CowboyEngineer wrote:I have voted in every election for the past half century. My politics run more toward the Libertarian than traditional conservatism and there have been times when I have voted for third party candidates rather than the Republican. However, that was when both mainstream parties demonstrated a commitment to American ideals. This election represents a stark contrast between the parties and may be our last hope of preserving our Constitution and our republic. The current administration, through it's racial and class divisiveness, it's expansion of government, it's failed economic policies, it's ever expanding policing powers, and it's governing through executive fiat has demonstrated a view that the people are nothing more than the chattel of the governing class. This administration has continually attacked the right to vote through ignoring voter intimidation, stopping attempts to eliminate voter fraud and continuing to encourage illegal immigration. It has attacked religious freedom by trying to force churches and their members to provide abortifacients against their religious beliefs. It's foreign policy has enabled Muslim extremist in the middle east and will probably allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. It has betrayed Poland by canceling the deployment of the missile shield. It has committed criminal acts by allowing the illegal transfer of weapons to Mexican drug cartels. Guns that have been used to kill American and Mexican citizens. It has done this probably as a means to attack the 2nd amendment. It is destroying the economy and the dollar with trillion dollar deficits every year.
Romney was not my candidate in the primaries but he is today. Contrary to what Biden says, the democrates are the ones who will put us in chains. If you worry about the future, for yourself, your children, your grandchildren, as I do, there is only one way to vote.
THANK YOU CowboyEngineer for that refreshing breath of sanity! I've never voted Libertarian. I've been a Republican ever since I "came over to the dark side," so to speak. And as I've aged, my views have tended to lean toward the libertarian (small "l"), but I've avoided third parties of any stripe simply because I did not want my vote to be politically irrelevant. For better or for worse, presidents are going to either Republican or Democrat, and not anything else.
One of the things that seems to have distinguished many of those who follow Ron Paul compared to other Republicans who have a libertarian streak is that those who follow the other leaders understand the power of the collective party, and they understand that there is a primary process in which the
social contract calls for the party members to rally behind whomever ultimately wins the nomination. Everybody gets their say until the votes are cast. Once they are cast, everybody agrees to accept the results, even if they are not exactly to one's liking. They understand that the nominee won fair and square. If they cannot accept that, then they should not have been part of the party process from the get-go because it would be dishonest. In deciding to run within the context of the Republican party primaries and for his congressional seat, Ron Paul accepted help
from the party. That help comes with the burden of party
loyalty. That's just a fact. If you accept the help but not the burden, that makes you a ripoff artist. So far in this election cycle, Ron Paul has managed to maintain some independence
and some party loyalty. It would be nice if
all of his followers could do the same.
Now, it is perfectly acceptable for a libertarian candidate with measurable support to negotiate with other party leaders for platform concessions in exchange for the post primary support of the libertarian candidate. But it has been my observation that there is a faction within that group of libertarians who think that negotiation means "my way or the highway," and they can't see past their immediate instant gratification to the damage they'll do if they cannot accept compromises. Politics IS compromise. It is the essence of compromise. Politics is the process by which compromise is achieved. Nobody gets everything they want, but everybody gets at least
something they want.....except the anarchist.
But there are some election cycles where even without concessions gained, the libertarian leaning voter simply has to look at the alternatives, and vote against the leftist candidate even if they don't get to vote
for a sufficiently libertarian candidate. That is understandably unpalatable for the committed libertarian, but to protest by not voting, or to protest voting for a candidate that cannot win because he is statistically irrelevant is analogous to refusing the rabies vaccine when you've been bitten by a mad dog, simply because you don't like the vaccine or the dog. The vaccine is painful but won't kill you, while the rabies does both...cause pain AND kill.
So even though I tend to lean libertarian in my personal philosophy, I regard those who look at Obama and Romney and claim they are unable to see a difference as more anarchist than libertarian, and their protest voting as sabotage. I personally don't see how someone who calls themselves "patriot" could be satisfied with another 4 years of Obama. (And before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not saying you're NOT patriotic. I'm only saying that I don't see how you reconcile your patriotism with another 4 years of Obama.) So that is why I have trouble in my own mind seeing the "bitter-ender" libertarian role as anything but destructive at such a time as this. I see it as a luxury we cannot afford.
I think that it takes a great deal of humility to set aside one's strongly held libertarian beliefs for the good of the country
at this particular point in time. And I say "for the good of the country" simply because there is no
viable alternative right now. There is no strongly libertarian candidate that has even a snowball's chance in hades of getting enough votes to beat the major party candidate of either major party. The Libertarian Party and the Green Party both have about the same number of registered members: 250,000. That is not enough to win anything at the national level, except perhaps a congressional seat. But when an election gets as close as the one in 2000, then even if only 10% of Libertarians hold out and vote third party, that can throw the election to Obama, because just a few hundred voters determined whether all or none of Florida's electoral votes would go to Bush. Again, in that kind of situation, that sort of intransigence is a luxury we cannot afford.
With this election being close fought, and with democrats doing all they can to promote voter fraud, bitter-ender holdout Libertarians can easily throw the election to Obama. That not only scares me, but it causes me to question their wisdom. So it is refreshing and encouraging CowboyEngineer to read your post.
