Fairfield County Weekly (9/18/08) Link
When I ran two years ago to represent you, dear reader, and the rest of Connecticut's Fourth District in the House of Representatives, you were kind enough to approach me after each of the seven debates I had with my opponents, Republican Chris Shays and Democrat Diane Farrell. You were a lifelong Democrat. Or you were a hardcore Republican. Or a swing-voter. Or this was the first political event you had ever gone to.
But you nearly always told me the libertarian message was a breath of fresh air. You told me you agreed with it in principle but you just couldn't let the other major party candidate win. Sure, you didn't like either of them, but one was worse than the other, and you didn't want to waste your vote on a third party.
You thought that a vote for Democrats would mean we'd be out of Iraq by now. Or you thought that a vote for Republicans would bring fiscal responsibility and free market sensibilities back to America. The truth, as I warned you then, is that the two major party candidates, and the two major parties themselves, are the same.
We are still in Iraq. We are doing more bail outs than ever. And nothing would have been different if every winning major party candidate from two years ago had lost and every loser had won.
In presidential election years like this year, we often think we have a chance to make a difference. But it's a myth. This year is no worse and no better than any other. Do you think if you vote for Barack Obama that we will be out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Germany, and Japan by the next election cycle? Do you think if you vote for John McCain that we will have lower taxes and less spending in two years? There is no substantive difference between the two candidates. There is no substantive difference between the two parties.
This year, we briefly had a chance to make history by nominating as the Republican candidate, and then electing president, Ron Paul, but it didn't happen. The Texas congressman was offered the Libertarian Party's presidential spot, but he turned it down.
Instead, he announced last week his advice to all of us voters: vote for third party candidates, any third party candidates, to show the world that the silent majority of freedom-loving people can unite and make a stand. It's a shame that such a great beacon of libertarianism, freedom, and decency could make such a poor recommendation.
Paul argues that we need to send a "message" to politicians, and the best way to do that is to vote for a Green, or an independent, or a Libertarian—anyone not part of the two-party system.
A message? What are we, prisoners trying to capture the attention of the warden? "A little more water over here, please, and a few less beatings, if you wouldn't mind!"
Here's a message to the Democrats and Republicans who over the past two decades have gotten us in the messes we're in, overseas and domestically; here's a message to the Bush/Clinton years; here's a message to the upcoming O'Cain/McBama years; here's a message to every jerk who swore to defend and uphold the Constitution and then violated it repeatedly: Get lost. Leave us alone.
I don't want to simply repeat the mantra from the movie Brewster's Millions. "None of the above" is not a choice, and it is no better than the Paul recommendation of "Neither of the above." Voting for the lesser of four evils is the same as voting for the lesser of two evils twice.
Sometimes the right decision is to refuse to play the game. You played their game last time, and the time before that, and the time before that. You lost and lost and lost.
Let's ignore the media and the indistinguishable major party candidates and even Paul's recommendation. Let's not play this game this year. (I'm not; I don't plan to ever run again for any office, barring exceptional circumstances.) Stay home, if you choose. Or go and vote for a Constitutional Convention so we can straighten up our state, or vote for local candidates you support, but don't feel the need to vote for a Heckle vs. Jeckle.
I remember you from the last election, dear citizen. You're better than that.
A theory
If a third party got over ten percent in an election, and threatened to do so consistently, they would change the whole dynamic of a thin two party system. That's my current theory. They could force both parties to court the third party in all elections and make a plurality tough to achieve on most issues. If that third party were Libertarian or Constitutional, that would represent real progress and perhaps gridlock new spending. If the third party were Green, I think it would lead to a very telling experiment in full socialism..but might get us out of Korea and shut down some of the 1000 over sea bases. Greens like Peace...conceptionally. Although the farm bill has killed millions by raising food prices. Discuss.
Game theory
There is a result in game theory that two parties will gravitate towards the center of a straight line but with three dominant parties, there is no single equilibrium, so they will keep jumping over each other, and not be easily definable in terms of "left" or "right" or "center."
As for the Greens like peace idea, I think it is a myth. As far as I can tell, they love the idea of worldwide government, currently embodied as the UN. So if the UN says we have to fight somewhere, then we have to go, according to Green logic as I understand it, because they have no concept of sovereignty.
Phil
Dear Phil, I have
Dear Phil,
I have read your discussion on this topic. I understand your choice not to take part in the process. Still, the negativity of your approach reminds me of Noam Chomsky: list 1000 things he hates about the current situation, don't offer any solutions, call it a book.
