Posted on 09/10/2008 6:47:54 AM PDT by mnehring
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.
Carroll Quigley – Author of Tragedy & Hope
The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it’s more so than ever.
Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.
The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.
Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both party’s candidates are acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they will still be in charge. It’s been that way for a long time. George Wallace was not the first to recognize that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties. There is, though, a difference between the two major candidates and the candidates on third-party tickets and those running as independents.
The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.
Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it very difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process. This is done by making it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter into the debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or actual coverage. A rare celebrity or a wealthy individual can, to a degree, overcome these difficulties.
The system we have today allows a President to be elected by as little as 32% of the American people, with half of those merely voting for the “lesser of two evils”. Therefore, as little as 16% actually vote for a president. No wonder when things go wrong, anger explodes. A recent poll shows that 60% of the American people are not happy with the two major candidates this year.
This system is driven by the conviction that only a major party candidate can win. Voters become convinced that any other vote is a “wasted” vote. It’s time for that conclusion to be challenged and to recognize that the only way not to waste one’s vote is to reject the two establishment candidates and join the majority, once called silent, and allow the voices of the people to be heard.
We cannot expect withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the Middle East with either of the two major candidates. Expect continued involvement in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia. Neither hints of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Do not expect to hear the rejection of the policy of supporting the American world empire. There will be no emphasis in protecting privacy and civil liberties and the constant surveillance of the American people. Do not expect any serious attempt to curtail the rapidly expanding national debt. And certainly, there will be no hint of addressing the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationship with big banks and international corporations and the politicians.
There is only one way that these issues can get the attention they deserve: the silent majority must become the vocal majority.
This message can be sent to our leaders by not participating in the Great Distraction—the quadrennial campaign and election of an American President without a choice. Just think of how much of an edge a Vice President has in this process, and he or she is picked by a single person—the party’s nominee. This was never intended by the Constitution.
Since a principled non-voter sends a message, we must count them and recognize the message they are sending as well. The non-voters need to hold their own “election” by starting a “League of Non-voters” and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess.
Write-in votes should not be discouraged, but the electoral officials must be held accountable and make sure the votes are counted. But one must not be naïve and believe that under today’s circumstances one has a chance of accomplishing much by a write-in campaign.
The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates—Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)
Yes, these individuals do have strong philosophic disagreements on various issues, but they all stand for challenging the status quo—those special interest who control our federal government. And because of this, on the big issues of war, civil liberties, deficits, and the Federal Reserve they have much in common. People will waste their vote in voting for the lesser of two evils. That can’t be stopped overnight, but for us to have an impact we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.
For me, though, my advice—for what it’s worth—is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.
A huge vote for those running on principle will be a lot more valuable by sending a message that we’ve had enough and want real change than wasting one’s vote on a supposed lesser of two evils.
So, Ron Paul's answer to a two-party system, where both parties appear to be reflections of one another, is to randomly vote for any of the opposing minority parties; not because of their ideological beliefs but just because they exist. That's real leadership at work (Do I really need the /sarc tag?).
I'm sure many of his minions will agree (if they haven't already) and vote 3rd party. But judging by the following he's accumulated over this election cycle, and by those who would normally rally to a Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader to begin with, I'd say the Republicans won't feel much affect from this announcement.
“For me, though, my advice—for what it’s worth—is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.”
I’ll take his advice and reject Obama/Biden, this isn’t the election to get behind no one else but Palin/McCain.
No, because the statement referring to anyone who opposes Fraud Paul as a ‘new deal apologist’ when he is the one who has accomplished nothing to reverse the ‘new deal’, and now, by his endorsement of Greens, seems to care more about symbolic political games than Conservative values is absolutely asenine.
Good summation... and, as Wideawake noted, for himself, he will continue to ride the Republican ticket when he is running.. good for thee, not for me.
Are you supporting anyone who ever refused to vote for something purely because it was an abuse a federal authority, even if it was popular or advanced a party agenda?
Naturally. To do anything else will insure his becoming a has-been. It's the only way he can continue on the national stage. It's always been about him; not America. If it were the other way around he'd take his own advice and run as an independent.
Actually yes, plus the ticket I am supporting has actual experience accomplishing things- albeit, not always right, by I would prefer substance over symbolism.
Much better than supporting a symbolism over substance, blame America first, good for thee not for me, encouraging sedition, turning his back on our troops, and violating his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America by encouraging physical resistance against the government.
Technically, he hasn’t won reelection yet. He only won the primary.
Maybe the voters there will take his advice and reject his Republican Party label and all write in a third party candidate?
(I doubt it, but it would be a funny irony)
Oh, and BTW, he does have a Democrat opponent, his name is Shane Sklar.
If he is running unopposed, he should take his own advice and run as an independent, not as a Republican.
Guess it’s over for the GOP and DNC now. Not sure if 32% will do it, but if it will, collectively they’ve got only 31% to go. Go Cindy Go!
WOW...
I’m shocked....
Really...
I’m serious...
Really...
Oh well, now I guess the basement and bunker vote has a place to go...
Who is it, and what have they done to limit federal authority under the New Deal Commerce Clause?
See, simplicity....
Actually several places. And it doesn't matter to Paul which place they choose. Just don't choose either of the two major parties. THAT'S unacceptable. A real decisive kind of guy, this Ron Paul. I'm impressed Again, no /sarc needed.
As for my ticket, McCain, who sucks has completely stood against pork, both passing bills requiring transparency of all pork/earmark requests and leading the group to require all Senators and Congressmen to disclose earmark requests to their constituents. Palin has actually accomplished purging corrupt politicians from government... and so much more..
But.. since we are discussing it, maybe Paul should be reminded what the Constitutional Role of the President is- Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, with secondary roles of negotiating treaties, appointing judges, ambassadors, and cabinet positions as well as reporting to the American public the state of the Country.
Why does Paul think that Nader, McKinney, Baldwin, or Barr will be better suited to be Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces? Maybe Paul forgot to check the Constitution about what the President does.
Spending bills, legislation, etc, according to the Constitution, all originate in the Legislative branch, not the Executive branch.
I was betting that he wouldn't endorse Obama. This is what I was expecting.
Update..
Apparently Bob Barr didn’t show.
So Paul’s endorsement is now just Nader, McKinney and Baldwin.
Fair enough..
Just Nader, McKinney, and Baldwin
(Barr didn’t show)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.