It’s no surprise that I agree with Rhys M. Blavier from lastfreevoice that Obama’s campaign platform of “change” has not materialized. But his is an interesting perspective because he actually voted for Obama, and like many former supporters he is experiencing serious buyer’s remorse.

But then again, isn’t it the rule–not the exception–that voters end up feeling betrayed by their heroes in public office? Blavier has an interesting suggestion,

I said in the 1990s that those Republicans who signed the ‘Contract With America‘ should have had class action lawsuits filed against them for BREACH of Contract. Until we hold our politicians accountable for what they say to us when they are running for office, what is their motivation to change their relationship with those that they ask for their votes?

Of course, this wouldn’t solve the fundamental issue of the tyranny of the majority. That is, a politician promises something  to constituents who then see to it that he gets elected based on that promise. If the politician makes good on the promise we sill never address the issue of whether or not the promise itself is moral.

Political action is exclusively about force. In order for politicians to carry out any action, whether they promised to do it or not, requires them to coerce themselves into the lives and dealings of private individuals. This means that a promise in the political realm really amounts to a politician saying, “I promise to steal from this person and give the loot to you.”

Any political action inevitably leaves some in the dust, those would be the individuals in the minority who voted for the losing candidate. Thomas DiLorenzo references Rothbard on this matter, “even the most brutal dictator ultimately bases his power on the opinions that are held by a majority of the population that is under his rule.” Michael S. Rozeff takes it so far as to refuse to vote at all–as voting ultimately grants credibility to a system which operates on the basis of the tyranny of the majority,

I do not vote because I have no intention of imposing my system on you. If my candidate won, I would not want him to impose a system on the minority that it did not want. I don’t want the majority to impose its system on me now, so I cannot be in favor of my imposing my system on them if I win an election.

The cycle of hype-hope-letdown-deceit happens like clockwork in American politics. Even the populist sheep who march lock-step with the two parties would admit this.

The second of the two parties are gearing in the on-deck circle for their crack at delivering another round of hype-hope-letdown-deceit. The very same Republican media front-men who brainwashed us into war and sold us the Patriot Act are now claiming to be small government, constitutionally-sound, tea-partiers.

Blavier conveys my feelings perfectly well,

You have already made yourselves irrelevant to any but those who already agree with you. You spent eight years with your nose shoved up George Bush’s ass and, no matter what he did, you defended him.

I couldn’t agree more. Any republican who now professes to wanting change, small government and freedom does not get a free pass without either one of the following:

1. Clarification from this person that he/she was in strict opposition to the criminal, centralized power-grab by Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, his thugs and their puppets George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

2. If this person did, in fact, support past Republican power-wielders then they must deliver an apology and confession of misguidedness during their years of support for said criminals (anti-Clintonism does not suffice as proof of anti-elitism as he was almost definitely the least Statist of the lot).

The tea-parties began under the auspices of smaller government and more freedom. It was originally a tax protest. But it has been hijacked by the likes of those who suckled at Bush’s teet while he lied us into war, further destroyed liberty, taxed us heavily through inflation, and continued the policy of crowding out private enterprise and economic freedom.

Those media commentators have dragged their pathetic lemmings with them into the tea-party. They are the ones who cheer at rallies at the mention of Bush and Cheney. I mean, Bush and Cheney? Is that serious?

Aside from them, I am all for a populist anti-government movement and would surely accept an apologetic former Bush-tickler into the fray of truth, objectivity and justice.

Anyway, I think Blavier hits the nail on the head up to this one sentence which raises questions about how he views the political spectrum.

I did what I don’t do… I trusted a politician… and I trusted the Democratic Party to actually change things and push hard to the left in order to shift American back to the middle

To be fair, Blavier is suggesting that “change” from Bush implies a move away from Statism. I have take no issue with his sentiment, but it’s the visual depiction of the political spectrum that bothers me.

One of my biggest pet peeves is the popular notion that fascism and socialism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. They are not. Both brands of oligarchy are equally destructive to freedom and to productivity. They are both equally lacking in morality and justice.

This miscue allows the populace to accept that they will either get a socialist regime or a fascist regime, and that those are your only two options. Independents seem to think that “moving to the middle” is somehow better, as if a hybrid of socialism and fascism is the answer.

As an aside, Obama is the exact same fascist/socialist that Bush was. It can’t even be said that they represent different ends of America’s perverted political spectrum. Let me clue you in on the real political spectrum.

An oligarchy is a system where a class of rulers exert force on the rest of the population, and meddle in the free-will of individuals. In this respect, both socialists and fascists are identical.

Both brands of oligarchy forcefully take from one group and give to another, while taking a cut for themselves.

Both brands of oligarchy destroy economic productivity.

Both brands of oligarchy destroy the moral fabric of society.

The real alternative to diminishing liberty is to increase liberty. The real alternative to a suffocating centralized power is a centralized power that is weak and strictly limited. This always gives rise to strong, decentralized powers in schools, churches, communities, families and ultimately, the individual wields the most power over their own life.

This is the real alternative to the Bush and Obama Statist regimes.

Apart from that slight semantic disagreement, I’m convinced that I need to check out lastfreevoice more often. I have no idea how I even stumbled upon it.