With the election comming up, I felt I needed to comment on it.
I have noticed this from many of my peers and others, that there is an attitude that we must vote for the "lesser of two evils" and that not voting is the equivalent of giving the election to the greater evil. I contend that voting is neither necessary and that voting for the lesser of two evils is unacceptable.
For my first point, voting in general. How can something that has, until recent times, been unavalible to the people be a requirement? Even in the United States, only property owning men could initially vote. They clearly did not see as necessary for everyone to vote. From a Catholic point of view, the Church has constantly throughout her history been supportive of Monarchies where voting for the leader of the nation was out of the question (or if it was voting, it was like the Holy Roman Empire or the Papacy itself, done by the nobility or cardinals). So how can it be necessary to vote?
Next the lesser of two evils arguement. What exactly makes the lesser evil a good idea to vote for? Just because he is supposedly pro life (you know not including his support of EMBYRONIC stem cells, and unjust war)? No, because McCain can't change anything once he is elected, at best he can keep the status quo, at worst he can nominate a new judge that will be a hidden pro infanticide justice. There are plenty of third party choices (that btw if the 40% of the population that is Catholic voted for ) could be viable candidates if given support.
This leads to my next point, if we beleive in Objective moral values, then how can we even possibly dream of supporting something like a neo-republic/representitve democracy. Where truth is put to a vote and whoever is in the majority can impose their will upon everyone else. Rather then the potential tyranny of one man, we are given the tyranny of the majority. Its not much different, except that a monarchy at least recognizes that its power comes from God so even if he is a bad monarch, he is still going have this ingrained into his person if he has been raised from birth for the position. The people ,on the contrary, change their flavor of the month. Every four or eight years we change our minds. Monarchy, on the contrary is a stable regime that conserves the state and nurtures it so that it can organically develop. It prides itself on its traditions and values and looks towards its God-given ruler for guidance and stability. In these unstable times one would think that we would desire this in our country. Rather we instead are after "change", whatever that means. I can tell you what I beleive it means, and I beleive it means that we want to further weaken our standing in the world. That we want to further degenerate as a society, and that we would rather elect corrupt politicians who waste our money rather then look into the future and realize that the America everyone talks about, hasn't existed for a long time now.
As for me, I do not beleive I will vote. There is no candidate on the ballot in this state that I could even hold my nose and support. Perhaps I could move to Louisiana and vote for Ron Paul (whom is the candiate for the Louisiana tax payers party or something, probably without his consent).