Two Wolves and a Lamb

Professional obligations required us to view Tuesday night’s presidential debate.

The experience jackhammered home our central contention: Politics is disguised violence.

There you had the two combatants, Harris and Trump, Trump and Harris.

Perhaps one half of the nation is for the one. The second half is for the other.

One will win and the other will lose.

Thus roughly one-half of the population must suffer for the following four years — if not more.

As we have argued before:

Assume your election. 50.1% of voters yank a lever for X. 49.9% pull one for Y.

Thus X claims the laurel. He proceeds instantly against the desires, wishes and interests of the vanquished 49.9%.

Each day they live this hapless bunch must cringe, wither and chafe beneath X’s atrocities… helpless as worms on fishermen’s hooks.

A Binary Choice

Let us consider the case at bar.

If Ms. Harris gets in, half the nation must endure an additional four years of unfettered immigration, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, sexual deviancy boosting, “green” energy drumming, election disintegrity, et cetera.

We would cite additional debt heaped on by extravagant Democratic spending. Yet the nation’s debt galloped by bounds under Mr. Trump’s reign.

Prior even to the pandemic, the fellow liked to spend money.

We do not believe the shade of Cal Coolidge will seize control of Don Trump next time.

And if Mr. Trump gets in?

The other half of the nation — the half for Ms. Harris — must endure four years of dictatorship, threats to democracy, retribution, isolationism, trade war, racism, disinformation, Russophilia and every other species of calamity.

That is, victory by either will leave half the nation very far from gruntled.

The Old Politics Are Gone

We recall the days when politics centered within a fairly limited range.

Should the highest marginal tax rate settle at 36% — or 39%?

Should this regulation go upon the statute books or come off the statute books?

Should we spend x on “defense,” x+1 or x-1?

Yet in these our days, political combats assume a more… fundamental coloring.

Red-state America and blue-state America are at each other’s throats.

And neither intends to let go the chokehold.

At essence — as we have argued before — it is because politics disunites, divides, disrupts, discombobulates.

It is a twin of war itself. For politics disunites, divides, disrupts and discombobulates as war itself.

Democratic politics offer no exception. It in fact constitutes the very proof of the rule.

The Beauty of Federalism

And as we have likewise argued before: The higher the office… the greater the menace.

We argued, for example, that the mayor of Why, Arizona, may impose his torments upon his outvoted victims — as may the mayor of Whynot, North Carolina.

Yet these victims are free to jump the fence.

The bordering hamlet might run to saner and more tolerable settings as the outvoted sees them.

And so the oppressed can flee, refugees from oppression.

The same asylum-seeking applies to individual states.

Has a California or an Oregon or an Illinois gone lunatic? For many they have. But a Texas or a Tennessee or a Utah holds out its beacon.

These local competitions form a severe brake on the natural rascalities of politics, especially in the American system.

These local competitions, in fact, form the crowning glory of the American device of government.

But to escape a president? A fellow must jump the Rio Grande to the south, the 49th parallel to the north or swim oceans east or west to get away.

If he chooses to linger on, he must rot down four years until he takes another go at the vote booth.

And if the scalawag wins reelection?

Our poor wretch must endure another four years under occupation — for a total of eight.

We have previously contrasted the political system with the market system. Today we do it again…

Voting in the Marketplace

We have argued that free markets — authentically free markets — lack entirely the violent combats central to politics.

And that they are scenes of peace, tolerance… and justice. Consider, for example, a Coca-Cola.

This beverage holds itself out before the American people. It is Candidate X in a theoretical market election.

“Vote for me,” yells this candidate. I’m the “real thing.”

Behind the other podium stands a Pepsi-Cola — Candidate Y.

“No. Vote for me,” counters this fellow. Drink me “for the love of it.”

The fickle and capricious voter proceeds to choose. Out comes his wallet, containing his vote for one or the other.

Yet does his individual vote injure, usurp or ruffle the opposing voter? Does he club the other voter over the head to enforce his wishes… as he does in politics?

He does not.

Satisfied Voters

A voter for either Coca-Cola or Pepsi-Cola is a satisfied voter. Crucially, neither denies the other his soft drink of choice.

Multiply this one example countless times and in countless directions. What emerges is a picture of majestic electoral peace and serenity.

McDonald’s vs. Burger King, Honda vs. Ford, Nike vs. Adidas, Walmart vs. Target… it is all one.

Chain a red-state American to a blue-state American. Compel them to vote between any product on the free and open market.

The blue-state voter may razz the red-stater’s ghastly and barbarian tastes. The red-state voter may in turn razz the blue-stater’s effete and supercilious tastes.

But neither attempts to dragoon or bayonet the other. Each concedes the other’s freedom to vote his own way, as he might, according to his liver and lights.

Thus peace prevails between them.

Yet when the political voter steps into the vote booth on Election Day— conversely — he conducts a sort of warfare.

He wants to boss the opposing voter in a way the opposing voter does not wish to be bossed.

He in essence places a gun against the fellow’s ribs.

And when he pulls the lever? He pulls the trigger.

Two Wolves and a Lamb

We must therefore conclude the free market’s voting system is vastly superior to political voting.

A vote in the marketplace is a “win, win” deal, as our co-founder Bill Bonner styles it. Both purchaser and producer benefit from the transaction.

What is politics then but a colossal “win, lose” deal?

Do we propose an alternative to the political arrangement?

No — not earnestly. We merely diagnose a disorder. We do not prescribe a fix.

You say the system under which we wallow is the best on offer in this fallen world of sin. There is very little alternative. We must simply make the best of it.

You may very well be correct. You are very likely correct.

Yet as old Ben Franklin never said: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”

What if you are the lamb?