NO LESSER OF EVILS--
JUST THE GENUINE ARTICLE!
**********
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.
Name one libertarian on this site who thinks that. Life is the ultimate civil liberty. And the Libertarian Party has bastardized the term "Libertarian", so posting from their stupid platform doesn't count. That's like saying that Olympia Snowe has a clue about how a Republic is supposed to operate.
Don’t confuse the end with the means, or the platform of the Libertarian Party with the philosophy of libertarianism. All it does it interfere with having a rational discussion.
Don’t confuse the end with the means, or the platform of the Libertarian Party with the philosophy of libertarianism. All it does it interfere with having a rational discussion.
Again, his answer is to promote any number of 3rd parties which will dilute the vote for any one party even further, thus giving the eventual winner an even smaller plurality. And those who comply with his recommendations would be voting for the "lesser of 'x' evils", 'x' being to whatever extent individuals decide to run for the office on their own platform.
In war as in life, it is often necessary when some cherished scheme has failed, to take up the best alternative open, and if so, it is folly not to work for it with all your might. - Winston Churchill
Actually it's more like defining a republic by looking at the Republican Party platform. It's either sophistry or ignorance.
I found this one telling... Somehow he thinks that Nader, McKinney, and Baldwin are not just as 'evil'? Maybe their incompetence somehow trumps their 'evilness' (albeit, I think in most cases the use of evil in this context is dumbing down the word.)
The thread is about Ron Paul's endorsement of Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate, amongst others.
In voting for Barr, the Libertarian Party platform, which is pro-choice, is highly relevant. Just as the platforms of the Constitution and Green parties are, moonbat planks and all.
Like it or not the Libertarian Party is pro-choice.
The only wasted vote is to give a mandate to the lesser of two evils.
Nice!
Even if that vote is given to one even more evil? Hate to tell you, but we are dealing with the lowest form of scum on earth, politicians- the choice will always be the lesser of two evils. It is extremely rare we have an option that doesn't fit this. The third party options Paul endorsed (Nader, McKinney, and Baldwin) are just incompetent evil.
So the questions about the New Deal and the abuse of federal authority are going to go unanswered again while the converstion gets re-directed to the Libertarian Party. SSDD.
Nah. I voted for Reagan twice. "We will not see his like's again."
That was the rare exception I mentioned. Even ‘purists’(sic) like Paul didn’t like Reagan. Paul said he was a failure who made ‘Jimmy Carter look Conservative’.
Let’s face it, there is nothing RP could say, do, write, not say, not do and/or not write, that would exempt him from ridicule in these RP threads.
He did not endorse any of the candidates, although I suspect if he did it would be Baldwin.
If RP hadn’t included the lefties in his press conference, he would have been accused of trying to steal votes from the Republican ticket and helping Hussein Obama.
Let’s face it, there is nothing RP could say, do, write, not say, not do and/or not write, that would exempt him from ridicule in these RP threads.
He did not endorse any of the candidates, although I suspect if he did it would be Baldwin.
If RP hadn’t included the lefties in his press conference, he would have been accused of trying to steal votes from the Republican ticket and helping Hussein Obama.
I don't think 'evil' or 'far-left', 'far-right', Marxism, et al, come into play in his thinking at all. His focus is myopic. It is on the two-party system which he sees as the big problem facing America. It prevents us from reclaiming our states-rights initiative. All else is inconsequential.
Then what is Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Chuckey Baldwin whom Paul wants you to vote for, saints?
I'll make it even easier. Name one Republican candidate for Congress who'll go on record as being in agreement with Clarence Thomas on the New Deal Commerce Clause and the substantial effects doctrine, and who will vote that conviction.
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.