[Peace-discuss] rp statement on The American Majority

[LAURIE]

Now John, isn’t that a really optimistic statement, which tends to ignore
many – if not most – of the systemic reasons why elections are a farce in
this country even if everyone were to actually vote.  In a winner takes all
system where pluralities typically win and procedures and processes are
structured to render ineffective all who might run that do not have great
quantities of money behind them and substantial personal and organizational
influence with the establishment institutions, one still would be faced with
nothing more than a circulation of elites where differences are on the
periphery and not at the core.

 

Even should a radical third party candidate be nominated and elected, what
makes you thing that they would be able to accomplish what they promised in
face of bureaucratic inertia in the civil service and military, traditional
conservative acceptance of established traditions and practices with an
informal support for authority and authorities in the courts, special
interest power and vested interest party loyalties in the legislatures
(where third parties have little or no possibility of gaining enough members
to acquire control over the chambers so as to support their executive branch
candidate should they win), and a self-centered egotistical public who cries
crocodile tears for others in trouble but is unwilling to actually do
something if it should have any cost or negative impact on themselves.  

 

Even establishment progressives who have been elected to office with grand
proposals of reform have been doomed to failure or held to minor incremental
changes over extended periods of time when it came to gaining or
accomplishing any part of their promises because of the above factors.  If
fact, one could claim that these factors have been the stabilizing forces of
the society which have kept the extremist right wings (left wings too, if
there were any real radical left wing) of the two establishment parties in
check and from turning Amerika into a South Africa or a Nazi Germany, a
third rate dictatorship, a banana republic, or an Peron- like Argentina .
Even our working classes all believe in the right and goal of becoming
middle class ( and not just economically); our labor unions are not
ideologically based organizations but practical business-like corporate
entities with all the same flaws as the bosses they claim to be their
adversaries.  The last thing that they want is any reforms or radical
officials that would upset the apple cart and eliminate the middle class
dream of upward class mobility, the management of labor unions, or the
organizational symbiosis between labor unions and business corporate
establishments.

 

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of John W.
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:40 AM
To: E. Wayne Johnson
Cc: Peace-discuss
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] rp statement on The American Majority

 

 

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/20080910/13d3a861/attachment.html