Is There Only One Choice for President?

Do we have a real choice from the two-party system? Should we consider the third-party candidates? But, none of the third-party candidates have a chance to win. Most people are not familiar with the third-party platforms or their candidates. If you are like many people, you are not satisfied with either candidate from the two main parties, but you will vote either Republican or Democrat primarily to vote against the party that is most evil in your eyes. You may even be aware of a third-party candidate that represents your views, but since they don’t have a chance to win, you fall back to your two-party strategy.

What would you do if the two candidates and the two parties were exactly the same? By that, I mean exactly the same on all the issues. They look different, their presentation styles are different, they focus on different issues, but deep down, they have the same position on all the issues. Would you still vote for one of them? I have to believe most of us would not because now they embody that which we despise.

The candidates for the upcoming presidential race are not exactly the same. But, how much different are they? Most importantly, how much different do they need to be in order to get your vote?

As Ron Paul pointed out in his opening statement at the September 9th National Press Club:

Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both party’s candidates are acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they will still be in charge. It’s been that way for a long time. George Wallace was not the first to recognize that there’s "not a dime’s worth of difference" between the two parties. There is, though, a difference between the two major candidates and the candidates on third-party tickets and those running as
independents.

The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.

Is Ron Paul right? If the debates between Obama and McCain are conducted similarly to the Republican and Democrat primary debates, it will be hard to disagree with him. Seldom did the narrators ask a question of any real substance and if they did, the candidates basically gave the same answer. Afterwards, the political pundits mostly argued about which one stated it more eloquently or which one looked "presidential."


It is obvious even to the most casual observer that both McCain and Obama have made great efforts to attract supporters from both sides. It's almost humorous to watch them walk the tight rope of pandering to their political base and at the same time trying to appeal to the moderates. So, if the two-party system can't be trusted as a means to differentiate candidates, by what mechanism should we judge politicians?



W. Cleon Skousen wrote in his book, "The 5000 Year Leap": "It is extremely unfortunate that the writers on political philosophy today have undertaken to measure various issues in terms of political parties instead of political power... It is popular in the classroom as well as the press to refer to "Communism on the left" and "Fascism on the right."" He goes on to say, "Communism and Fascism turned out to be different names for approximately the same thing - the police state. They are not opposite extremes but, for all practical purposes, are virtually identical."

He points out that the founding fathers used a different means of measurement. For them, "the yardstick is not political parties, but political power. Using this type of yardstick, the American Founders considered the two extremes to be ANARCHY on the one hand, and TYRANNY on the other...They recognized that under the chaotic confusion of anarchy there is "no law," whereas at the other extreme the law is totally dominated by the ruling power and is therefore "Ruler’s Law." What they wanted to establish was a system of "People’s Law," where the government is kept under the control of the people and political power is maintained at the balanced center with enough government to maintain security, justice, and good order, but not enough government to abuse the people."


So, are the candidates from the two-party system different enough for you? Should you consider one of the third-party candidates (Barr - Libertarian, McKinney - Green Party, Baldwin - Constitution Party, or Nadar - Independent)? At least consider the "real issues." Make a choice based on a candidate that is most in line with your values and measure the candidates against a yardstick that has real meaning, one that allows you to accurately position all the candidates. Don't waste your vote on someone who doesn't represent your political philosophy. Vote for a person, not a party. If you are still worried that one of the two-party candidates is the modern day Hitler, use something like Vote Pact that gives you the opportunity to vote for someone you really like without jeopardizing your efforts to defeat the evil one.