Why It's Critical That We Vote Third Party

I've been very intrigued by the articles posted recently by Stephanie and Rick. In a Sunday School class last week, I had many similar observations regarding the state of our Union. It's interesting that people from opposite sides of the political spectrum agree so well on what the problems are that confront us. Stephanie's explanation of moral hazard in the financial industry is spot on. Rick's list of current national problems reads almost exactly like something I would have put together.

The fact that political opposites agree on the malaise indicates to me that it is neither a republican- nor Democrat-caused problem. It is an establishment-caused problem. Neither of the major parties, together with their knights and fair ladies in shining armor, has any idea how (or at least intent) to fix it. That's why it's critical that we vote for someone in a third party for president this year.

Please watch Ron Paul's 10-minute presentation below, and let me know what problems you see with his logic...




I don't see any holes in Congressman Paul's logic, but maybe it's because I'm as blind as the me-too Obama followers and the die-hard McCain fans. (Offense is only intended by that statement if you decide to take it.)

It's as if the Doctrine and Covenants of the LDS Church says this

10 Wherefore, [somewhat] honest men and [partially] wise men should be sought for diligently, and [the lesser of two evils] ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.
Fortunately, it doesn't say that at all.

When it comes to solving Stephanie's and Rick's list of current problems--putting a stop to unprovoked military action, stanching economic moral hazard, encouraging alternative energy, getting the media to talk about issues instead of "he said she said", breaking the fascist monopoly among government and the financial, pharmaceutical, and energy sectors, healing apathy, and fixing the education system in America-- McCain and Obama have been nibbling around the edges, and that's all they'll ever do. History has shown us that.

The two major-party candidates do not have any solutions to any of these critical problems that Stephanie and Rick have clearly and correctly identified.

Ron Paul does. Unfortunately, when he was running for President not enough people listened. But it's still not too late.

The only way we can get off of high-center vis-a-vis the same tired, worn-out slate of never-solved problems is to put people in public office whose best interest is NOT in NOT solving them.

This "NOT NOT" test disqualifies both Obama and McCain.

Break the stranglehold.

Vote third party this election.

30 comments:

kathy w. said...

Thanks for writing this post. I find it unfortunate that many voters are so superficial, meaning that they vote for the candidate that seems to look the best and talk the smartest.

I actually thought Ron Paul was crazy when I first saw him debate. But then I read his book and I realized the man was brilliant, and right on track in so many ways. He doesn't have the TV presence/charisma of some of the other candidates, though; many people dismissed him as easily as I did at first.

Every American should read Ron Paul's book, The Revolution. We should demand more of candidates who pretend to oppose each other, but really just offer us the same options wrapped up in different-looking packages.

Stephanie said...

Frank, thanks for this post. Ever since the bailout garbage started, I have grown increasingly uneasy with McCain and Republicans. This bailout is not conservative. It is corporate socialism. The reason I don't want to vote for a liberal democrat is that I believe in personal accountability, and I think socialist programs reward irresponsibility. However, Bush's administration is pushing a bailout that will reward irresponsibility on the part of wealthy and powerful people. They say it is best for "all Americans", so we all need to pitch in to pay for it. Who does that sound like? A liberal or a conservative? I don't believe there is a difference at all anymore between the two parties - they each are just using "hot button" issues to try to gain and exert power. I was going to hold my nose and vote for McCain because I viewed him as the lesser of two evils, but now I totally agree with kathy - they are both evil wrapped up in different-looking packages. Enough is enough.

Also, I have recently learned more about the Austrian school of economics and am impressed. Ron Paul supports Austrian economics. It just makes such logical sense.

My only problem is this: who to vote for? Bob Barr is the Libertarian party candidate, but Ron Paul just endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution party! So, even of the vote of those who are choosing third party will be split. I don't think there is a chance that either will get elected. But, I just don't think I can pull the lever for McCain or the Republicans anymore.

Bush's administration is telling us that the bailout is "necessary" but grass-roots citizens are calling congressmen to say "Stop". The same thing happened with drilling offshore and comprehensive immigration. Congress all thinks one thing, and the people think another. If we didn't all raise our voices and shout at them, they would go ahead and do what they want. Why the disconnect? Why are we electing people we then have to shout at? We practically have a ruling class. What will we do when they no longer listen to us and just do what they want. We can't let it get to that.

I know that McCain or Obama will be elected this time around, but as bad as it will be with either of them, hopefully the result will be that people really do go third party next time around. I know I am so ready.

Anonymous said...

Frank, I like your post. I have some major issues with Paul, but he's by far the most honest and ideologically consistent candidate out there. But if every Mormon in the country voted for Ron Paul the most likely result would be an Obama presidency.

Just sayin'.

--David

Frank Staheli said...

Kathy,

That's what it takes. A curiosity to learn what Congressman Paul thinks and a courage to act on it when you find out that he's right. I'm glad you read the book, because during the debates, the establishment networks were running very scared and doing everything they could to paint him as an escapee from the looney bin.

Stephanie,

I, too, think Austrian economics is the most realistic form of economics (besides God's law of economics). As Ron Paul told Glenn Beck a few days ago, ultimately the market will beat the planners every time.

I wrote about the corporate socialism you refer to here, here, and here. It is really sickening. Here's what Ron Paul said about that just this morning.

To an extent it doesn't matter so much which third party candidate you vote for as long as you vote AGAINST the two establishment parties. But I will be voting for Chuck Baldwin (Barr does come in a close second for me.)

I soooo much appreciate your statement:

I know that McCain or Obama will be elected this time around, but as bad as it will be with either of them, hopefully the result will be that people really do go third party next time around.

That is the key. I agree that it won't be this time, but if we can tip the scales a little further this time, the likelihood that we can effect a major change in four years will be much more likely than having to wait 8 or 20.

David,

You're right. Obama would be president THIS TIME. But it would be much less likely that he would serve a second term.

I would be curious what major disagreements you have with Paul.

The Faithful Dissident said...

I don't know much about Ron Paul except for what I've read on Wikipedia and some other general sites. Although I don't agree with him on most things, I can understand why he would be appealing to some conservatives and I can respect that.

However, there's one thing about him that sound absolutely absurd to me. He wants to pull out of NATO and the UN? The United Nations??? If America was feeling isolated from its old friends before...

He wants the US to join the other non-members of the UN? Those being: Kosovo (because it hasn't gained the int'l recognition necessary to become a member), Taiwan (because the Chinese are representing them), and Vatican City (for obvious reasons). Even eternally neutral, sovereign Switzerland finally caved in and joined in 2002.

Many nations believe that America thinks it's above international law. If Ron Paul got his way, I guess it would be official.

Stephanie said...

He wants to pull out of NATO and the UN? The United Nations???

That makes me like him all the more . . .

Actually, I was very impressed with Ron Paul in the Republican debates. He was clearly the candidate with the most knowledge. I found him to be a bit extreme in a few areas, but I definitely liked him more than McCain!

Frank Staheli said...

FD,

You're right about how that would look if we pulled out of the UN. The Bush Dynasty has made mincemeat of our reputation before that body.

However, although Paul wants to pull out of the United Nations and NATO as organizations, he also wants to maintain good relationships with as many nations as possible. The problem with organizations like NATO is that we are compelled to come to the aid of any member nation regardless of the source of the conflict.

Ron Paul wants to get back to what George Washington and others advocated--good will toward all and malice to none, but with no entangling alliances. Switzerland does just fine. We should be A LOT more like them.

The Faithful Dissident said...

I can't help but think that this goes back to the pride issue from the previous post. That some Americans really think that they're somehow above the UN. That they don't need it, that it's "irrelevant," to use Bush terminology.

If the US wants to see change within the UN, then it needs to work from within the UN. What is leaving the UN going to solve? Honestly, how's that going to help the US and its relations with the rest of the world or the state of the world in general? (Not to mention the fact that the UN is pretty dependent on America's dues -- 22% of its yearly budget.) Or is Paul just trying to say that the world can kiss America's a** because it doesn't really matter what the rest of the world thinks? Switzerland is Switzerland, they seem to maintain their neutrality pretty well, but eventually decided to join the rest of the world in the UN. The US, on the other hand, is far from neutral. As a superpower, how can it be?

This world has enough wars with the UN. How's it going to be without the UN? Remember why it was created in the first place.

"...They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." (Isaiah 2:4, unofficial mission statement of the UN, found on a statue outside UN headquarters in NYC.)

As far as NATO is concerned, well, I guess I can sympathize with Paul's view once you start letting Georgia into the alliance.

Stephanie said...

Hmm. Gadiantonism came up in the comments of one of your posts, Frank. It sure does feel like that.

Anonymous said...

