Gary North on current economic affairs and investment marketsGary North -- Specific Answers
HomeContact MeTell a FriendText SizeSearchMember Area
Gain immediate access to all of our current articles, the question-and-answer forums, dozens of free books, and article archives. Click here for details on how to join.

About This Site
Academic Gaps
Articles
Capitalism and the Bible
Clichés of Protectionism
College Finances
Debt Management
Ellen Brown: Critique
Federal Reserve Charts
Gary North's Free Books
Get Published Here!
Gold Price & My Report
Keynes Project
Price Index (U.S.A.)
Questions for Jim Wallis
Remnant Review
Social Security/Medicare
Sustained Revival
Tea Party Economist
U.S. Debt Clock
Yield Curve
Your YouTube Channel
Gary North's Miscellany
Advertising
Blogging
Budgeting for Wealth
Business Start-Up
Career Advancement
Digital Tools
Education That Works
Evernote: Free Notes
Federal Reserve Policy
Fireproof Your Job
Goal-Setting for Success
Great Default
Inheritance Strategies
Insurance
International Investing
Investment Basics
Job and Calling
Keynesian Economics
Leadership
Marketing Case Studies
Obamanomics
Precious Metals
Real Estate
Retirement
Safe Places
State of the Economy
Stocks and Bonds
Study Habits
Video Channel Profits
War With Iran
Members' Free Manuals
Our Products
Contact Me
Help
Tell a Friend
Text Size
Your Account
My 100% Guarantee
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use


This site powered by MemberGate

The Crucial Issue of This Election

Gary North
Printer-Friendly Format

Gary North's Reality Check (Oct. 12, 2012)

We are told that this Presidential election is the most important in 50 years. One nationally prominent Christian Right columnist has written that this is the most important Presidential election in the history of the United States.

How could anyone know if this is the most crucial election? You might think that it would be possible to assess this by looking at the #1 issue of this election, and then compare it with the #1 issue that some previous election settled. Unfortunately, this is not possible. It is not possible for two reasons. First, we do not know the future. Second, because Presidential elections are never fought over a crucial dividing issue that proves to have been divisive after the election is settled.

Here is a list of crucial issues in American political life today. Which of these is central to the campaign?

End legalized abortion
End the war in Afghanistan
End the FED
End the war on drugs
End executive orders
End the Department of Homeland Security
The unfunded liabilities of Medicare
The unfunded liabilities of Social Security
Audit the government's gold's ownership
Balance the federal budget before 2016

These are major issues. They should be publicly addressed. They are so far under the rug that the mainstream media are oblivious to them. Obama is staying silent, and the mainstream media prefer that he get away with this. Think "closing Guantanamo." Think "climate change."

This is the way that every Presidential race is always conducted. Does this seem like a preposterous statement? Probably. Is it an accurate statement? Let me state my case.

The most important Presidential election in American history was held in 1860, when the former Mary Todd's two suitors, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, lawyers for the Illinois Central Railroad, squared off for the second time, the first being the office of U.S. Senate in 1858. The outcome led to the secession of most Southern states before Lincoln was inaugurated. The death toll of the Civil War has recently been increased from an admitted 630,000 to about 700,000. It is clear that no other election ever produced anything like that.

What was the dividing judicial issue of the election of 1860? That is, what judicial issue was the crucial one that the election would surely settle, which President Buchanan's administration had not settled, over which the political battle was fought?

Answer: the one which both candidates denied was an issue. Abolition.

Either Lincoln or Douglas would win. John C. Breckenridge, Buchanan's Vice President, was also running as a third party candidate, because the South's Democrats could not stand Douglas' position on the right of voters within a proposed state to decide whether to enter as a slave state or a free state. Douglas promoted "popular sovereignty," and the geography of all the new states made it clear that there would be no new slave states. The South would be outvoted at some point, and slavery would be repealed.

You can see this on any map: what is now Edgewood, Texas, 50 miles east of Dallas. West of Edgewood, a slave owner would have had to give a slave a horse to herd cattle. The piny woods grew thin, because the soil grew thin. There would be no cotton west of Edgewood. That soil division extends north through Oklahoma and Kansas. Kansas was the wave of the future. It was a free state.

If Lincoln won, he would make sure that no slave state would enter the Union to balance a non-slave state. He had made this the keystone of his later political career.

South Carolina seceded, pulling Deep South states with it. The issue given by the seceding legislature was the defense of slavery. The North no longer would support the Fugitive Slave Act, which was part of the Missouri Compromise of 1850. So, the declaration said,

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. (http://bit.ly/SecessionSC)

Problem: that declaration would have been just as judicially relevant in October of 1860 as it was in December, when South Carolina seceded.

The four states that presented reasons all cited slavery. (http://bit.ly/Secession4) Again, their declarations were as judicially relevant before the election as after.

Breckenridge could not win. No one expected him to win. So, the election was in fact a gigantic emotional bloodletting that provided the South with a symbol, but the substance would have been the same if Douglas had won.