One huge problem with a potential Paul candidacy was that Giuliani and Thompson got 1000 times the free press coverage that he did. My calculator is too small to figure how much more free press, as a percentage, Obama got.
If Paul ran Libertarian, they also would not have been able to get him on all state ballots. He would not have been included in the debates.
You do not have a problem with Democracy, just the socialist Republicrat collective. Why not lay the ground work for a future win? If Barr got elected, how much easier would that make it for the next third party candidate you actually love? How much more potential would there be for true reform in Connecticut if you had a Libertarian Governor(even if that "libertarian" was Bob Barr) state house and Senate? Your wonderful upside scenario would be considered possible and not just wistful.
Even if you disagree with me on most of this, please come up with something positive you can do to help the situation...not including your column(not because it isn't great but because you already do it). For instance, let's get you syndicated. I shouldn't have to dig up copies of the Fairfield weekly to read my favorite column.
Sincerely,
Will Hayes
P.S. I was mostly kidding
P.S. I was mostly kidding about the Green party...mostly. Groundwork argument still holds water.
Groundwork
Our entries must have crossed posts! I replied before seeing this.
I'll try to address the groundwork idea specifically in my next column.
Best,
Phil
Syndicate me
Hi Will,
Go ahead and syndicate me!
A couple points. First, negativity is not intrinsically a bad thing. If someone is hurting you, you don't need to come up with an alternative action for them to engage in; it's enough to shout, "No!"
In this case, Ron Paul's original action was misguided, and I explained why. Since then he has seemingly backed off of the "send-a-message" idea and even endorsed a single third party candidate. If the argument in my article contributed to him changing his mind, then I have done good, even if you it appears I didn't offer a "positive" alternative.
In addition, I did mention an alternative, specifically, principled abstention, which Dr. Paul also agreed with. If your choice is two evils, you are morally justified in abstaining. Similarly for six evils.
If Barr or McKinney were to win, it would be the same as if Obama or McCain won. Government would get bigger. Our liberties would get smaller. Simply put, I do not believe Connecticut would be a better state if Barr were Governor. But as I explained in the article, for those that believe he, or any other candidate, is a true libertarian, then of course they should vote for that person, regardless of his actual party affiliation.
Choosing not to vote is not a negative thing. It's an important action.
Finally, with that said, I am indeed going to write my next column on third parties in general and how, or if, they could possibly affect this or future elections. It should be out hopefully next week or the week after.
Thank you as always for writing.
All the best,
Phil
Paul certainly did not find
Paul certainly did not find his perfect candidate in McKinney. He disagrees with him on several issues. He chose the best of his options. Supporting your best choice, who doesn't stand in stark contrast to something like, oh, I don't know...freedom, must be an optio...for me.
The day I see a true free market candidate, I will vote for him even if he wants to keep a base in Korea or believes in the war on drugs(which is totally anti-free market, but would not mitigate all the beneits of cutting government spending and regulation by, let's say, 70 percent). I learned from "The Hobbit," that every journey begins with a single step. :-).
Comments from Fairfield County Weekly
Yes.
Your problem? You so arrogantly characterized the motives of the press conference and relegate the purpose to just "sending a message." Nothing more. Are you serious? Do you have any interest in exploring the other reasons or possible effects? Or I know, how about the other literal words expressed by Paul himself, because he did state many significant reasons for the press conference. But no, of course not, you just key in on a sound bite and run with it.. How very convenient to your argument..or should I say, how convenient to such a pathetic argument.
This is why your argument fails before it begins. You are only interested in confronting the reasons for the press conference on your own terms, rather than what actually took place or even the possible benefits.
So you know, I dont really care about your conclusions, just that you reached them in such an intellectually dishonest fashion.
I
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=483
And
here is a quote. After arguing for being a "principled non-voter," a goal I agree with, he continues:"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)"
Here is more:
"...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."
Those are the literal words of Paul himself. I characterized him correctly.
Besides, the basic idea behind it all is, as freedom@realnh and Brad Fleming point out above, to send a message. That is the viewpoint that I argue against.
We are not so weak as a people that we must send a message to our rulers to please, sir, give us a break. We are stronger, prouder, and better than that.
Phil
Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll still vote third party. Why?
If I don't vote, I'm exactly like the majority of people in this country that either don't know or don't care - at least that is how it will be perceived by the two major parties. If I vote third party, it is an official record of my dissent. Why would I want to send an ambiguous message when I could help send a resounding, forceful message?
