Comment: I disagree

(See in situ)


I disagree

I don't think Ron Paul was being weasely. I think he is realistic about what a third party or an independent can accomplish in a two party system. By voting for a third party..ANY third party...the voters are expressing their dissatisfaction with the two main parties in a way the politicians can understand. The Reps and Dems will look at a 10, 15, or 20% showing by third parties as a threat and an opportunity, not because the minor parties can win, but because the Reps and Dems will perceive their losses to be from the voters who voted third party, and so to win they need to win these voters to their side. So the tendency will be for the Reps and Dems to modify their message and their actions to try to win those third party voters for themselves.

This is the best argument for voting your concience. Remember: don't vote for the lesser of two evils...it only encourages them.

As to your comment about the message not going far enough because there was no overriding theme tying the four ideas together, I might agree, but I think it is a secondary issue. To the average person, political principles and philosophy are egg-head luxuries that they are just not interested in. On the other hand, these four key ideas are pretty concrete (and they just happen to be consistent with individual liberty) and a person with even moderate intellectual curiosity can see how some of them relate to their own real lives. The unifying philosophy is implied, not explicit, but that is OK. People who grasp these four ideas are likely to grasp why they are all interconnected.

As I learned while canvassing to get Roger McBride on the Michigan ballot in the 1970's, everyone has something against freedom. I've spent 33 years trying to talk about the theory of freedom only to be met by an infinite number of objections. Maybe Ron Paul's more concrete approach will succeed where pontificating on philosophy has not.