Obviously Mark Twain couldn't have specifically endorsed one of these candidates; however he made statements that clearly indicates that he wouldn't even consider choosing among those chosen by the establishment; and he also indicated that the public should think for themselves and not let the political parties narrow their choices to two incredibly corrupt candidates as the following excerpts from his autobiography, which he refers to as being from the grave, indicates:
We are discreet sheep, we wait to see how the drove is going, and then go with the drove. We have two opinions; one private, which we are afraid to express; and another one – the one we use – which we force ourselves to wear to please Mrs. Grundy, until habit makes us comfortable in it, and the custom of defending it presently makes us love it, adore it, and forget how pitifully we came by it. Look at it in politics. Look at the candidates we loathe, one year, and are afraid to vote against the next; whom we cover with unimaginable filth one year, and fall down on the public platform and worship the next — and keep doing it until the habitual shutting of our eyes to the last years evidences bring us presently to a sincere and stupid belief in this years. Look at the tyranny of party-- at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty— a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes— and which turns voters into chattels, slaves, rabbits; and all the while, their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction; and forgetting or ignoring that their fathers and the churches shouted the same blasphemies a generation earlier when they were closing their doors against the hunted slave, beating his handful of humane defenders with Bible-texts and billies, and pocketing the insults and licking the shoes of his Southern master. ....
The preacher who casts a vote for conscience' sake runs the risk of starving. And is rightly served, for he has been teaching a falsity--that men respect and honor independence of thought and action. ....
All the talk about tolerance, in anything or anywhere, is plainly a gentle lie. It does not exist. It is in no man's heart; but it unconsciously, and by moss-grown inherited habit, drivels and slobbers from all men's lips. Intolerance is everything for oneself, and nothing for the other person. The mainspring of man's nature is just that--selfishness. Let us skip the other lies, for brevity's sake. To consider them would prove nothing, except that man is what he is--loving toward his own, lovable to his own--his family, his friends--and otherwise the buzzing, busy, trivial enemy of his race--who tarries his little day, does his little dirt, commends himself to God, and then goes out into the darkness, to return no more, and send no messages back--selfish even in death. ....
.... I had been accustomed to vote for Republicans more frequently than for Democrats, but I was never a Republican and never a Democrat. In the community, I was regarded as a Republican, but I had never so regarded myself. As early as 1865 or '66 I had had this curious experience: that whereas up to that time I had considered myself a Republican, I was converted to a no-party independence by the wisdom of a rabid Republican. This was a man who was afterward a United States Senator, and upon whose character rests no blemish that I know of, except that he was the father of the William R. Hearst of to-day, and therefore grandfather of Yellow Journalism--that calamity of calamities. ....
When Blaine came to be talked of by the Republican leaders as their probable candidate for the Presidency, the Republicans of Hartford were very sorry, and they thought they foresaw his defeat, in case he should be nominated. But they stood in no great fear of his nomination. The Convention met in Chicago and the balloting began. In my house, we were playing billiards ... as a ballot was received at the political headquarters downtown, it was telephoned out to the house, and George reported it to us through the speaking tube. ….
…. He said sorrowfully, that it was hard luck to have to vote for that man. I said:
“But we don’t have to vote for him.”
Robinson said “Do you mean to say that you are not going to vote for him?”
“Yes,” I said, “that is what I mean to say. I am not going to vote for him.”
The others began to find their voices. They sang the same note. They said that when a party’s representatives choose a man, that ends it. If they choose unwisely it is a misfortune, but no loyal member of the party has any right to withhold his vote. He has a plain duty before him and he can’t shirk it. He must vote for that nominee.
I said that no party has the privilege of dictating to me how I should vote. That if party loyalty was a form of patriotism, I was no patriot, and that I don’t think I was much of a patriot anyway, for oftener than otherwise what the general body of Americans regard as the patriotic course was not in accordance with my views, that if there was any valuable difference between being an American and a monarchist it lay in the theory that the American could decide for himself what is patriotic and what isn’t; whereas the king could dictate the monarchists patriotism for him— a decision which was final and must be accepted by the victim; that in my belief I was the only person in the sixty millions— with Congress and the Administration back of the sixty millions — who was privileged to construct my patriotism for me.
They said “Suppose the country is entering upon a war–-where do you stand then? Do you arrogate yourself the privilege of going your own way in the matter, in the face of the nation?"
“Yes,” I said, “that is my position. If I thought it an unrighteous war I would say so. If I were invited to shoulder a musket in that cause and march under that flag, I would decline. I would not voluntarily march under this country’s flag, nor any other, when it was my private judgment that the country was in the wrong. If the country obliged me to shoulder the musket I could not help myself, but I would never volunteer. To volunteer would be the act of a traitor to myself, and consequently traitor to my country. If I refused to volunteer, I should be called a traitor, I am well aware of that–-but that would not make me at traitor. The unanimous vote of the sixty millions could not make me at traitor. I should still be a patriot, and, in my opinion, the only one in the whole country. Autobiography of Mark Twain p. 314-7
The preacher who casts a vote for conscience' sake runs the risk of starving. And is rightly served, for he has been teaching a falsity--that men respect and honor independence of thought and action. ....
