[Peace-discuss] rp statement on The American Majority

[John W.]

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:32 AM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:

 Ron Paul Statement to the National Press Club - 10 September 08
> The American Majority
>
> *The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and
> policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish
> idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the
> two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can
> 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or
> extensive shifts in policy.*
> Carroll Quigley – Author of Tragedy & Hope
>
> The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand
> distraction. This is not new, but this year, it's more so than ever.
>
> 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.*
>

This is a profoundly ignorant statement, and illustrates why I despise
libertarians.  BOTH major parties WORSHIP AT THE ALTAR of "free markets" and
private property ownership.  And so do libertarians.

I stopped reading right here.



> **Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the
> status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it
> very difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process. This is done by
> making it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter
> into the debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or
> actual coverage. A rare celebrity or a wealthy individual can, to a degree,
> overcome these difficulties.
>
> The system we have today allows a President to be elected by as little as
> 32% of the American people, with half of those merely voting for the "lesser
> of two evils". Therefore, as little as 16% actually vote for a president. No
> wonder when things go wrong, anger explodes. A recent poll shows that 60% of
> the American people are not happy with the two major candidates this year.
>
> This system is driven by the conviction that only a major party candidate
> can win. Voters become convinced that any other vote is a "wasted" vote.
> It's time for that conclusion to be challenged and to recognize that the
> only way not to waste one's vote is to reject the two establishment
> candidates and join the majority, once called silent, and allow the voices
> of the people to be heard.
>
> We cannot expect withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the Middle East with
> either of the two major candidates. Expect continued involvement in Iran,
> Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia. Neither hints of a
> non-interventionist foreign policy. Do not expect to hear the rejection of
> the policy of supporting the American world empire. There will be no
> emphasis in protecting privacy and civil liberties and the constant
> surveillance of the American people. Do not expect any serious attempt to
> curtail the rapidly expanding national debt. And certainly, there will be no
> hint of addressing the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationship with
> big banks and international corporations and the politicians.
>
> There is only one way that these issues can get the attention they deserve:
> the silent majority must become the vocal majority.
>
> This message can be sent to our leaders by not participating in the Great
> Distraction—the quadrennial campaign and election of an American President
> without a choice. Just think of how much of an edge a Vice President has in
> this process, and he or she is picked by a single person—the party's
> nominee. This was never intended by the Constitution.
>
> Since a principled non-voter sends a message, we must count them and
> recognize the message they are sending as well. The non-voters need to hold
> their own "election" by starting a "League of Non-voters" and explain their
> principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential
> elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would
> guess.
>
> Write-in votes should not be discouraged, but the electoral officials must
> be held accountable and make sure the votes are counted. But one must not be
> naïve and believe that under today's circumstances one has a chance of
> accomplishing much by a write-in campaign.
>
> 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)
>
> Yes, these individuals do have strong philosophic disagreements on various
> issues, but they all stand for challenging the status quo—those special
> interest who control our federal government. And because of this, on the big
> issues of war, civil liberties, deficits, and the Federal Reserve they have
> much in common. People will waste their vote in voting for the lesser of two
> evils. That can't be stopped overnight, but 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080910/c8c895ae/attachment.htm