In the realm of politics, I'm more a voyeur than a participant. Or maybe I'm like the people who slow down for an accident in hopes of seeing blood on the highway. I do vote in the major elections, and I can't keep myself from taking sides, even in races where there are no good choices. At least I don't fool myself into thinking this activity is worthwhile. I'm convinced that elections, like Las Vegas casino games, are rigged in favor of the house. But I wasn't always that cynical.

I got interested in politics at an early age. As a child, I often eavesdropped on my grandfather's political discussions. In grade school, I was reading Time magazine, watching the evening news, and following the “progress” of the Vietnam War. At that time I believed the talking heads on TV. There was “a light at the end of the tunnel,” so we had to “support our boys in uniform.”

Tragically, my father succumbed to cancer when I was ten. As a result I developed a strong interest in religion. I read the Bible and began to wonder if the War was morally justifiable. A few years later, our pastor, who was atypically liberal for our small town, invited a draft dodger to speak to my church school class. This caused several parents to leave the congregation in a rage, but I realized the reverend was right. I became a pacifist, and supported McGovern in '72 despite the taunts of my conservative peers. In high school, I published an “underground” newspaper. At that time, I actually called myself a Marxist.

In other ways I was a more typical 1970's longhair. When I researched the Socialist Workers Party, I discovered that with respect to actual partying, they were stodgier than the Republicans. So I was the proverbial rebel without a cause. Then one day in the college library, I happened upon a book called The Libertarian Alternative, a collection of essays edited by Tibor Machan. I especially enjoyed the parts that showed that the history we'd learned in public school was largely a fraud, and that the “progressive” era had served to empower Big Business, not restrict it. Another book that greatly influenced me was written by an investment analyst named Harry Browne: How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World.

I only had one problem with Browne's philosophy- he asserted that political activity was a waste of time. Back then, as a neophyte and a true believer, I was convinced that the message of freedom was so powerful that we'd soon turn the tide of big government. Libertarianism being a continuation of the ideals of the Founding Fathers, the American people would understand and be drawn to our cause.

After graduation, I got married and moved to Phoenix, Arizona. Much of my spare time was devoted to politics (though my wife never shared my enthusiasm.) Despite Browne's admonition, I became very active in the Arizona Libertarian Party. I circulated petitions, waved protest signs, registered voters, and served as secretary of the ALP's executive committee. I ran an earnest but disorganized campaign for state legislature, earning a humiliating three percent of the vote. Worst of all, Ron Paul, our great hope for change in the 1988 Presidential race, made a very disappointing showing, far less than Ed Clark's 1980 vote totals. Shortly thereafter, the Arizona LP self-destructed in an ideological dispute over campaign financing. I decided that Browne had been right all along.

I dropped out of LP activism, but never lost my interest in politics. I read voraciously and wrote inflammatory articles and letters to the editor, figuring I could still influence people for the better. I was astounded when Harry Browne turned on his principles and ran for President, not once, but twice. His campaigns were among the most corrupt and inept in Libertarian Party history. These events made me doubt that we libertarians could achieve anything, even if the cards weren't stacked against us.

Of course, there's always false hope, which came in the form of the Ron Paul Revolution. I had met Dr. Paul in 1988. I greatly admired the man, but was not optimistic for his candidacy. The ensuing hoopla over his second Presidential campaign took me by surprise. Despite Paul's lack of charisma, and his focus on obscure (to the average American) issues such as the Federal Reserve, people latched on to his campaign by the hundreds of thousands. I think it was less about Paul himself than the times. After two terms of George W. Bush, people needed a voice of sanity and hope. In particular, Trevor Lyman's “money bombs” were a stroke of genius. They actually inspired me to donate, and I haven't given money to any campaign in over a decade. Of course the establishment press despised Paul, and his movement ran up against the wall of entrenched political interests. Yes, Paul opened a lot of minds, but many more remained closed. At our current rate of progress, our great-great-grandchildren may be free – as long as some idiot doesn't start a nuclear war in the meantime.

So that's why I'm pessimistic about achieving change from within the system. But as my wife always says, “Don't complain unless you have a suggestion for fixing the problem.” I have several, which will be the subject of my next column.

Thanks for reading, and feel free to flame away!

Vaughn

Follow up: Once again, I let my enthusiasm get away with me. At the time that I wrote my previous column, I had read a article that showed Republican congressional candidates making headway in the polls against their Democratic opponents. I theorized that it was part of a “bailout backlash.” It appears that this trend was a flash in the pan. Remember how the media pundits were talking about “class rage”? Perhaps people didn't realize that the stereotypical roles were reversed, and that many more Democrats voted for the bailout than Republicans. I was hoping that Americans would punish any representatives who supported this outrage, and vote those incumbents out. But it appears that most voters have the attention span of a goldfish.

One more thing: it was hilarious to see McCain on television, railing against Obama's tax plan, expounding on the evil of giving money to people who didn't earn it. Who voted to give billions of dollars of our tax money to rich bankers to didn't earn it, don't deserve it, and don't need it? At least Obama is honest about his redistributionist tendencies.