©2009 by Glen C. Davis
Somehow, we should find a way to explain politics to nine and ten-year olds. Also those nine and ten-year olds of mind who do not think for themselves. I decided to try an analogy with other choices we have to make. Let us look at a fast food restaurant menu.
Fast food restaurants have a variety of choices. Some are trying to add—supposedly—healthy items to their menu. They have, however, a large variety. Let us say that, one day, you walk in and they have two entries on their menu; hamburgers and hot dogs. You decide that is ridiculous, so you go to another restaurant and find out that they have the same selection. You are hungry, so you decide not to try another place. You may order either the hamburger or hot dog. For a drink, you may have Coke or Pepsi. You do not choose, however. The hamburger and hot dog choose which drink they will offer you. Let’s say that the hamburger chooses to offer you Coke and the hot dog chooses to offer you Pepsi. Some people might sneak behind the counter and take a peak at the expiration date on the hamburgers and hot dogs. If the date on the hot dogs has passed, for example, you begin to realize that you will be stuck with either the Coke or the Pepsi.
At this point, you can reveal that the hamburger is representative of the Republican candidate for office while the hot dog represents the Democrat.1 They will choose the Coke or the Pepsi as their Vice-Presidential candidate. Why they chose to represent Republicans in red when the Democrats are the Communists, I do not know. It seems that the Republicans are fascists and should be represented by the appropriate color.
Now the hamburger offers you relish, as does the hot dog. The hamburger, however, tells you that you need to have Ketchup. The hot dog tells you that you certainly realize that mustard is more important. The relish is all of the little lies that they tell you. For example they tell you that they will defend the Constitution with their life. They just don’t reveal that they will defend their interpretation of the Constitution. The Democrats want to get rid of guns all together. Though the Republicans say they are for gun rights, they have yet to revoke the unconstitutional 1968 Firearms Act or the National Firearms Act of the 1940’s. The hamburger will tell you that he defends the Constitution, but wants to be able to listen to your phone calls, read your emails, go into your house and “seek” for information without a warrant—which is against the Fourth Amendment—to protect you. The hot dog will cry out against such intrusion until it is purchased, then it will order the ACLU to shut up and let them use the powers that the previously purchased hamburger installed. It can use those powers against their political enemies and even strengthen them. The ketchup, let’s say, represents a strengthened military while the mustard that the hot dog offers you is health care. Sounds good. You have your choices so you choose the hamburger because he offers Coke as his drink. I just happen to choose this combination because I like it. (I mean I like hamburgers and Cokes. I do not vote Republican or Democrat.) Any way, you choose the hamburger and Coke. But wait. You have to wait until they have take everybody’s order to determine what you are going to get. This is called the election.
You are happy because more of the people have ordered hamburgers over hot dogs. You start to rejoice until you learn that you are not going to get hamburgers. The staff of the restaurant has decided that they have an overabundance of hot dogs so that is what they are going to serve. The staff represents the Electoral College. This could actually happen because the Electoral College actually casts the votes, not the people doing the ordering—or the electorate. And they are not obligated to case votes according to the popular vote. That scenario has not exactly happened, yet. It is still possible, however, for a presidential candidate to get the majority of the popular vote, but get less votes of the Electoral College. Abraham Lincoln, for example, did not get a majority of the popular vote, but took most of the Electoral College vote. This is because each state has a certain number of people in the Electoral College based on the number of people in that state. If a candidate wins in that state, they receive all of the votes of the Electoral College representatives of that state. They do not split them up based on the number of votes a candidate received in that state.
Let’s say, though, that the hot dog won hands down. Everybody wants a hot dog because of the mustard. Now everyone starts to pick up the order but are suddenly stunned with the outcome. You have to pay 10-million dollars for each hot dog and each Pepsi distributed. Further, the relish that the hot dog offered? There was a lot there, at first, but the hot dog decided that some of it had to go to Italy because their relish industry wanted to buy American relish. And the jobs that the relish created will go with it even though the hot dog complained about relish going to other countries to evade taxes. Of course, some of the relish has to go to China and Russia because they cannot afford to feed their people and build up their military at the same time. But, surprise, the price you have to pay for the relish does not diminish. You are expected to share the relish. Your cost, 100-trillion. The hot dog also forgot to tell you that the bulk of the relish is to go to reward industries for bad business decisions. And that mustard that you were smacking your lips over? They have to ration it so the most important people can have more mustard while you get a small strand. Your cost, another 100-trillion. And don’t forget to pay the sales tax.
Now you have your order. You may not like it, but you will live with it. Because if you say anything against it, those that ordered hot dogs originally will call you names. Although it is funny to the hot dogs when you say bad things about the hamburgers. You decide to go to the table. It used to cost only a dime to get to the table, but now you are charged fifteen-dollars. And if you break wind along the way, you will be assessed another fifteen-dollars. You should have capped, so now you gotta trade.
When you get to the table, it used to be free to sit. Now you find it costs anywhere from seven-hundred dollars to several thousand dollars depending on your location. A seat by a window will cost you more. Of course if there is a golf course behind the building—even if you can’t see it—you can add a couple hundred more dollars.
You begin to realize that going out to eat can be more expensive than you imagined. You begin to realize that if you did not have to pay so much for hamburgers and hot dogs, you might be able to take your whole family out to choose what you want for them. You would have the money to do that. In a Capitalist society, if you do not like the price of one steak, you can check out the price of another. You can choose the lower of two options. That is what our society was founded on. If you do not like the charges that one doctor quotes you, you can check out another. In a Communist society, where the government controls all, you have one choice. Theirs.
What would happen, I wonder, if the next time that you entered the restaurant, they had the same old choice of hamburgers and hot dogs with the same choice of Coke or Pepsi. In addition, however, in a small corner of the menu is a small picture of a burrito. The hamburger and hot dog have big, bold advertisements dominating their half of the menu. This is called the media. But you look at the burrito who offers, perhaps, a Mountain Dew as the drink. Hmmm, you think to yourself. It offers nothing. What do you do now? All that the hamburger and hot dog has to offer is emblazoned across the menu. But the only thing you see about the burrito is the few off-the-wall things that they say that the media can twist to the advantage of their masters. And George Looney would, somehow, come up with the movie rights.
You could step back and look up the burrito on the Internet (So long as Rockefeller hasn’t gotten rid of it or Obama hasn’t censored it). If it is offering you nothing, that cost nothing. In fact, he wants to take things away. For example, it might want to eliminate the Federal Reserve Board and make the freedom fries (the Congress) do what they were Constitutionally mandated to do.2 He might eliminate the armies that have been built up to intrude on your freedoms and your privacy.3 He does not want to charge you for everything you eat, drink or do. He wants to charge you once and all of the hamburgers and hot dogs and freedom fries will have to live with it. They won’t be able to build up forces to be used against people just trying to get along.
Let’s say that charge is 15% on everything that you purchase. But you only pay that and nothing else. You are still paying every year, but not nearly as much as you did. That might include, say, 15% on the payment on your mortgage or certain luxury taxes. Now you can choose to eat a healthier meal like the rich people on CBN brag about feeding their kids. And let’s say that organizations spring up that want to “share the relish.” One wants to share with China. Another with Africa. Another with Tailand, and so on. Not only can you afford to share some of your relish, you can choose who gets it. Even if it is for people right here in the USA. You would not be beholden to the whim of the hamburger or hot dog.
Competition would bring prices down and the more industrious might even be able to get in on the competition and pay for more employees.
I wonder what would have happened if we had picked the burrito (You can name Ron Paul or Pedro or whoever for the burrito). Yes, it might be scary, at first, and some people might be hurt, for awhile. But, can it be any worse than what we have now? After things settle down, you could select your own retirement plan to replace the failed Social Security system. You could afford to pay for whatever school you want your child to attend and even donate a computer, pencils, or whatever they need. The government would have to back money with gold and silver and remove from the currency world trade banking committees. Your money would actually be worth something again. You would be able to partake of your Constitutionally guaranteed right to own any arms that you choose so that you can protect yourself, your family, your friends, your community and your country from whatever evil that might present itself. It would be America first. That is, after all, what we are founded on. It was based on The People throwing a bone to the the hamburger and hot dog. Not the reverse.
1“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”—George Washington in his farewell address, 1796
2To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States:
Constitution of the United States of America; Article 1, Section 2, Clauses 5 & 6.
3A stranger to our politics, who was to read our newspapers at the present juncture, without having previously inspected the plan reported by the convention, would be naturally led to one of two conclusions: either that it contained a positive injunction, that standing armies should be kept up in time of peace; or that it vested in the EXECUTIVE the whole power of levying troops, without subjecting his discretion, in any shape, to the control of the legislature.
If he came afterwards to peruse the plan itself, he would be surprised to discover, that neither the one nor the other was the case; that the whole power of raising armies was lodged in the LEGISLATURE, not in the EXECUTIVE; that this legislature was to be a popular body, consisting of the representatives of the people periodically elected; and that instead of the provision he had supposed in favor of standing armies, there was to be found, in respect to this object, an important qualification even of the legislative discretion, in that clause which forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period than two years a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity.—PUBLIUS, Federalist Paper No. 24, The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense, Attributed to Alexander Hamilton.