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.
Mod, can you remove Barr from the title, he didn’t show..
Gee Mr. Paul, does this include voting for the Communist Party USA, Socialist Party, Socialist Workers' Party, or Worker's World Party? Or maybe the Green Party. So many socialists, and only one vote.
I'm kinda nostalgic for the days when the Paul haters swore up and down that that turd they ran against him would win in the primary.
LOL, yeah, riiiight...
Like we often said, political belief are a circle, the far left and the far right are basically connected, kooks all, and the chief kook has spoken for the tribe...
That's been the primary means by which the federal government has expanded it's authority since the New Deal. There's no shortage of examples, and they're objectively identifible by virtue of Congress claiming authority because they "find" a "substantial effect on interstate commerce". If you have other examples you'd like to include please do.
however, before I answer, I will also pose the same question back to you.. what has Paul accomplished in his decades in offce to limit the 'new deal commerce clause'?
You've already submitted that he's done nothing, and they you have better alternatives. Now, who are they and what is it exactly they have actually done?
But this way, he gets funds donated by GOP lackeys who donate directly to the party rather than individual candidates and it pisses said people off. I like it.
Palin hasn't had a chance to yet, but I bet she will. She's pretty darned libertarian.
That ‘turd’ we ran against him did better against Paul than Paul did in all of his primary bids.
How is it when Paul gets over 5%, it is a moral victory and proof of a movement, but when someone running against Paul gets 30%, Paul ‘trounced him’?
Because there were 8 people in the presidential primary and two people in the Congressional primary. Even you have to admit that you guys bit the big one predicting that dude to actually win.
Being the freerider always makes economic sense for the freerider.
But for someone who claims to be a man of principle, it kind of explodes the claim. And when I say "kind of", I mean "utterly."
Y’all may find this interesting.. Barr (Libertarian) didn’t show up.. I just got an email, apparently he is having his own press conference at noon. He isn’t happy with setting aside ideals and embracing Nader and McKinney for a statement.
It seems Barr is true to what he said, he wants to win, not just make a statement.
I’m surprized we haven’t seen more of this. Ron Paul is a joke even in the Texas palmetto swamps where he lives. He ran on promoting the return of the gold standard for years. He appeals to those who don’t know we are on the gold standard, at market rates.
The media may try to promote Paul as a spoiler, siphoning off fringe conservatives.
The equivalent response to Ron Paul is to promote Ralph Nader’s campaign: “Real liberals for Nader!”
Then why did he jump on the global warming bandwagon? He's as much of a jackass as the other third-party guys.
Who knows.. you know I’m not a Barr fan, I just found the turn interesting.. even he didn’t buy this little symbolic move..
You just admitted he's a cash whore who uses people for his own aggrandizement, and you're happy with that. Thanks for the admission. Nice people you run with...
Ron Paul has officially just actively betrayed all the people who have supported his run for the presidency. While many of us have made light of them, their attachment to him has run deep. I guess the cut runs just as deep.
Yeah, because the people who donate to political parties rather than candidates tend to be the type of people I enjoy watching get pissed and used. Call me cynical or vindictive in this case, I can assure you that I'm not like that in my non-political life. I just can't stand party lackeys of either party.
this isn't a matter of "libertarian" as it is "strict construtionist". A lot of people would argue that Roe v Wade was a "libertarian" decision, but it was still an abuse of authority.
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.