Because of a business decision he made in England some 400 years ago, Thomas Hobson won a flavor of immortality in the vernacular of the English language. Mr. Hobson rented horses and carriages in the university town of Cambridge around the turn of the 17th century. Student’s were notoriously hard on horseflesh, so Hobson was disinclined to offer them the pick of his stable. His invariable policy was to offer the horse nearest the stable door or none at all.
Thus in modern English, the choice “this or none” is named for Mr. Hobson. For as long as I care to remember, and certainly for the last 20 years, that is the choice Americans have had in selecting their presidents.
Even looking back at the Reagan presidency, apparent real differences between Reagan and Carter turned out to be almost entirely rhetorical. Reagan talked the talk. He said what Americans longed to hear. He promised to get government off our backs. He told us what working people and business owners already knew, that government didn’t solve problems, it subsidized them. He told us inflation was as deadly as a hit man and a government bureau as near to an example of eternal life as we will ever see. But for all that, government grew on his watch as if he’d been a Democrat. It grew at a pace that would have made Franklin Roosevelt proud.
The choices we've had since Reagan and Carter became less relevant with every election. In 1988 the Republican Bush beat Democrat Dukakis and promptly took us to war in the middle east in the Great Democratic Tradition. The 1992 Clinton/Bush choice came down to a warmongering, government-expanding Republican vs. a warmongering, government-expanding Democrat. Clinton won that contest with a dismal 43% of the vote thanks to the efforts of kooky old Ross Perot. The choice was repeated in 1996 when Clinton beat Dole by a margin again supplied by Ross Perot's 8.4% of the vote.
In 2000 we saw the spectacle of a battle between two children of privilege, Yalies, Skull and Bones members, trying to outdo each other in their efforts to appear to be “just one of the guys.” I’ll never forget Kerry in his L.L. Bean full body cammies carrying a shotgun around in some swamp pretending he loved it. In the end Baby Bush’s faux Texas twang and deep ignorance of everything won the day. Bush then proceeded to act like a Democrat’s Democrat, staging a false flag attack to start a pointless, but to some lucky insiders, enormously profitable, war.
Both modern American parties have embraced the full package of socialist hoo-ha and bare-knuckle militarism, including perpetual war, intergenerational looting, dishonest debt, and cradle-to-grave, nanny-state attention to every detail of our lives.
Unfortunately, except for a small but fanatical group of Ron Paul supporters, American voters appear content with their Hobson's choice. In this year’s flock of candidates, the differences between them, and particularly between the two now left standing, has reached a new record of insignificance.
Obama and McCain appear about even on the corruption scale, equally worthy of long prison stays. But that’s become so commonplace as to hardly matter. It’s the sight of creeping socialism’s ugly head poking up out of the burrow that really bothers me. In the full light of day both these guys look like full-blown, card-carrying Communists.
Hussein Obama is somewhat to the left of Karl Marx himself. His friends and family are communists. His “Global Poverty” act is an item Lenin or Trotsky would be proud of. It promises to “redistribute the wealth” in the great tradition of every communist hellhole from East Germany to Cambodia. You can bet the wealth will be distributed away from Americans who work toward foreigners who vote. The plan calls for the redistribution to be accomplished through the deeply communist U.N.
John McCain, on the other hand, earned his pinko credentials in Hanoi. Singing like a canary in exchange for comfy quarters, he starred in a number of propaganda films. He spontaneously hugged his former captors at Senate hearings on Viet Nam POWs. This while rebuking POW family members and strenuously hiding any records of his service during the war. You have to wonder what happened over there. Remember the movie The Manchurian Candidate?
Bomber McCain has also bought into the whole global warming hoax, supporting the Warner-Lieberman scheme for “carbon credits” that could easily put a hammer blow between the eyes of an already reeling economy. But don’t worry, to keep business going, he’s promised us a 100-year war in Iraq.
Any pretense of belief in the American traditions of constitutional government, personal responsibility and peaceful commerce have finally disappeared in public debate. McCain doesn’t even bother with small government platitudes any more. He and Obama wave their collectivist credentials around with equal enthusiasm. The difference between them doesn't amount to a pitcher of spit.
Luckily, however, O’Boyle’s Easy Voting Decision Test (OEVDT) is a reliable guide for any Hobson Choice and will guide you to the right decision this election season.
These are the rules: Never vote for a candidate who will increase spending and never vote for a candidate who supports gun control. The two rules are symbiotic, as not having the means to defend yourself simply makes it easier to pick your pocket and boss you around.
McCain and Obama are both enthusiastic supporters of victim disarmament and promise to keep soaking the globe in your money and your children's blood. The OEVDT, as it often does, dictates that you not vote at all. This year, however, and this almost never happens, we have a candidate who passes the OEVDT. You will have to write him in, but you can safely vote for Ron Paul. He is a rare politician who trusts you to use wisely both your own money and your own gun.