If you choose not to vote, you are the one wasting your vote, not me.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/09/speak-out.html
Politicians want to win elections, they tilt to one power, and one power only: votes. If you don't vote, you're sacrificing the only sway in power you have over politicians. Why should any politician even think twice about catering to "the liberty message" if everyone who subscribes to the liberty message DOESN'T vote? If there are no votes in it for them, then politicians won't run on it. Giving up is the most lazy, cowardly, worthless way of shooting yourself in the foot I've ever heard. Forget the foot, its like shooting yourself in the head, because to the rest of the world you and your ideas might as well be dead if you're going to sit at home and whine and never run for office or vote again. There will always be men seeking power at the expense of our liberty. Always. If liberty dies, it will be because of people like you - not the people who took it away from us.
"First they came..." by Martin Niemöller
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
I accused you of falsely characterizing the press conference and relegating the message to a couple of words. I did not argue he never made the "sending a message" comment.
The point was that there were many significant reasons Ron Paul talked about outside of the one you mentioned, and furthermore, with even a little intellectual curiosity you could see many unstated potential benefits, such as bringing awareness in the 3rd party bias, making people conscious by experience in that the election process is not simply a matter of choice, recruiting the necessary commodities (people and energy) in the fight to remove these barriers.
The worst part fundamentally is that you take something very general (voting for a third party) and deal with it from the perspective of just analyzing what one man said in one instance. You dont deal with anything else said by Paul, and you dont explore the issue yourself. Booo!
If you think it is wrong to vote for the lesser of two evils, then you ought to also think it is wrong to vote for the lesser of three evils, or four, or six. Therefore, unless one of the candidates actually strikes you as good, your only consistent, principled position is to abstain from the charade. But note that if one of the other candidates struck you as good, you don't need any advice from Paul or anyone else to decide how to vote.
On the other hand, if instead you think it is better to vote for the seemingly lesser evil, because otherwise you are allowing an even worse choice to go through, then the question about third parties, and Ron Paul's advice, is irrelevant.
Therefore Ron Paul's advice is helpful to the extent people realize they are facing a false choice, but then when he urges you to vote for a third party candidate you would have otherwise considered as poor a choice as the major party candidates, that is where the advice becomes inconsistent.
In short, I believe we are more than just biennial lever-pulling machines. We are humans trying to live our own lives without interference from the government. We don't have to play their game.
Suppose a mugger offered you a choice of losing your left arm or your right arm. Then he inserted a few other choices like losing one of your legs. Would that make you likely to choose? Or would you reject the mugger's authority to put you in such a position?
The refusal to participate in a charade can be a principled, moral action.
The "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" people are not more "responsible" citizens.
Phil
Thank you for writing and your support. Like you, I wish there was a candidate worthy of our vote.
Perhaps in retrospect it would have been better for Ron Paul to have run on the Libertarian ticket? At least then we would have had someone we could really vote for.
Best,
Phil
What better way to defeat us than not have us play?
That wasnt his message.
"In short, I believe we are more than just biennial lever-pulling machines. We are humans trying to live our own lives without interference from the government. We don't have to play their game."
I like how you say "they're" game, as if even by your existence in this country you are somehow not a part of it. You cannot disassociate yourself from this process, so I dont buy your mugger analogy either.
The fundamental issue right now is making 3rd parties a viable option...agreeing, disagreeing, thinking they are evil is not even relevant as none of them have a chance of winning. But yet here some want to pretend that they must abide by some ridiculous notion of taking a principled stand? Maybe people should reorient themselves to the current struggle right in front of them!...maybe people should work to make their choice relevant before they get all snobbish about who is worthy of their vote.... Yes, i'm talking to you Phil.
The purpose of supporting a vote for third parties is to build momentum at all angles in attacking the bias system
If you believe that voting for a Green party candidate will bring about more freedom, you are wrong. Replace "Green" with "Democrat" or "Republican" and the statement still holds.
When the Libertarian party puts a non-libertarian on the ballot, do you think you should still vote for him?
Message, shmessage. The main goal is freedom and if Ron Paul, who otherwise is a beacon of liberty, makes a tactical blunder in our shared strategic vision, it is important for true libertarians and believers in freedom to correct him.
Obviously anyone can vote for whoever they want. But if you would vote for a statist/socialist/communist third party candidate, then how much of a libertarian can you really be?
And does it really make a difference that the statist is a third party and not a first or second party?
We've "sent messages" before in voting for Republicans to reduce government and Democrats to get out of Iraq. Not only is voting for statists morally inconsistent with the principles of liberty, as I argue in this piece, but also it just doesn't work.
