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.
Bingo. You just told us everything anyone needs to know about Paul and his rLOVEution.
Well, you and Paul are joined at the hip. You both delight in using people. That's all I need to know.
Skittles for everybody!
And they would be wrong.
Only people who deserve to be used. I'm actually a quite giving individual in real life. What kind of idiot throws his money at a party when he knows darned well there are members of said party that will be beneficiaries of that money? If it annoys these people that they get "used", F 'em.
So you're saying this will result in less people voting for Obama. Why are you people getting all bent out of shape over this?
That's not for you to judge. It's their money, let them use it as they wish. But you haven't figured that out yet. Or you simply ignore it.
I'm actually a quite giving individual in real life.
I don't buy this Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde image you're trying to project. Our political judgment, and how we react within that arena, is entwined within our overall makeup.
Anti war dope smokers unite for Ronald Ernest Paul
FYI, most dope smokers are not anti-war liberals...
Statistically a small portion of the population is of that hippie anti-war mindset ... there are more "average joe" pot smokers in the country than their are hippie ultra-liberal pot smokers ...
They will be snorting dope tonight.
Do you even know what you are singing about at this point ...? You went from talking about smoking "dope" to signing about snorting "dope".
FYI, "dope" when referred to on the street is a slang name for heroin ...
Ron Paul is an idiot though ...
Not at all. I don't think anything he says or does will move any vote in or out of Obama's column.
Why are you people getting all bent out of shape over this?
I'm not sure who "you people" are, but I am sick and tired of Paul's attempts to create divisions in the conservative movement.
He may not be a liability in this election, but his constant attempts to hijack conservatism don't do the movement any long-term good.
They have every right to use it as they wish. I just find it hilarious that they're the first to bitch when it goes to someone they don't like. They could have just picked out guys they liked and sent money right to them. They made their bed, let them lie in it.
Our political judgment, and how we react within that arena, is entwined within our overall makeup.
Besides the fact that we probably agree on at least 90% of issues, I disagree with that. I know conservatives who are great people and conservatives who are scumbags. I know liberals who are outstanding individuals and liberals who are douchebags. Keep in mind, the great majority of people out there are not as liberal and conservative as we're used to seeing on political web sites.
You realize Sarah Palin used to enjoy the ganj, right?
I'm guessing this dude didn't go to many parties in high school/college.
And I'm merely pointing out that you made yours...
I realize this is totally anecdotal, but I know a few college age people from my friend's restaurant who have been turned on to the concept of smaller government thanks to Paul this year. People who would have been socialist libs otherwise. That's at least one positive.
Speaking of the restaurant, were you at the Island last weekend? My friend's sister got married up north so I had to run the place, and I've never seen that place as much of a ghost town. Blech.
What drug specifically are you talking about? People don't get "fixes" of pot. Are you like 80 years old?
I'm voting for Palin, bro. (I refuse to say I'm voting for McCain. I'm voting for Palin and against Biden.) My bed is pretty damned comfy right now.
Certainly in practice, the Libertarian position being that irrespective of personal views, government has no business interfering in the matter of abortion. Whether they see a Constitutional issue here isn't clear, but in practical sense it's irrelevant since the procedure would be legal in all circumstances.
Perfect quote for this situation!
Bully for them. I hope they don't wind up following some Paul supporters into the cul-de-sacs of Stormfront and Alex Jones.
were you at the Island last weekend?
We were going to go, but my in-laws decided to come up and see us instead - because the Island was so dead that my father-in-law decided to take off work.
I spent Saturday morning packing up and securing every item in my yard and porch and taking out my screens in anticipation of the 60-65 mph storm winds the weathermen warned me about.
If they turned out to be 5 mph I'd be surprised.
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.