The soil west of Edgewood, Texas made either secession or abolition inevitable. The election was merely a national ratification of what the leaders of the South could see was coming.

The election of 1860 was monumental -- lots and lots of monuments after 1865 -- in its importance, but the central judicial issue was not. The election was important because men seek symbols when they go to war, and Lincoln was the symbol. It had nothing to do with his party's platform, which insisted,

4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes. (http://bit.ly/RepPlat1860)

If Douglas had been elected, it would have made no difference. He died in June of 1861. The Vice President would have been Herschel V. Johnson of Georgia. He opposed secession. But he would not have been able to change the soil west of Edgewood.

What other elections might qualify?

The election of 1896 was fought over the gold standard. William Jennings Bryan's speech on "the cross of gold" made that the central issue. There was no way that Bryan was going to get that changed in 1897. Besides, the poor schnook was persuaded by Woodrow Wilson in 1913 to push for the creation of the Federal Reserve System. On economic affairs, he was a far Left radical -- by far the most radical Left major party Presidential candidate in American history when his views are compared to voters' opinions in his own era.

The election of Bryan would have made a monumental difference. There would have been no Spanish-American War. He was a non-interventionist. He would have delayed the Progressive movement's aggressive foreign policy. That would have changed the development of the country as nothing else had since the Civil War. But foreign policy was not a major issue of the campaign in 1896. By the time of his campaigns of 1900 and 1908, the foundations of the American empire had already been laid. He could at most have retarded the development by ending the undeclared war in the Philippines, which led to the deaths of 34,000 Filipino soldiers and 200,000 civilians.

Woodrow Wilson campaigned in 1916 on this platform: "He kept us out of war." Exactly 30 days after he was inaugurated for his second term, he called for entry into war, and the Congress supported him. The central issue of the election was a smokescreen to fool the voters.

Franklin Roosevelt campaigned on this theme: Herbert Hoover was a spendthrift whose spending policies threatened to bankrupt the nation.

The most obvious effect of extravagant Government spending is its burden on farm and industrial activity, and, for that nearly every Government unit in the United States is to blame. But when we come to consider prodigality and extravagance in the Federal Government, as distinguished from State or local government, we are talking about something even more dangerous. For upon the financial stability of the United States Government depends the stability of trade and employment, and of the entire banking, savings and insurance system of the Nation. (http://bit.ly/FDRPittsburgh)

His assessment was correct. The trouble was, as soon as he was inaugurated, he escalated Hoover's most extravagant programs and added hundreds more.

Think of another truly crucial election: 1964. Barry Goldwater would have made a huge difference. He was an outsider who got through the Republican Establishment's vetting process. It never happened before or after. The war on poverty and the war in Vietnam would not have been fought. The Immigration Act of 1965 would not have been signed into law. There would have been no Medicare. But recall this (as I do): none of these issues was central to the campaign.

George W. Bush campaigned on foreign policy. He said we should not be involved in "nation building."

So, again, where is the evidence that the monumental issues of Presidential elections are in fact monumental issues?

What about today?

The media coverage of the first Presidential debate was over who won. How much coverage was there of the crucial issue of the debate? There was none -- no coverage and no crucial issue.

"Who is perceived as a strong leader?" is not a crucial issue. The budget deficit is not a crucial issue if neither candidate offers a detailed program to balance it. Besides, the real budget issue is the present value of the government's unfunded liabilities, which is now at $222 trillion. (http://bit.ly/Kotlikoff222) Here is an issue worth facing! No candidate is going to face it.

If this is the most important election of our era, where is the evidence? Where is the central judicial issue in which the voters have a choice, not an echo?

RHETORIC VS. REALITY

Part of the political game, as orchestrated by the bi-partisan Establishment of this nation is to persuade voters every four years that something huge is at stake politically. The country is divided electorally. Clinton won two terms. Bush II won two terms. This had never happened before in American history: rival parties' Presidential candidates being elected in succession. Obama may win two terms. That would clinch it: a truly divided electorate.

Yet in the shadows of this election there are fundamental issues that are being ignored. There are also gigantic quantities of money, taxed and borrowed, that are flowing into a handful of big banks (about five), and the government-rigged capital markets. There is a never-ending war in the region of the world where the war never ends, with another one looking probable. If Alexander the Great, the Mongols, the British Empire, and the USSR could not hold Afghanistan, neither can anyone else. As for Persia, the Romans tried and failed.

The issues are important. The candidates are not addressing any of them.

It is not an accident that these issues are not being addressed. The Establishment has no solutions that it can persuade the voters to accept. It has always prospered in the shadows of the Punch and Judy shows that we hold every four years for entertainment's sake, and deception's sake.

The federal deficit gets larger. The unfunded liabilities get larger. The monetary base gets larger. The number of foreign military and spying bases gets larger. The Federal Register gets longer (83,000 pages in 2011).

The direction of the federal government does not change.

What is America's richest city? Washington, D.C. (http://bit.ly/RichestCityUSA2012) There is a reason for this.

CONCLUSION

Don't get too excited by the rhetoric between now and November 6. Just enjoy the fun.

