A Difference Without A Distinction

I am one of those who will tell you that your vote this November is important, that there is a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in the race. But is there a meaningful difference? A distinction, a “marked difference or contrast?” At least on many issues the answer is no, I’m afraid, although I often argue otherwise in polite conversation.

Abortion and gay marriage? No difference really. Those are mere distractions to court the stupid vote. Social Security and Medicare? Republicans want to empty a clip not only into the social safety net but also into the social contract as a whole, while Democrats are only willing to watch it all die slowly. No distinction there. The Supreme Court? That might be the only clear difference between the parties these days. Just check the appointments . . . who do you think is doing a good job for citizens in general? Difference, check.

So the reality is that there is not much air between the mere prevarications of the Democrats and the outrageous, bald-faced lies of the Republicans. Overstated? “We want to insure the future of Social Security and Medicare!” That’s a whopper right there.

Not much difference between the Neoconservative Republicans on the one hand and the Neoliberal Democrats on the other. Both groups follow the philosophy of Economism, that all societal decisions must be based on cost/benefit analysis (and all benefits must be judged by tangible, financial advantages).

The real problem here, the elephant in the room, the iceberg to our national Titanic, is that the largest single spending item on our national budget is exempt from the requirements of Economism. That would be the budgets of the various entities that make up the National Security Apparatus, the whole thing, from Homeland Security to the NSA up through the different military services and including the Coast Guard. What they want, they get, in cost-plus, no-bid contracts. We must defend out freedom! (Irony intentional.) Economism be damned (as it should be, but on other grounds).

The two political parties share a profound disinclination to disturb this hungry monstrosity in any way. Any discussion of the National Security Apparatus, of its size, of its explosive, exponential growth over the last seventy years, of its dubious record of accomplishment, of its already crippling and rapidly increasing demands on our prosperity, of its role in the diminution of our freedoms, discussion of any of that is totally absent from the current presidential campaign.

Am I the only one who thinks that it is strange and wrong that the United States has been in a constant state of emergency since 1941?

Whoever is elected, and whoever controls congress, nothing will be done to rein in these security excesses taken, ostensibly, on our behalf. Before long it will be impossible to even take out the trash without a drone flying over, with facial recognition software, and probably at least a Taser on board, to see who you are and what you’re doing.

So what the hell, vote for whomever you wish. It hardly matters. Abortion will still be with us; gay marriage will continue to make inroads and gain acceptance; the great Liberal gains of the Twentieth Century will continue to be eroded; and the National Security Apparatus will continue to bankrupt us, placing our very future in jeopardy and delivering very little in the way of actual security. Either way, we’re losing.

Or vote for the Democrats, for the simple reason that you’ll get a better Supreme Court out of the deal.