Your Vote Means Nothing

In a world that is dominated by a President, it is odd that we have turned away from our long-standing reliance on precedent. America is, if anything, a traditional country, one that adheres greatly to a concept of history, legality, and documentation. Even during that radical moment when some of the greatest minds of the time gathered together in Philadelphia, they were not attempting something so radical that it was, to them, necessarily treasonous. They were simply trying to come together to proclaim their rights as Englishmen, and, when that failed, proclaim their rights as humans. That is the American tradition, and that is the precedent I’m calling for today.

Just like the Declaration of Independence, what the American people is demanding for is not exactly a dissolution of ties, but rather a codification of grievances that make it clear exactly why we can no longer tolerate the current situation.

It is partially our own fault. Like it or not, we put this President into power. Oh, you might say “I didn’t vote for him,” but you also didn’t rally against him. Was John Kerry the banner to take into battle? No, of course not. How can you draw out voters if it looks like a non-decision? No, the ballot box has been a dismal failure in this regard. Just look to the results of the 2006 Congressional elections. The Democrats, riding the dissatisfaction, took both the House and Senate, only to sit on their hands. And I’m not talking about the war. Say what you will, but the war is almost a non-issue right now, because the war is a problem with no clear-cut solution. We have tied a Gordian Knot centered on Baghdad, and no legislative process will create a positive result.

That is not to say that the Democrats didn’t (don’t) have options. The House – the branch most directly connected with the populace (at least in theory) – has the powers it does because of that tie. The first, and essentially the most powerful, is the power of the purse. Cut off funding, end the war. It really would be as simple as that. But the problem is that this is portrayed as a political solution, which paints it as distasteful. It doesn’t take a genius to oppose such a plan with an “abandoning the troops” attack-campaign. What it does take is a genius – a leader – to do it anyway. To rally his troops in Congress to take control of what the Constitution gives them control over. But that person was no where to be found. Rhetoric gets you elected. Bold moves rarely get you re-elected.

The other power is even more stigmatized, and that is because it has only been used for purely political reasons. Both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached not because they had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but because the opposition saw an opportunity and used the system to try to exploit it. This is not the case today. Bush has broken the law. He has broken it knowingly – and flaunted it – or unknowingly, meaning he’s been criminally negligent. The NSA wire-tapping alone is a cut-and-dried example of him illegally suspending habeas corpus and violating both the Fourth and Fifth (and some might argue First) Amendments. And yet, because of the perceived political nature (and the unfortunate reality that “political” is almost entirely bereft of positive meaning today), no one is brave enough to put it to a vote. It’s not as if, like two years ago, the Republicans controlled the Ways and Means Committee, thus shelving any such call. It is the Democrat’s Congress, and they have failed us in their pledges from a year ago.

So what’s that leave? Precedent.

Just like the Continental Congress, or the militias at Lexington and Concord, or even the saboteurs of the Boston Tea Party, it is time for civil disobedience.

But not protesting. Protesting is simply standing and talking. It is not action. We are past talk. We are past petition and bargaining. We are past all that, because they are rusted weapons in our ever-depleting arsenal. If a political problem can not be solved in a political manner, then it is incumbent on the people – it is not only our right, but our duty – to secure what has been taken from us.

So what do I propose? After reading Garret Keizer’s essay “Specific Suggestion: General Strike” in the October issue of Harper’s, I was inspired. His call for a general strike – a power of the purse that we can actually effect – seemed both radical and yet beautiful in its simplicity. And yet, even Mr. Keizer seems to admit that to organize such a strike would be a logistical nightmare. It’s not so much that it would be painful to go through, but that to spread the word, and put it into effect just doesn’t seem feasible. I enjoy the sentiment, but I just can’t see it happening. It requires too much from too many people to all do the same thing, and for a country not inclined to vote, such a political action screams of idealism. Coupled with the mutterings of communism and socialism, and you might be surprised how those concepts still bring a rise out of people. What I’m offering is akin to the strike, but much easier to do.

All you have to do is nothing.

Or rather, a specific nothing: don’t pay your taxes.

Let April 15 roll around, and don’t send in your W-2’s or your 1040’s. Don’t gather your receipts and don’t stress out about being audited. Simply don’t.

Because here’s the thing: it’s not so much the cutting off of funds (although there is a bit of that, most of us get our taxes taken out of our paychecks already). It’s more the logistical nightmare it creates for the government. Think of the economic chaos the potential of not receiving the taxes the government planned on (banked on) collecting. Do you think China, which holds a great deal of our debt in their banks, would not rumble about calling in the loans? Do you think the stock markets wouldn’t shudder at the possibility? This is pure supply-and-demand. In its beautiful irony, it is a free-market solution to a problem predicated on free markets.

The best part about it is that it is the threat that works. And it doesn’t rely on the entire population, either. If one percent of the population didn’t send in their taxes, the problems would be enormous. If ten percent didn’t, it would be catastrophic. Now imagine the entire Democratic Party got their act together? Or the cities of San Francisco, New York, Seattle, Los Angeles, and Portland? There’s simply no way they could possibly muster the man-power to do anything about it. The reason it's feasible, too, is because people don't want to pay their taxes in the first place. By relieving them of a chore they don't want to do, you make it easy for them to act on it. During the Civil Rights movements, they boycotted racist businesses.

I say lets boycott our criminal government.

Sure, they could say that we are only hurting ourselves, that they will have to cut funds from education and health care. But that is a lie. Because all they need to do is sell one of our fighter jets to whatever lovely dictator we want to keep in power (Saudi Arabia has a nice, poetic feel, doesn’t it), and we can keep our programs going. Or we could call in all those no-bid contracts that don’t seem to producing what our tax money (our tax money) is paying for.
In the end, though, it doesn’t matter. Yes, there might be hardship. Civil disobedience is not about comfort. But it is about results. The fact of the matter is that, although it’s wonderful to look towards the future and say “One more year and he’s gone,” it’s the same as saying “I’m going to just going to let this disease run its course.” Does that make sense, when you can, with a little effort, take some medicine? Moreover, is it prudent to think the disease will run its course? I’m not sure about you, but I’m not willing to bet my future on it.

I also think we don’t have to.