I wish I could visualize a scenario – any scenario – by which the elections tomorrow might result in a substantial change in government at any level, but unfortunately I can't. First, let's consider possible scenarios for the election itself. The “null hypothesis” is that they won't change the balance of power in Congress, or make any significant difference in state governments. This would obviously be a recipe for "no change", but is, it strikes me, unlikely. What's more likely is that Republicans will make some gains – in some cases, sufficient to, e.g., retake the House of Representatives and possibly some state legislatures and/or governorships. But it would be stretching things a bit to expect Obama to wind up in a very small vote lost on a Republican sea for the next two years. The Democrats will still be very much a factor, because they represent, after all, the entire population of “tax receivers” in the country, as well as people who are not yet on the take but feel they should be... and the ones who aren't actually on the take, but think they are (a much higher number than one would like to think). That adds up to quite a substantial majority of the citizenry at this time, and the Democratic Party is their natural home. People who are really and truly paying taxes, and getting less out of the system than they're putting in, are a minority. The only things that keep the system going are (1) the sum of all taxpayers' net “investment” in government is greater than the sum of what all tax receivers are getting; and/or (2) much of the federal budget is being paid for with borrowed money – which will, in the long run, require higher taxes (or intentional inflation, which is the equivalent of a tax).
The main point is that as long as the majority of citizens benefit from big government... or think they do... or expect to sometime in the near future... big government is here to stay. Except for the curious phenomenon of who actually votes, and, contrary to what one might expect, a large number of tax receivers don't show up at the polls, especially in “off years”. You'd think that, in exchange for all that government largesse, they could at least get their fat asses to the polls once every two years to keep that money train humming along; but an amazingly high percentage of them don't. Apparently their sense of entitlement is so complete that they don't think they even have to keep voting for what they have... or for even more. They assume that once a program is in place, it will stay that way forever – and it must have come as quite a shock that even a hard-core liberal like Bill Clinton was willing to sign a welfare reform act that threw quite a few people off the dole.
So the conventional wisdom that “people always vote their pocketbook” has to be qualified with: “if they vote at all”. And even then, there is a certain number that prefer to vote for programs or “ideas” rather than their own, or the country's, economic well-being. The majority of these are infected with “liberal guilt”, but I'll bet not a few are on the conservative side and have been duped into believing that the aid and abetting of the American Empire is in their best interests... or is the right and moral thing to do... or something. The best evidence for this is the extremes to which people are willing to go in the name of "defending our freedoms/way of life". Thus, when Rush Limbaugh expresses amazement at the number of people who are willing to vote against their own (economic) interests, he is underestimating both the power of ideas and the power of delusion (probably because he is a major purveyor of one of the principle delusions). As I've said before, government is like a gambling casino where most people think they're “ahead” even if they aren't. So they will keep on voting for big government even though it's sucking blood out of them like a leech, because all they see is a handful of trivial programs that grant them, from time to time, some pathetic entitlements. And this, of course, is the genius of collectivism – to always broadcast the “benefits” far and wide, and do everything possible to cover up the drawbacks – or to deny there are any. And that, in turn, is the main function of the propaganda apparatus, which has been developed to a fine degree by our politicians and their media allies. The hapless citizens of “1984” had Big Brother, but what we have is every bit as omnipresent and effective. When Obama, who is on a failure trajectory not unlike that of Jimmy Carter, can still ride the moth-eaten horse called Hope and Change, you know that people's vulnerability to propaganda is still one of the pillars of political power in this country.
But to get back to the election. It seems likely that the Democrats will lose some ground – but certainly not to a critical or fatal degree. And it will be interesting to see what the “tea party factor” does – will it split (in some cases) the Republican/conservative vote, thus handing Democrats a victory in some races? (This would be the case where the “tea party” candidate is running as an independent, or where the formerly-Republican candidate is running as an independent against a “tea party Republican”.) And – will the “tea party” affiliation of some Republican candidates scare some voters into voting Democratic... or not at all? And, will that be balanced out by an increase in actual voting by Republicans/conservatives (AKA “mobilizing the base”)? There are a lot of factors operating here – but aside from which faces wind up in office, what is the actual effect on the country going to be, and my theory is: Not much, if any. And here's why.
Let's say the Republicans take back the House. But that's not the same as the “tea party” taking over the House – not by a long shot. It would still be dominated by the run-of-the-mill big-government conservatives who were in charge during Bush's administration... with, I daresay, the same results. The “tea partiers” who manage to win will be in a tiny minority and will soon be sidelined, ignored, and forgotten. So we might wind up with a Bushite Congress and a Democratic president – which ought to be a good recipe for “gridlock”, except that it won't be, because they would agree on most things. Like big government, for instance – the only differences being marginal (a few percentage points up or down for a few programs). They would agree, just as Bush and Obama did, on the “need” for bailouts, and economic stimulus plans, etc. And would the Republicans really force ObamaCare back into its cage? Well – has anything like that ever happened in all of American history, where a newly-passed, and enormous, piece of legislation was reversed in the very next Congressional term? Not that I'm aware. There would be very little to be gained, politically, by the Republicans putting up a fight of this sort, and much to lose – plus, not to forget, their every move would be under the scrutiny of the MSM, and we know which side of the question they're on.
And aside from health care, what else is there? The Patriot Act? That was Bush's invention. And only the “tea partiers” are interested in doing anything about the Federal Reserve, so that amounts to a fringe cause, like restoring the gold standard. And as far as the twin endless wars are concerned – they were initiated by Bush and passed, with nary a ripple, along to Obama, who welcomed them with open arms (as did the Democratic Congress). So don't expect the Republicans, or the Democrats, to suddenly decide they were a bad idea. And the “tea partiers” are, almost to man (or woman), pro-war and pro-American Empire – this being, as I have pointed out before, their most fatal flaw, and the one which is most likely to be exploited. Plus, our foreign policy when it comes to the Near East (which is about 99% of our foreign policy) remains securely in the hands of Israel – now just as yesterday, and unto ages of ages, amen. And, the “tea party” has a very high Evangelical component, and the Evangelicals have been the most consistent supporters of Israel for decades now, always preferring Israel's interests to those of the U.S. (or declaring them identical, which is the same thing). None of this is going to change, no matter how things come out tomorrow... and if it doesn't change, then very little else is worth worrying about, since it's our foreign policy that is the main source of our “terrorism” problem and of our financial problems – and it's the biggest single source of our political woes (not “the economy” or “values”, as most people on the right seem to think). It is, in fact, our delusional pursuit of the American Empire that constitutes the hook by which the European cartel and China have succeeded in bending us to their will and forcing our submission to globalism. See, we always thought that if true globalism were ever achieved, it would be “our” version – i.e. the American Empire. But a funny thing happened along the way, and suddenly the American Empire has been shown to be a thinly-disguised globalist empire, and – guess what – it's not American any more (assuming it ever was). It's just another case where the cold-blooded cynics wind up ruling over the foolish and impulsive, no matter how many resources, or how much wealth, the latter started out with. A fool and his money are soon parted... and so it is with the United States and its wealth.
And so, when it comes to financial matters, the economic future of the United States has already been given over, bit by bit, into the hands of the European cartel and the Chinese. Bush was perfectly comfy with this, and so is Obama. So no “shakeup” in Congress or anywhere else is going to matter – it's already out of our hands, and out of the hands of any elected official. If American citizens could vote for CEOs of international corporations, heads of financial cartels, EU officers, and Chinese financial commissars, there might be some hope – but they can't. All we have when we go to the polls is a choice of puppets, dupes, con artists, and traitors. So we have to take our punishment for falling asleep at the switch for many decades now. If “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance”, Americans have failed the vigilance test, and there is no one, and no institution, left that is capable of protecting their liberties. Who knew that what we have always taken for granted could be so easily lost? It seemed so solid, so "real". Who knew the situation was so fragile – that tyranny is the true baseline for human society, and that if you want anything else you have to fight for it and fight to keep it? The “tea parties” are waking up to the fact long after it's too late to do anything. Of course, a few pathetic victories tomorrow will convince them that they have, in fact, done something – but that will be readily disproven by subsequent events. Then there will be another round of disappointment, disillusionment, reaction, impotence, frustration, rage – all of which is better, I suppose, than standing silent before our shearers. But it would have been more convincing if vigilance had been exercised at a much earlier stage, when there was still time to change course. As it is, we've been suckered into entitlement programs, benefits, subsidies, and other things for “the good of the people”, and into winless wars for “the good of the country” -- and how many people can turn around now and admit they were wrong... that they were duped? It's always the other guy who was duped, and who was turned into a whore and a parasite – never us. But that's just another part of the mindset that the Regime imparts – that “I” am innocent and that “if it weren't for all these other...” whatevers, things would be fine. But those “whatevers” will always be with us – and so it's OK to sink into despair. In fact, it's the only truly patriotic thing to do.