When you hear from a candidate that his opponent is not being forthright with the voters, believe him. When you hear that this election is crucial, wait for the person who says this to tell you why.

I think it is crucial in this respect. It will elevate to the highest office in the land the sacrificial lamb which served as the scapegoat in the Mosaic law. The high priest laid the sins of the people on it, and then it was sent into the wilderness (Leviticus 16:10).

Will the wilderness be one of Romney's three mansions around the nation (http://bit.ly/RomneyHomes), or will it be Obama's new home in Hawaii (http://bit.ly/ObamaHome)?

The wilderness ain't what it used to be.


Printer-Friendly Format

 Tip of the Week
Sign up for my free
Tip of the Week
Verification Characters:    Type     1  6  U  6  C     here   


Tip of the week archives
On what this icon
means, and how it
can help you,
click here
 Q & A Forums
General Q&A Forum
Advertising and Resumés
Affiliates
American History Topics
Backyard Food Gardening
Banking and Politics
Blog Sites and Web Sites
Books Worth Reading
Bumper Sticker Slogans
Business Forum
Buying Smart
Christian Service Forum
College -- The Cheap Way
Copywriting
Education Alternatives
Food Storage
For Women Only
Fukushima
GNC Benefits
GNC Testimonials
Gold and Silver
Great Default Forum
Health and Diet
Health Insurance
Homeschooling
Investments Forum
Iran War
Job, Calling, and Career
Leadership Development
Legacy Building
Less Dependent Living
Local Political Action
Non-Retirement Forum
One Good Idea
Police State
Privacy
Public Speaking
Real Estate Forum
Remnant Review Forum
Safe Places Forum
Taxation Policy
Typographical Errors
Video Production Basics

 Archives
Reality Check
 Discussion Forum
Search Discussion


Recent Forum Posts
• Watch Junk Bonds For Early Warnings Of Fin. Crisis
• Where to start?
• investing for the beginner
• PIMCO
• Alibaba IPO
• Two Questions: 401k and Pension
• Investment advice - for a family
• Where To Safely Park A Large Amount Of Cash
• How do you invest in this system.
• Retirement Fund: Advertising budget
• Kotlikoff says SIPC insurance is a fraud
• How to Evaluate A Country's Economic Condition
• Eugene Fama's Dimension Funds
• Financial Management Sites
• Don't Touch Principle Follow Up
• Sister's rental was given 24 hours no cause vacat
• Managers for Rental Property
• GN's article about "a place in the country&q
• GN's article about "a place in the country&q
• Recourse vs. Non-Recourse Loans
• Emergency Preparedness
• Nashville - Smyrna, TN Real Estate Market
• First Time Buyer Hesitations
• condominium's
• condominium's
• Modular Homes
• Another question about screening tenants
• Sell a house or rent it out
• Houston vs San Francisco
• Thanks for suggestions.
• Moving TO the US?
• No City for Old People
• Will you die getting to your bug out location?
• teaching English overseas - some questions
• The state with the most Liberty
• Switzerland and Firearms
• On "Zip Code Searching On The Web"
• Crash Course in becoming an Expat
• Anyone tried Puerto Rico?
• Chattanooga, Tennessee
• Middle Class squeezed out of Chicago
• An Article on Chile
• 5 Amazing, Cheap Places to Live as an Expat
• Oil Field Job Security
• Moving to TriCities Area
• advice on how do I interact with my older parents?
• Do You Sincerely Want to Be Rich? Why?
• Req. For No 401(k)/Other Pensions via Relocatio
• Cashing out 401K to pay student debt?
• SS @ 62 and still working
• Desolation or Prosperity?
• I take it Retirement Armageddon is not available
• Post Retirement Career
• Social Security - when to start collecting
• 401K Risk
• Detroit Retirees Fight 83% Health Care Cut
• Lump Sum Early DROP
• Underfunded pensions
• 401k strategy
• Can I Avoid Medicare Entirely?
• Bought Journalists
• :"Summoning the Demon"
• Charles Barkley on Jigga Jones and his ilk
• Bought Journalists, GameChanger Salon
• Guilty as Not Charged
• Why are our children being murdered? Why didn't t
• Intellectual Firepower
• Refuting Keynes through crowd research
• The Collapse of The American Dream
• Adjustable Glasses Come to America
• Here's something kinda creepy in the Ebola arena
• Cataracts
• The Insurmountable barrier of the Swiss Gold Ini
• "What is Evidence-based Sentencing?"
• Self driving car
• Value of Equity in a small business
• Idea for a reality show--"Do That Job!"
• Dun & Bradstreet information
• Warren Buffett and that other guy.
• Requirements for start-up?
• Apple and/or Android?
• Getting kicked out by the state
• Alexa manipulating internet rankings ?
• Business Idea - Book Summaries for Sale
• Millionaires you've never heard of
• Numismatic seller wants more exposure
• Another email list question.
• Adding people to an email list.
• Business Ideas - Chinese Wife
• Business naming