“They told me if I voted for Goldwater in 1964,” William F. Buckley, Jr. allegedly (but not verifiably) once said, “that we’d have more war and higher prices. Well, I did, and we do.”

In the run-up to the 2024 presidential election, supporters of Donald Trump delivered similar dire predictions about voting for Kamala Harris.

And in the aftermath? The last two words of the apocryphal Buckley quote ring true as well.

For some reason, those who still support Trump seem to think that “but Kamala! If SHE’D won, we’d have had [insert list of bad things that have happened since anyway here]!” is some kind of sick burn on those who preferred the empty pantsuit to the senile reality TV star.

Personally, I see the whole situation neither as an excuse for Trump’s failures nor a sign that Harris should have won the job, but rather as a demonstration that the “D” or “R” next to a candidate’s name is entirely about marketing.

When it comes to substance, those parties and the politicians affiliated with them are pretty much peas in a pod.

In fact, the “Republican” and “Democrat” labels aren’t even really separate brands so much as “regular” vs. “zero-sugar” variants of the same product.

I say that with my doctor’s advice on diet for type 2 diabetics in mind:

“Diet” soda, she tells me, actually produces similar blood glucose spikes to those one gets from “regular” soda (“pop” to some of you up north).

Her advice: Give up soda altogether. It’s just generally bad for you.

While I haven’t taken that advice (give me Diet Dr. Pepper or give me death!), I suspect it’s good advice.

The problem really does analogize well — political government as soda.

Sugar or no sugar, cola versus lemon-lime, the name on the label, etc. aren’t the problem. The problem is the product TYPE, not the specific variant.

If you vote Democrat, you’re going to get more government spending, more foreign wars, more domestic surveillance, incarceration, and suppression of dissent, etc.

If you vote Republican, you’re going to get more government spending, more foreign wars, more domestic surveillance, incarceration, and suppression of dissent, etc.

Sure, they sport different labels.

Sure, they conduct their marketing campaigns in different ways and to different target demographics.

Either way, though, they know you’re going to drink the soda.

Maybe I should have gone with a Flavor Aid analogy instead. Sooner or later,  political government always ends up looking more like “Jonestown mass suicide” than “have a Coke and a smile.”

“But Kamala!” explains nothing, nor is Trump the real problem. We can’t vote our way out of the messes we keep voting ourselves into. Elections aren’t a substitute for freedom.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

You may have only recently heard: As of this coming December, all American males will find themselves “automatically registered,” upon the occasion of their 18th birthdays, for a prospective military draft.

Given current events, that prospect understandably gives off sinister vibes — “but without a draft, who would do the necessary work of murdering Iranian elementary school students and Venezuelan fisherme … er, ‘narco-terrorists?'” —  so you might be surprised to learn that it’s old news.

On December 30, 2024, then US president Joe Biden (or maybe his autopen?) signed the National Defense [sic] Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025, which included the relevant provision.

Reaction from the general public: Yawn … hey, the Chargers clinched a wild card playoff berth! OMG, Jimmy Carter died! NDAA? Whazzat?

War has a way of retroactively refocusing the mind, doesn’t it?

In reality, “automatic registration” is even older news, though.

By the time Biden signed that NDAA, 44 states and US territories already “automatically registered” young males with the Selective Service System when they applied for driver’s licenses or state ID cards.

But wait! It’s even older!

For nearly a century, the Social Security Administration has issued identification numbers to nearly every American (these days, that usually happens at birth).

Those numbers are linked to birth years, and the databases associated with those numbers include information on employment so as to track tax payments into an associated Ponzi scheme’s accounts.

In other words, a second “registration” with the Selective Service System has never been necessary for, nor these days would it really even represent an inconvenience to, implementation of a military draft. I’m not an especially skilled computer programmer, but even I could probably figure out how to make a database produce a list of names and likely addresses within a given age range.

“Draft registration,” it seems to me, has always been about something else.

It’s not a matter of “military necessity.”

It’s a power play.

It’s a way to remind us who’s in charge.

It’s a threat.

At any moment, the threat implies, our lords and masters can change our status from “tax serf” — generously allowed to make a living (so long as we hand over a substantial cut of every dollar earned), travel (so long as we “show our papers” and submit to groping on demand), etc. — to “military slave,” obligated to shed others’ blood and perhaps our own on command, at risk of death should we obey and on pain of death should we refuse.

While I’m opposed to conscription ON principle, neither it nor the bureaucratic games that come with it are different IN principle from the larger system they’re embedded in. We can have political government or we can have freedom. We can’t have both.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Generally speaking, I’ve always considered myself a “techno-optimist,” sometimes perhaps to the point of  Panglossianism. As a teen, I embraced those new-fangled “microcomputers,” and as a 20-something the World Wide Web, with enthusiasm.

The Information Age, like the Industrial Revolution before it, was a rising tide that lifted all boats: More things, more cheaply, for more people. In general, anyway. In the specifics, we’ve lost a few things as well, and it’s not always obvious whether those losses are good things, bad things, a mixed bag, or a price worth paying.

Lately, the loss I have in mind is the suffocating “no backsies” environment we’ve created via global social media and its seeming permanence.

As humans, we’ve always found ourselves haunted by our past mistakes, both as a personal matter of guilt, shame, or embarrassment and as a communal matter of reputation (up to and including potential ostracism).

On the latter front, I’m old enough — and I’m not THAT old — to remember a time when anyone but the most public of public figures could mitigate, or at least hope to mitigate, the latter phenomenon.

People with earned reputations for abusing alcohol and loved ones could give up booze, get divorces, move to another county and start over, among new neighbors who neither knew of, nor had any reason to suspect, their prior violations of social norms. Clean slates, and if they nailed the “sin no more” part of “go and sin no more,” new and better lives.

Even people who’d done REALLY bad things, perhaps things deserving of severe punishment, could get that fresh start if they moved fast and were able to keep their heads down for the rest of their lives.

How many Nazi murderers died  decades later, of old age and “surrounded by loved ones” as low-profile pillars of communities far from the scenes of their crimes?

For that matter, how many “average Germans” who adored and actively supported Hitler between 1933 and 1945 spent the rest of their lives lying to their kids and grandkids about their attitudes back when?

That kind of thing can’t really happen today … and for the last 20 years or so we’ve been watching what happens instead.

Say you’re a musician, an actor, or politician just on the cusp of prominence and success.

If you posted a racist tweet when you were 13 years old and lived in Memphis, or got a DUI when you were 19 years old and lived in Boston, everyone’s going to know about it, even if that was long ago and you’re living and working in Hollywood or Dallas now.

And that increase in both the archiving and flow of information seems to come coupled with a decrease in the tendency toward commiseration and/or forgiveness. There but for the grace of god I might have gone? You’re sorry? So what? Pile on!

We’ve removed “flight” from the “fight or flight” menu.

If a mistake must inevitably follow you no matter where you go, and if admitting that mistake is just an invitation to kick you when you’re already down, the incentive becomes  clear:

Whatever you did, deny it was a mistake at all. Double down. Proclaim your vice a virtue and defend it to the death.

No, that’s not a new problem. If you don’t believe me, consider the continuing popularity of the “Lost Cause” mythology that rose from the ashes of the War Between the States, bedeviling American politics even today.

As with so many other problems, technology has made this one faster-moving and more personalized.

Solutions? “Love your neighbor as yourself ” is the only one that comes to mind.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY