In Tennessee’s primary this February, I happily cast a vote for Ron Paul. I knew that his chances of winning the Republican nomination were slim to none, but it felt good to be casting a vote for someone rather than picking the least undesirable candidate. I was drawn to Ron Paul’s candidacy for a number of reasons, including his positions on personal liberties, non-interventionist foreign policy and limited government. This quote from his op-ed on Forbes.com sums it up pretty well:
“America became the greatest, most prosperous nation in history through low taxes, constitutionally limited government, personal freedom and a belief in sound money. I decided to run for president because I am deeply concerned that the conservative movement has drifted away from these principles that we once so fiercely defended. Deficits have exploded, entitlements are out of control and our personal liberties are threatened like never before.”
As the results roll in from today’s primaries in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont, I began to think more seriously about the general election. Should I fall in line with the party and support John McCain, despite some significant disagreements? Or give in to the Obama movement — Change We Can Believe In?
I’m going to explore this topic in more detail in a later post, but in the meantime — tell me why someone who voted for Ron Paul should support either McCain or Obama.
5 comments ↓
Well I’ll break the comment “guideline” a bit and suggest you vote for neither.
I consider Obama, as far as foreign policy, to be “better”, but he still is an interventionist and I’m not convinced foreign policy would improve much. We’d just have different interventions that were more to his stylings (more “hope” to them? I don’t know, heh).
The short of it, for me: I don’t buy the “wasted vote” fallacy. Find a third party candidate you can vote for or even write-in Ron Paul (I’m very likely to do just that, myself). The statistical chances of your one vote decided between Obama/McCain is just about zero. So vote for someone you can truly support.
(found this via twitter, btw. I’m @gregorlove)
I expound on this topic here (more than 200 words)…
http://transformatum.com/2006/11/06/vote-your-conscience/
…but I concur w/ gRegor. When asked the same question by my friends I say to them, “You can never go wrong by voting your conscience.” In fact, I’d venture to say that if more folks actually voted their consciences, then we might not be in this mess (’might’ b/c there are a whole bunch of issues that excaccerbate the problem…like the media, open primary states, ignorance, etc.).
btw, I’m @gnumadic on Twitter (but I found this via Chattablogs).
I do subscribe to the “wasted vote” theory. If I voted for the person I thought would be the best President, I’d have written in “Frank Brock”. But, since he’s got only a slightly smaller chance of winning then Ron Paul, I didn’t. Sometimes compromise is best. In my liberal arts education I learned that action is usually better than inaction - even if the action isn’t the “perfect” option. To me, “wasted votes” and “voter abstinence” are equivalent to inaction. Pick the candidate closest to your values and hope for the best.
Thanks for the comments. I definitely voted my conscience in the primaries, any maybe I will cast a write-in vote this November. But, at the same time, if there’s a compelling reason to support either McCain or Obama this fall, I’d still like to hear it.
In case you’re wondering, I would not vote for Clinton. I simply don’t trust her, and I doubt anyone could convince me to do so. Despite some disagreements with both McCain and Obama, I do feel they’re sincere.
the way our democracy was constructed (pluralistic) is a “winner take all system,” which effectively means it can only support 2 parties. while ron paul ran for president as a republican, he honestly felt more like a libertarian (individual liberties are maximized by small government, which, in turn, means minimal taxes). all that being said, the only value of an outlier candidate (such as ron paul or ralph nader) is to force issues to be discussed by the front runners. so what are the issues you cared about ron paul bringing to the table, and who best embodies them? honestly, that takes you to john mccain. i’m now going to spend the rest of my column talking to why obama is a better candidate than mccain
without bashing on the current president too much, it is clear that the executive branch has more overstepped its bounds in recent years. whoever takes over the mantle of the presidency needs to restore balance to our system. a president’s ability is to lead and influence, but not to take direct actions, or interpret the law to his/her whim/convenience. most of this influence is put forth on the legislative branch, but one should not forget the international community (”speak softly and carry a big stick”), as well as the citizenry (which has become increasingly apathetic about politics over the years).
so you need someone who, in a worst case scenario, can convince an opposition party legislature to enact policy in line with his/her ideals. but also build global consensus (in a very hostile anti-american imperialism world), and inspire an ambivalent populace.
as far as legislative influence is concerned, both mccain + obama are both well suited to do this, given their ability to reach “across the aisle.” to me, the biggest differences between the two are (1) age (some would cite this as “experience”), and (2) and inspirational quality.
(1) AGE/EXPERIENCE
this is an easy to explain one. mccain has LOTS of great experience. but he is OLD. this office ages people (look at bush). my grandfather (80) is cool, but as the years have gone on, his views have become more erratic and stubborn. and he forgets things. it happens. it’s part of life. i see the same thing happening to my father, who is one of the sharpest, most disciplined men i know. he is 64. mccain would be the oldest president elected (70+). bundle on the strain of being [one of] the most powerful person[s] in the world, and well, i’m not sure how i feel about that.
lots of people will cite barack’s lack of experience, but if you look at all of the presidents of the US, some of our greatest presidents (lincoln, roosevelt, kennedy) had minimal experience compared to the people who came before and after them. i’d focus on character. someone who could have taken ANY corporate job he wanted coming out of harvard law, and rather chose to work in civil rights? that speaks to character. someone who spoke out against a war when it was not the popular thing to do? that speaks to character. there is such a thing as “bad experience.” i prefer to bet on character that will drive “good experience” (to be clear, i’m NOT saying mccain’s experience is bad or invalidated, BUT he has been known to be quite the hawk)
(2) INSPIRATION.
mccain also is NOT an inspirational character. i’m sure he can influence the congress, but the people and the international community. i’m not so sure. this is where obama leads in my mind. the movement he’s created (based on many of the same common democratic policies of most candidates, eg. edwards and clinton) is not something we’ve seen since the 60s. granted, it took the past eight years to put us in a position where we were needing to be inspired, but you can’t argue with the inspiration factor of the US citizenry.
finally, as someone who’s spent the past 6 months living abroad (south asia), with a pretty diverse range of world citizens (from asia, europe, and latin america) - most of the rest of the world wants a president obama. not just because he’s a non-republican and a very inspirational figure, but because he PORTRAYS a better understanding of the rest of the world. he went to school in a MUSLIM country. his grandfather still LIVES in africa. mccain has a lot of foreign experience as well (and i will not doubt his bravery/courage in war time), but he was in the VIETNAM WAR, another war that never should have been waged (i’ve been to vietnam, where they call it “the war of american agression). regardless of how YOU feel about vietnam, the rest of the world has a clear opinion on it (and yes, that applies to john kerry as well).
so in the end, if any of my rambling makes sense, you should vote for obama. but not because he’s the small government candidate (because he’s not). but because he’s the right candidate.
but if hillary wins the nomination, i might just have to vote for mccain (in all honesty, i would find myself in somewhat a conundrum).
Leave a Comment