All the talk about tolerance, in anything or anywhere, is plainly a gentle lie. It does not exist. It is in no man's heart; but it unconsciously, and by moss-grown inherited habit, drivels and slobbers from all men's lips. Intolerance is everything for oneself, and nothing for the other person. The mainspring of man's nature is just that--selfishness. Let us skip the other lies, for brevity's sake. To consider them would prove nothing, except that man is what he is--loving toward his own, lovable to his own--his family, his friends--and otherwise the buzzing, busy, trivial enemy of his race--who tarries his little day, does his little dirt, commends himself to God, and then goes out into the darkness, to return no more, and send no messages back--selfish even in death. ....
.... I had been accustomed to vote for Republicans more frequently than for Democrats, but I was never a Republican and never a Democrat. In the community, I was regarded as a Republican, but I had never so regarded myself. As early as 1865 or '66 I had had this curious experience: that whereas up to that time I had considered myself a Republican, I was converted to a no-party independence by the wisdom of a rabid Republican. This was a man who was afterward a United States Senator, and upon whose character rests no blemish that I know of, except that he was the father of the William R. Hearst of to-day, and therefore grandfather of Yellow Journalism--that calamity of calamities. ....
When Blaine came to be talked of by the Republican leaders as their probable candidate for the Presidency, the Republicans of Hartford were very sorry, and they thought they foresaw his defeat, in case he should be nominated. But they stood in no great fear of his nomination. The Convention met in Chicago and the balloting began. In my house, we were playing billiards ... as a ballot was received at the political headquarters downtown, it was telephoned out to the house, and George reported it to us through the speaking tube. ….
…. He said sorrowfully, that it was hard luck to have to vote for that man. I said:
“But we don’t have to vote for him.”
Robinson said “Do you mean to say that you are not going to vote for him?”
“Yes,” I said, “that is what I mean to say. I am not going to vote for him.”
The others began to find their voices. They sang the same note. They said that when a party’s representatives choose a man, that ends it. If they choose unwisely it is a misfortune, but no loyal member of the party has any right to withhold his vote. He has a plain duty before him and he can’t shirk it. He must vote for that nominee.
I said that no party has the privilege of dictating to me how I should vote. That if party loyalty was a form of patriotism, I was no patriot, and that I don’t think I was much of a patriot anyway, for oftener than otherwise what the general body of Americans regard as the patriotic course was not in accordance with my views, that if there was any valuable difference between being an American and a monarchist it lay in the theory that the American could decide for himself what is patriotic and what isn’t; whereas the king could dictate the monarchists patriotism for him— a decision which was final and must be accepted by the victim; that in my belief I was the only person in the sixty millions— with Congress and the Administration back of the sixty millions — who was privileged to construct my patriotism for me.
They said “Suppose the country is entering upon a war–-where do you stand then? Do you arrogate yourself the privilege of going your own way in the matter, in the face of the nation?"
“Yes,” I said, “that is my position. If I thought it an unrighteous war I would say so. If I were invited to shoulder a musket in that cause and march under that flag, I would decline. I would not voluntarily march under this country’s flag, nor any other, when it was my private judgment that the country was in the wrong. If the country obliged me to shoulder the musket I could not help myself, but I would never volunteer. To volunteer would be the act of a traitor to myself, and consequently traitor to my country. If I refused to volunteer, I should be called a traitor, I am well aware of that–-but that would not make me at traitor. The unanimous vote of the sixty millions could not make me at traitor. I should still be a patriot, and, in my opinion, the only one in the whole country. Autobiography of Mark Twain p. 314-7
I may not be able to tell which candidate he would choose but with the current political establishment lining up like cult followers in a manner as bad, if not much worse, than the political culture in 1884, it is clear that there is no way he would consider either of the two presumptive nominees.
Nor should any rational person.
The political establishment is relying on a cult mentality that a shocking percentage of the public still have which involves blindly following the leader or crowd. They've done an enormous amount of research into this and political advisors like Frank Luntz, James Carville, George Stephanopoulos routine study so they can manipulate the public more effectively and pressure into supporting candidates that don't serve their interests.
The good news is that a lot of this research indicate that child rearing tactics are a large contributing factor to this and that many younger people learn more critical thinking skills due to changes since Benjamin Spock and other advisers recommended many more effective methods. These are necessary to educate workers in a high tech society and they also enable them to stand up for themselves more effectively when politicians manipulate them.
This is no doubt a major reason why Bernie Sanders is so much more popular among younger people who weren't taught to go along with the crowd.
Mark Twain understood long before many of these young people that real Patriotism is doing what's best for our country; not blindly obeying our leaders, even when they send us to war based on lies.
With either Trump or Clinton we'll get many more wars based on lies and epidemic levels of fraud which they're already involved in as many reports indicate.
Mark Twain was also a critic of copyright infringement or plagiarism; however a close look at his writings indicates that he would use reasonable discretion and four to six score and seven years ago he accused all people including himself of committing plagiarism at one time or another.
This doesn't mean that he wouldn't have thought Melania crossed the line; however he might have been far more concerned with the incredible phoniness of the rhetoric coming out of all politicians than the plagiarism that the media is obsessing about. The media avoided considering whether any of these politicians, including Trump, Clinton or Obama really believe their "word is their bond." If anyone checked their records they would easily find an incredibly long track record of all three betraying their word to the majority while catering to the rich.
I don't know about Mark Twain but I'm not a fan of Ted Cruz either; but I agree that everyone should "vote their conscience" after checking the track record of all candidates through independent media more reliable than traditional media.
If ninety percent of the public did this then it would be hard to imagine either Trump or Clinton getting more than ten percent of the vote. If the mainstream media provided fair coverage they wouldn't even get that!
No comments:
Post a Comment