I hope everyone does take the time to do the research, even if it is to disagree with you. Too many people have settled on apathy, and that’s just sad. Even if you don’t think your vote matters, you should still try. I plan to.
ScottM:
December 4th, 2007 at 11:35 am
I like Ron Paul’s principled stands, and I like the majority of his positions. In fact, the positions that seem craziest [like his fiat/”honest” money obsession] are so unlikely to pass Congress that I’m even more reassured that his election would be a good thing. Where he does have the most latitude as president [military, security, regulation], I think his instincts are excellent.
This is a primary season that has me actively interested in candidates from both parties (though, really, only due to Paul on the R side). If he wins the republican nomination, I’m looking forward to voting for the best candidate, rather than the lesser of evils, for the first time in several elections.
As far as the similarity between the parties… I think you’ve bought the hype. [I did in 2000 when Nader claimed the same thing.] I dislike the “raise money, make promises to primary voters, revise promises to appeal to general election voters” dynamic, but I think the homogeneity argument is pretty weak. (Though writing it out was boring– and erased.)
Great article. I, too, have become disillusioned concerning the whole political and government environment. Not only because, as both major parties have gained and lost control of the Executive and Legislative branches they have managed to vary only between ineffectiveness and outright embarrassment, but also from seeing politics first hand in state government. As such I have mostly ignored the whole presidential campaign, especially since it kicked-off over two years before the election–good grief! Still, I agree that a breath of fresh air would indeed be welcomed. At your suggestion I did some reading regarding Ron Paul and am quite impressed with many of his views, particularly regarding the current trend toward attempting to divorce our Government from its Christian roots. Remember, its foundation is that “all men are CREATED equal and are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights…” Remove the Creator’s endowment of intrinsic value to every individual and that equality and those rights do not exist; it’s just law of the jungle. I do temper my enthusiasm for the Libertarian viewpoint somewhat where its zeal to expunge government intrusion creates practical problems. For instance, letting the free market take care of itself is usually the right choice, but that view did not serve Hoover very well when the Great Depression hit. Butting out of international politics would often be to our eventual advantage (think Iraq here) but strict adherence to that view would have sentenced all of Europe (and who knows where else) to the permanent tyranny of the Third Reich (since Germany was not responsible for Pearl Harbor); and NATO is probably the only thing that kept Stalin from expanding his borders. The world is too complex for strict isolationism to always work; sometimes countries have to band together. Also, surrendering the war on drugs evokes images of schoolyards and neighborhoods rife with unabated drug-dealing, and just saying that keeping your kids off drugs is the parents responsibility is not a very practical solution. Still, I admit I agree more than disagree with Ron Paul’s views which, in this political climate, might be a major step forward. P.S. It’s “misled” not “mislead” in paragraph 7, just FYI :)
Nikki:
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
I hope everyone does take the time to do the research, even if it is to disagree with you. Too many people have settled on apathy, and that’s just sad. Even if you don’t think your vote matters, you should still try. I plan to.
ScottM:
December 4th, 2007 at 11:35 am
I like Ron Paul’s principled stands, and I like the majority of his positions. In fact, the positions that seem craziest [like his fiat/”honest” money obsession] are so unlikely to pass Congress that I’m even more reassured that his election would be a good thing. Where he does have the most latitude as president [military, security, regulation], I think his instincts are excellent.
This is a primary season that has me actively interested in candidates from both parties (though, really, only due to Paul on the R side). If he wins the republican nomination, I’m looking forward to voting for the best candidate, rather than the lesser of evils, for the first time in several elections.
As far as the similarity between the parties… I think you’ve bought the hype. [I did in 2000 when Nader claimed the same thing.] I dislike the “raise money, make promises to primary voters, revise promises to appeal to general election voters” dynamic, but I think the homogeneity argument is pretty weak. (Though writing it out was boring– and erased.)
Don (a.k.a. Dad):
December 5th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Great article. I, too, have become disillusioned concerning the whole political and government environment. Not only because, as both major parties have gained and lost control of the Executive and Legislative branches they have managed to vary only between ineffectiveness and outright embarrassment, but also from seeing politics first hand in state government. As such I have mostly ignored the whole presidential campaign, especially since it kicked-off over two years before the election–good grief! Still, I agree that a breath of fresh air would indeed be welcomed. At your suggestion I did some reading regarding Ron Paul and am quite impressed with many of his views, particularly regarding the current trend toward attempting to divorce our Government from its Christian roots. Remember, its foundation is that “all men are CREATED equal and are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights…” Remove the Creator’s endowment of intrinsic value to every individual and that equality and those rights do not exist; it’s just law of the jungle. I do temper my enthusiasm for the Libertarian viewpoint somewhat where its zeal to expunge government intrusion creates practical problems. For instance, letting the free market take care of itself is usually the right choice, but that view did not serve Hoover very well when the Great Depression hit. Butting out of international politics would often be to our eventual advantage (think Iraq here) but strict adherence to that view would have sentenced all of Europe (and who knows where else) to the permanent tyranny of the Third Reich (since Germany was not responsible for Pearl Harbor); and NATO is probably the only thing that kept Stalin from expanding his borders. The world is too complex for strict isolationism to always work; sometimes countries have to band together. Also, surrendering the war on drugs evokes images of schoolyards and neighborhoods rife with unabated drug-dealing, and just saying that keeping your kids off drugs is the parents responsibility is not a very practical solution. Still, I admit I agree more than disagree with Ron Paul’s views which, in this political climate, might be a major step forward. P.S. It’s “misled” not “mislead” in paragraph 7, just FYI :)