some modest resources that I can command/influence. In order to
maximize the effectiveness of my resources, I need to apply them where
the will have the most effect. For a system with this kind of inertia
and stability, that implies using the existing tools to nudge the
system (as opposed to waiting for some cosmic transformation
in the minds of the citizens) in the direction that I want.
This is, I admit, a little academic. I've actually concluded that to
change the system significantly will take much too long for my
purposes (over 100 years), and that I will instead attempt to build a
freer country in space, which I believe can be done in 40-50 years.
TCS
[The point is that I'm not just waiting for people to suddenly
change their minds, I'm trying to increase the availibility of the
crucial ideas throughout the intellectual "market". Nothing is
so powerful as an idea whose time is come--but there is a lot of
hard pushing before that time comes. If suddenly the government
were disbanded here, chaos would ensue. The people aren't ready
for freedom yet. They were more ready a century ago--but a century
of socialist ideas made them ready for slavery. The intellectual
foundations of freedom must be laid before the government can be
removed; and when they are, it will melt away as if by magic.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Wed 31 Oct 84 13:21:38-PST
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: changing gov't from within
[Terry C. Savage <TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>]
As for actually running for office--I'd do it in a minute, if I
thought I had a chance of winning, and I may do it anyway just to
raise some issues. What would be the chances of success for a
candidate who told the electorate their concepts of right and
wrong were all screwed up?
I agree with Terry that it's preferable to improve a situation than
wait for the "best" to come along, the perfect cure. But I wonder how
much it would really accomplish for one of us "enlightened" types to
run for office. Terry says it himself in the last sentence above.
And while raising some issues is worthwhile, it doesn't get you inside
the system to change it.
The problem here is that we, the masses, elect officials on the basis
of personality, presentation, and their ability to say what we want to
hear, no matter how absurd. Reagan is the paradigm. I fear that
someone who brings up real issues may attract a small following, as
did McCarthy and Anderson, and may actually educate and influence some
folks, but will not get elected. I also fear that the process of
getting elected may actually convert the enlightened candidate to a
Reaganistic style, said candidate rationalizing that he must first get
elected so he can do his good deeds, and finding that the conversion
is difficult to reverse. I cannot cite an example from reality, but
there is a Spencer Tracy movie in which this very nearly happens
(except that an almost-converted Tracy is jerked back to his
principles by a strong-willed wife, played of course by Hepburn).
I think our best chance is to find someone who has the principles and
attitudes we like, but is so strong-willed and self-confident that he
can play the huckster, telling the people what they want to hear, yet
never believing a word of it himself, and knowing that what he does in
office need have nothing to do with what he says to get elected. It
won't be easy to find someone with a strong enough commitment to
survive the election process, who can still speak convincingly about
things he doesn't believe, but that seems to me the best hope for
change within the system. And even if I knew of such a person, does
the end justify the means? In the meantime, I'm always thankful for
the folks who run to raise some issues and help prod the rest of us
into thinking a bit more. Maybe enough people will start thinking so
that we can elect someone on the basis of issues (vs. showmanship).
Annette
[Yikes! Your recipe for good government is "Find a strong-willed,
fundamentally dishonest person, and put him (or her) in charge
of everything." ?!?!?! --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Wed Oct 31 22:55:59 1984
From: mclure@sri-unix
Subject: reprehensible Democratic commercials
I find the current spate of Democratic commercials associating nuclear
destruction with the Republican party totally disgusting.
I agree with William F. Buckley's remark that when we have "bad"
detente with the Soviets is the only "good" time in our relations.
The Soviets have broken numerous treaties so I don't see much
point in making agreements with them.
Lenin stated that the ultimate goal of communism was to infect
the world and spread its virulent strain everywhere. We must
stop it through strength, the strength of the Republican party.
Don't believe the Democrats. They are a party of bleeding-heart
liberals who intend to make this country little more than a
welfare nation of invalids, begging for gruel from the government.
I am a registered Republican although more a LIberatarian at heart.
While I think the LIbertarian cause is a good one, I feel that they
will never really have a good chance at electing someone to the
highest office, and so I will vote for Reagan in this coming election.
[The remainder of the message censored as being a political ad. --JoSH]
Stuart
------------------------------
Date: 1 Nov 84 09:40:38 PST (Thursday)
From: RobertsA.es@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Running for office
In answer to Terry C. Savage's commet;
"If someone runs for office successfully without lying, cheating, or
stealing, and someone (through persuasion or whatever) effects a
*reduction* in the amount the government steals (or at least does not
increse it) they have neither lied, cheated, nor stolen in the process
of running for office."
If someone runs for office without lying, cheating, or stealing; then it
is true that they have neither lied, cheated, nor stolen in the process
of running for office. But if they are "successful"
and they accept the office then, since all State money is stolen i.e. it
is "Plunder", this person now takes part in the process of dividing the
"spoils" and with his/her first paycheck takes part in receiving stolen
goods. This person is now a criminal.
The alternative is to BUILD a non-coercive voluntary society. I emphasis
build because freedom, justice, civilization are products to be built
NOT causes to fight for.
Allen Roberts
------------------------------
Date: 1 Nov 84 12:54 PST
From: Sybalsky.pa@XEROX.ARPA
Re Steve Upstill's letter
You say, "Is it too much to expect hear a sentence like "Well, this
may be the only way for now, but BY GOD we're going to find another."?
I have never heard any such sentiment from Ronald Reagan, and I don't
expect to."
I beg your pardon. I am under the impression that that's EXACTLY what
he said on October 23, 1983--when he announced the Strategic Defense
Initiative. High Frontier, at least, is a purely defensive weapon
setup. If the backers are to be believed (and their arguments are
persuasive), having such a system would shift us away from Mutual
Assured Destruction--especially if we shared it with the USSR.
Isn't that exactly the kind of shift you want? Well, Reagan proposed
it.
Oh, and Mondale's response? Roughly, "Share out 50-billion dollar
technology with those warmongers? No way!" On balance, it sounds to me
like Mondale is the one who will never say what you want to hear.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------