3 votes

Our Idealist Revolution

What is the definition of success for a political movement? Most people
would say that success comes from winning an election. I don't completely agree. I would say that true political success is achieved when a political movement stays committed to it's principles and grows in support each year, irrespective of winning an election.

Today, a political candidate will try so desperately to win an election
that he will pervert it's message in order to do so. For example, the
movement will PRETEND to be something it's not in order to reach voters
in their current thinking, rather than persuade them over to their way of thinking.

Why is this a problem?

Because when you're afraid to promote your core principles, you cannot
truly educate or empower people to UNDERSTAND your core message.

In actuality, your goal becomes perverted. Now your goal is, not to
educate people about your message, rather your goal is to conceal your
true message and trick them into voting for you.

This can gain said movement a very short lived "victory" because you
often times will embrace the policies of your enemies in order to secure said "victory".

The problem is you will be unable to govern as your
principles indicate you should. You won't be able to do what you want,
because you lied to get into power. When you do what your voters want,
you won't want to do it because it goes against your principles. This is where politicians become corrupted and terrible leaders.

Going forward I believe Ron Paul's movement illustrates a revolution. A
revolution in intellectual honesty and 100% adherence to a set of principles that you follow no matter where it takes you. Consider the scenario below for an example of how a political movement truly succeeds.

The first time an idealistic, principle-focused candidate runs he seems
"fringe" and "cooky" and has “no chance in hell". But as he campaigns
and debates the candidate begins to gather some passionate supporters to his side who agree with everything he's saying and take up his/her cause.

They're loud, and they're annoying because they're idealistic and feel
empowered and compelled to share the message. They think "they've found
the answer", meanwhile everyone else is voting for the "fake,
unprincipled politician" who won't solve anything.

The second time our idealist runs he now starts out with a small base of passionate support to reach out and educate others on his beliefs
and vision. While some of his ideas still seem a bit strange, some of
them are now starting to make more sense. Even a few of his ideas have
been stolen by other candidates - the more, fake and polished candidates. As a result his base support continues to grow and bring new people into his movement - people who've never been interested in politics perhaps. Although he will not win the election, he now has tremendous power within his party. His ideas are flourishing irrespective of primary wins, and his base of support, growing. It's at this point that his IDEAS are winning, while candidacy seems to be failing.

The third time around, this idealistic and principle focused candidate is now considered a "front-runner". He's grown on the majority and the
people, having exhausted all other options feel like maybe it's his/her
time to do what he's been talking about this entire time. His ideas no
longer seem so strange because he and his supporters have been
passionately arguing and defending them for years now. Due to his
principled nature, a lot of what he told us was going to happen, did
happen and as a result he now has the support to win an election and
those who vote for him are voting for his pure, idealistic message he
started with.

In his third attempt he finally wins the election. But unlike the
intellectually dishonest candidates before him, he can govern as his
principles dictate and his supporters will not only understand it -
they'll applaud it. Even his detractors will understand why he/she does
what they do. The other political side, in an effort to unseat this
idealistic candidate, can't defeat his arguments without themselves becoming more intellectually honest and idealistically pure themselves in order to defeat his arguments.

So, if we're looking to reach people we need to first educate and explain to them the problem with voting for the "lesser of two evils" or "anyone but Obama". The short answer is - you don't "win" when you vote for someone who's not idealistically pure. If they don't represent the principles you want defended then you should never support them.

If Obama wins again and gets 4 more years, then guess what? We'll have an even greater chance of victory because he'll destroy his party and their message for the next 8+ years if not more. He has no core principles that guide him, as a result he'll flounder and so will the country. There will be pain but it may be required to cleanse the system. Both the political and economic system. It's when the other side tries to achieve quick political victories through intellectually dishonest debate that we should build our side through intellectually honest debate. If we win, we win. When we lose, we lose.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
reedr3v's picture

I agree with this positive assessment.

Except maybe the very last sentence which puzzled me after all of the prior optimism.

My interpretation

I agree, but I think what was meant was that, in general, you should just put yourself out there for who you are, and if you win, you win; if you lose, you lose. (That is, better stated "if" not "when.")I'm thinking of Rick Santorum saying how grateful he was for the tea party to get their vote, then when addressing others saying he had deep concerns about the tea party movement. I'm thinking of Obama promising to label GMO food just to get the enviro/food freedom vote, then once he won the election his reneging on that promise and, instead, hiring a former Monsanto exec as food czar. Ron Paul did put himself out there for who he is, refusing to cater to special interest groups or particular audiences for the purpose of getting money or votes; he's been willing to let the chips fall where they may. (Who knows what the current status would be if the media and party were as principled as he is.) And... he IS winning hearts and minds, indeed, worldwide.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Because even if you give them

Because even if you give them EXACTLY what you believe and why you believe it they may still reject your philosophy.