Phil
Secondly, lets go over some of your remarks...
"The fundamental issue right now is not making 3rd parties a viable option. The fundamental issue is freedom."
Um, let me distinguish the language used for you. I'm speaking in terms of specific action, you're talking about loose, general ideas. You dont even realize our points are not necessarily in conflict. You definitely make no attempt to describe a plan to the issue of freedom. Maybe if you did you would realize I was doing just that!
"If you believe that voting for a Green party candidate will bring about more freedom, you are wrong."
This just about sums up where you are coming from. You are deluded to believe a man encouraging people to vote and who supports the freedom (what you allegedly believe) to have and make REAL choices in politics is a message that goes against freedom. Did I get that right?
Now, if you go back to the top of my post, you'll see that this is about making Ron Paul's message
Lastly, get off that "sending a message" bit. Its a total distortion, and just plain intellectual dishonesty to keep talking about that. I already laid out clear arguments against it, for which you avoided. So if you want to cut away from that discussion, dont come back and bring it up again.
The difference is that you are refusing to play by their rules. If the hypothetical mugger asks you to pick an arm to chop off, refusing to pick is not the same as picking.
Hi silus,
I think I've answered your questions.
What exactly do I disagree with Ron Paul about? I've excerpted three specific paragraphs.
I also do not believe that a Socialist standing next to Ron Paul suddenly makes himself into a Libertarian. There have been 434 Socialists standing next to Ron Paul for decades.
And yes, of course I believe that voting for an even more extreme Communist may bring about real change, but it is not change in favor of liberty.
In terms of the "sending a message" bit, that is still the crux of the issue. The other parties are trying to get together to achieve third party parity; this is not a new thing. In terms of ballot access, participation in debates, and other matters, third parties often come together for a common purpose. But suggesting that we vote for one of them, a non-Libertarian, as a way of unifying third parties is misguided in the many ways I've described.
And why must I ignore the significant time Paul spent describing precisely the fact that this action is intended to "send a message," "the stongest message," etc.? Are you suggesting Paul distorted his own message and was intellectually dishonest with himself? I do not agree with that.
Thank you both for writing.
Phil
Civil disobedience is a really difficult and personal choice. You can be too late with a revolution but you can also be to early, if there is a peaceful solution instead. I still believe there can be peaceful restoration of freedom in America.
With the attempted mugger? You can ignore him. He's a nut. You don't have to punch every nut in the face. If he attacks you, of course you ought to defend yourself. But all he wants, like Obama and McCain, is a little attention and for you to play his silly game. Deny him that, and he becomes irrelevant.
Specifically, in Connecticut, we have a once-in-20-years opportunity to vote for a Constitutional Convention this November, one that could restore liberty to at least one state. With a convention, we could eliminate our state income tax, we could reduce burdensome regulations to let both businesses and employees flourish, and most importantly, we could opt out of damaging federal programs.
We could literally render the federal government irrelevant in our daily lives.
Thank you for writing.
All the best,
Phil
We "shook up" the politicians in 1994 when we brought in Republicans to shrink government; government grew. We "shook up" the politicians in 2006 when we brought in Democrats to get out of Iraq; we're still there.
Career politicians don't seem to get shaken up.
And the whole idea of sending a message or shaking up the ones in power is insulting and backwards. We are the ones in power, not the politicians.
Phil
Again, you talk a lot about freedom, but its clear you're not ready for it, nor a more democratic election process. I think thats the bottom line...
First off, he is NOT suggesting you vote for ANY specific candidate. The most basic point and you just totally missed. He is presenting a wide spectrum of candidates to offer real choice, thats the point. He is not trying to dictate who you should vote for, nor was that his style even during the Republican nomination. He actually trusts people, that when presented with the ideas, can make decisions on their own. Thats called freedom, supporting freedom of real choice, something you're supposedly for, remember?
And please tell me why you're trying to restart the discussion about "the crux of the issue." I responded with several points before and you conveniently side stepped them...only to now pretend we have just now started talking about it. Either stay with the issue, or leave it. I mean, are you going to repeat the argument that "this is not about 3rd parties but freedom..."?
Lastly, i'm not suggesting Paul distorted his own message, 'm suggesting YOU are distorting his message and YOU are being intellectually dishonest. Or maybe I should just say "I think i've answered your questions."
And to respond to that first statement, NO, you didnt.
Actually, the politicians are the ones in power (of course you can argue the bankers or other interests are involved), but the point is that we aren't. You need to accept the reality of the situation, and maybe you would better understand the perspective Ron Paul is coming from.