Of course, all of that stuff about beating their swords into plowshares doesn't happen until after God kills off his enemies, after the time when the "rebels and sinners alike shall be crushed" (Isaiah 1:28). I guess that's one way to achieve peace.

--David

Stephanie said...

There are reasons to oppose the UN besides "pride". Corruption is a good one.

Jannie Funster said...

I think the more we all can get together on things, the better.

Obviously.

Pride goeth before a fall, amen!

The Faithful Dissident said...

There are definitely reasons to fight for improvement and change within the UN. As with most organizations, there is corruption and lack of accountability from certain individuals that compromise its integrity. However, none of this will be changed from without.

I don't think UN membership should be treated as a "come-and-go-as-you-please" way to protest. We're not talking about the Olympics here. We're talking about an organization that every nation in the world is a member of, except for those 3 that I listed. The US considers itself to be "the greatest nation in the history of the earth," so what does leaving it say? That America has outgrown the UN and is therefore better than all the nations of the earth who uphold it? Even if that's not the case, I am sure that is the message it would be sending to the whole world. Not a good thing.

The world is a pretty scary place right now with the UN. If the UN were to break down, we're talking Wild Wild West conditions around the world. And not like the old days, but a modern version with nuclear weapons.

Anonymous said...

I love the ideology of the UN - I think a deep respect for the ideology of the UN and cleaning it up from the inside is exactly what we need. But that's a tangent, isn't it.

Frank, you've convinced me man - I'm at least going to look at the Third parties. Ussually I don't vote. I was determined to this election. All of my liberal friends told me "Obama is the way to go" But I was never easy - however I did vote for him over Hillary in the Primary. But never felt "proud" about it, you know. After endless debating about Obama and McCain and Palin, all I could ever muster on this site was a rousing "meh." I was still going to vote for Obama as of 10 minutes ago - but now you've convinced me to look into the Third parties, because of the statement it makes. And here's hoping for next time around - thank you, man. That was an awesome post

The Faithful Dissident said...

A friend of mine sent me
this link, which helps voters compare the candidates and decide who to vote for. It also includes the 3rd party and independent candidates. Thought some of you would find it interesting. :)

Anonymous said...

I like what Ron Paul stands for, well most of it, but I agree with David on this one. A vote for Paul, regardless of the message it sends, is a vote for Obama, not something I am willing to have on my conscience. Too bad Paul isn't already in office, we could have avoided this whole economic disaster!~

The UN, while it might be a great idea, is the biggest waste of money and accomplishes very little in reality. What else would we expect from the government, much less the government on many nations?

The Faithful Dissident said...

What would you suggest, then? Having private companies representing each nation? :)

Come on, I know that gov'ts around the world make a bad name for themselves by wasting money and making bad decisions. But when people keep on demonizing "gov't" in general, it sort of defeats the purpose of gov't in the first place.

Anonymous said...

FD, Unfortunately those we have elected here in the USA have put us in a very sticky situation. I know we the people elected those in office, but unfortunately they quickly become corrupt and do as they wish once in Washington, most anyway.

Government in and of itself is a great thing,it's those in Government that have created many of our nations problems. ie. our current economy has a lot to do with the fact that those we elected came up with this great idea that low and middle income families need to own a home, like it's a right or something. Yes, we the people are to blame as well. So many bought more than they could afford, but if Gov't kept the same strict finance requirements of days gone by (proof of income, no stated income, down payments etc.), much of our current situation wouldn't be a situation at all.

Frank Staheli said...

Matt,

You say

a vote for Obama [is] not something I am willing to have on my conscience.

So are you willing to have a vote for McCain on your conscience? I hope not!

FD,

I agree with Matt on the UN, although George Bush has thumbed is nose at it for the wrong reasons more times that we can count.

If we are not a part of the UN, we can still have diplomatic relations with any other nation, and those sorts of relations would be healthier than what we currently have.

Anonymous said...

Im in Arizona so I have seen some of McCain firsthad. I absolutely hated McCain during the primaries. McCain still sucks but the policies and lack of judgment on Obama's part scares me more than McCain. When the USA goes to pot, I would like to say that I didn't take part in voting McCain or Obama into office:)

The Faithful Dissident said...

"If we are not a part of the UN, we can still have diplomatic relations with any other nation, and those sorts of relations would be healthier than what we currently have."

OK Frank, that is the American point of view. But now try to look at it from the other side. Will other countries -- particularly US allies -- still want to have the same diplomatic relations with the US if it leaves the UN? Why would they be any better? You'd need a bulldozer to get through the skepticism, resent, and hostility that would result from that. I think that saying that "those sorts of relations would be healthier than what we currently have" is being way too optimistic and unrealistic. I can't imagine most nations being more enthusiastic about their relationship with the US outside of the UN. Unless we're talking about the Vatican. :)

big.bald.dave said...

I like, respect, and appreciate Ron Paul. I find his views a little extreme in some areas, and I don't want him to be President, but I would prefer him to McCain.

Unlike Frank (and Ron Paul), I don't feel I'm choosing between the lesser of two evils in this election. I genuinely like Obama and think he will be a wonderful President (and yes, he will be the next President - Palin has morphed into a decrementing time bomb). And so yes, please, please, please, vote third party instead of McCain. :)

Ron Paul is absolutely right - it's a tragedy that the two major parties have a stranglehold on the electoral process, specifically with regards to the debates. I like Paul's proposal for the Commission on Presidential Debates, and would welcome participation of more candidates. It would keep the Reps and Dems on their toes, and would force them to reevaluate their values and strategies due to potential attack from many different angles, not just one.

At this moment, in this election, a vote for a third party IS a wasted vote. But I applaud the efforts of those who are trying to effect change in the electoral process - it's clear that millions of voters are not happy picking between what they consider to be the lesser of two evils.

Stephanie said...

Knowing that Texas is going to go McCain makes it a little easier to go third party, but I admit I am still deciding.

Frank Staheli said...

BBD:

A vote for a third party is not a wasted vote--especially now, and especially if we look toward the future. It is very myopic to think that such a vote is wasted. I've heard people saying the same thing about third party voting for as long as I've been old enough to vote. The only major-party presidential candidate I've EVER voted for is Ronald Reagan; otherwise I've voted 3rd party every time, and I'm not sorry I did.

If people would have voted AGAINST both evils instead of just FOR the lesser, third party voting would now be a force to be reckoned with, and our country likely would not be on the verge of economic collapse. Instead, we keep our heads in the sand and expect that someone will give us a bailout, not only from our economic stupidity, but from our political stupidity as well.

Sorry that I'm being so "frank" here, but it's that serious.

Here's what's going to happen if we lock ourselves into the Establishment two-party system.

big.bald.dave said...

Until there are fundamental changes in the political process, including but not limited to campaign financing and debate rules, voting for someone with zero chance of winning is roughly the equivalent of a moral victory for a bad baseball team - nice, warm, and fuzzy, but irrelevant.

As I stated previously, I am all for those changes; serious third party candidates deserve every chance that major party candidates have. But there's a reason that H. Ross Perot is the only third party candidate since 1924 (other than George Wallace's novelty pro-segregation campaign in 1968) to garner more than 10% of the popular vote - money is too dominant in Presidential elections for third parties to compete.

So of course, let's change. Let's support third party candidates. But until one of them has a snowball's chance in hell of winning, I'll vote for Obama, thanks.

Of course, thanks to the stupid stinking Electoral College, I'm really voting for McCain whether I like it or not. Argggghhhh.

Frank Staheli said...

It might be

roughly the equivalent of a moral victory for a bad baseball team

...if you just thought of it today.

But if you've been thinking about it for years, it can have the effect of a snowball rolling downhill!!

;-)

Frank Staheli said...

Please watch this segment of the Bill Moyers Journal, where financial historian and William Greider castigates both major parties for poisoning the economy with unnecessary de-regulation, beginning in the 1980's with a Democrat-controlled congress that eliminated Usury Laws.

Especially see what he says (beginning at 25:40 of the segment) about how politics will change in the next few years. We can no longer let others tell us how to think, but must be thoughtful citizens willing to punish the political powers to force their values to change. Both major political parties will flounder, and now is the time to jump into the breach and elect people (through I third party? I think so) who have integrity.

Ruth Anne said...

I have always swung to the right, but to be honest, I don't feel like anyone represents me anymore (except maybe a few in the House).

Nonetheless, I would vote 3rd party if I didn't think it would be throwing away my vote. Remember Perot allowing Clinton to win?

Ruth Anne said...

Kathy and others,
I though Ron Paul's thoughts were so "out there". I remember in the debates he talked about the inevitable financial crisis if we continued down the same path. His words sound so eery now.

I heard him interviewed this week, and I now know that he is the only candidate that knows anything about the economy, but see my above comment.

Stephanie said...

Ruth Anne, isn't it too bad we can't just start all over again?