And you relegating the message of voting 3rd party to just simply " sending a message" is still intellectually dishonest.
Truth be known, I believe that we would be more happy with a confederacy than a Union. I myself do not want to press my ideas of good policies and good politics on anyone who does not agree with them, and does not at least have a chance to escape. Washington, of course, does not agree with me, and I certainly do not want an armed revolution, but imagine how much happier we would all be, if the Red States could form their own country and the blue states could have their own country! That way we could all agree to disagree, and be friends based out of mutual respect instead of having to fight each other at the federal level over a bunch of crap that the fed has no business doing in the first place.
Forget 3rd Parties, vote to SECEDE!!!
Some people say they believe in freedom, others do so only when it supports their beliefs. Ron Paul has caused a bit of conflict with some libertarians in endorsing a vote for any 3rd party candidate....some actually take that as a straight up endorsement for other political philosophies. But the people who really understand freedom know that Ron Paul does not attempt to dictate who you should vote for. Even in the Republican nomination process, his attitude revolved around just presenting his ideas clearly to the public and allowing them to decide. This press conference was an extension of that. He wanted to present a spectrum of real choice. Only a fool would take that to mean he is diminishing the beliefs he has stood up 30 years for. Ron Paul stood up for democracy in the election process. That was the point, and it was an honorable one.
Phil, this article tops the rest. Your Harvard alma-matter would be proud of such an amazing article from a journalistic perspective.
Voting in this election does not make sense. Obama, higher taxes, universal healthcare, I'm voting for him, friends would say. Stupid. McCain, lower taxes, less government, I'm voting for him, friends would say. Stupid.
I would not be surprised if despite the whole world thinking voters will turn out in record numbers, there would be less than 2004. I hope people can prove me wrong. If you would like to vote for a 3rd party, do it. I'm not stopping you, but I think you can come up with a few better things to do for a few hours come election day.
voting 3rd party candidates would send a HUGE message to washington, if we could ever wake up enough people and elect someone like that it would make REAL change....
change from a democrat or republican big wig is a joke and anyone falling for it...again, is a fool.
Hi eyecoin, I'd love to vote for Ron Paul but unfortunately he won't be on the ballot in CT and from what I understand it won't even be possible to write him in because write-in candidates need to be registered with the Secretary of the State.
Hi matt, it depends on who the third party is. If your third party candidate is the Connecticut for Lieberman party, or the Green party, or the Communist party, it won't improve your freedom.
Thank you all for writing,
Phil
It's too bad you couldn't see the tactics and instead got stuck in ideology.
Adopting the four planks does not suddenly transform a socialist into a libertarian. Did the other candidates repudiate redistribution in any form? No.
And of course I don't think Ron Paul would intentionally promote the socialist agenda even for a second. But if he or anybody else makes a tactical mistake in the fight for freedom, it is important to point it out, and quickly, so it can be corrected.
Remember, the ultimate goal is liberty. Parties (first, second, and third) are only an intermediate step. And in this case, supporting non-libertarian third parties, is the wrong step.
Thanks for writing.
Phil
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=582
Note specifically that in this speech, he no longer argues that we should be "sending a message" with our vote.
Thanks to all who wrote me both publicly and privately.
Phil
"Remember, the ultimate goal is liberty. Parties (first, second, and third) are only an intermediate step. And in this case, supporting non-libertarian third parties, is the wrong step. "
I'm curious as to your position. You are standing on the grounds of uncertainty as to the possible benefits of what Ron Paul has suggested, which is why you are speaking with your opinion. Yet i'm confused as to why you so arrogantly proclaim Ron Paul as being wrong. That seems the fastest way to make a sensible opinion a exaggerated one. You clearly do not have the final say in if this could help the liberty movement, so maybe your rhetoric should reflect your limits. You have no special insight.
A position can be right or wrong not on the basis of "special insight" or empty rhetoric, but purely on logic. There is no arrogance involved. I merely point out the logical inconsistency of his (earlier) position.
Thanks for writing,
Phil
I did not use the word lame.
The title and subtitle of my articles are the decisions of the editor. In this case, I suggested the title "Wrong Paul," but I have no control over the subtext that comes after it, which is the only place the word "lame" appears. You can verify that with CTRL-F on this page.
I also never suggest nor do I believe he owes his allegiance to anything or anybody. I simply argue that his (earlier) position was not one that logically benefits freedom.
Thanks for writing,
Phil