Prolong the Campaign
The following is a guest piece from libertarian pal of mine and LRC contributor Max Raskin
Prolong the Campaign
Charley Reese makes the argument that because of the length and cost of the upcoming election, we ought to abolish primary elections. While I agree with his sentiment and disgust with televised politicking, shortening the length of this campaign and its ability to target average citizens will only end up hurting the one real shot limited government has in this country—Ron Paul. A prolonged campaign will not only increase Paul’s chances of being elected, but will give him a platform to further the cause of liberty by reaching a larger number of people.
The more we find out about our candidates, the less we like them. As a culture we are constantly looking for people to slip-up because it makes great television. The reason why this rule doesn’t apply to Paul is because the more the public finds out about him, the more they will be exposed to the arguments for limited government. I can’t imagine Paul having any non-ideological skeletons in his closet, and he doesn’t seem like the kind of person to erupt in a fit of uncontrolled, Marxist histrionics . At best, the media would be able to say, “Look, he’s a racist, he voted against giving the Congressional Medal of Honor to Rosa Parks.” Fortunately, in a longer campaign, where his airtime would only increase, he would be able to not only explain the Constitutional rationale for his decision but the fact that he offered to donate his own money to cast the medal. As economist Ludwig von Mises points out, “In the long run even the most despotic governments with all their brutality and cruelty are no match for ideas.” The longer Paul has a platform, the greater a chance he has of effecting a real change in this country.
Reese makes the point that, “Our present system means we will have as a president the candidate with the largest satchel full of political IOUs…the candidates will be forced to spend their time begging for money rather than thinking about ways to solve the nation's problems.” There are two main problems with this argument. First, I don’t think that it would be so terrible if Comrade Hillary and the other socialist candidates had to worry about appeasing the rich. The more a politician needs money, the more they are willing to compromise, and from a limited government perspective, any compromise away from statism is not bad. These people are devoid of principles anyway. The second problem with this argument is that it doesn’t speak to the good candidates. Ron Paul already knows that to solve the nation’s problems, the government needs to adopt laissez-faire approach to both domestic and foreign issues. As a doctor, Paul understands that trying to have the federal government solve our health care crisis would be like using a shotgun to cure a cancer. And it is clear from his record that Paul will not compromise his principles for anything, least of all to appeal to various interest groups.
It is clear, then, that if we want to see a proponent of individual liberty get elected, we must accept primaries and use them to our advantage. The primary election came out of the Progressive Era, and has done much to shift our political spectrum in a completely wrong direction. So why is it a good thing? Well, the fact is that although most grassroots movements seek to take away liberty, a Paul for President campaign will do the opposite. If the primary election is the best way to channel the will of the majority, then so long as the will of the majority is correct, primaries are a good idea—the majority just usually isn’t correct.
This time, however, there is much reason for optimism. With the Internet, Paul has the ability to create a massive grassroots movement that could mobilize all sorts of people to get him elected. Because he appeals to all different kinds of voters, they each can bring something to his big tent campaign. The time to abolish the primaries would be after Paul is elected (along with the Federal Reserve and 16th Amendment). For now, let us not fall into the trap of pessimism and defeatism, and instead use the existing system to our advantage.
Prolong the Campaign
Charley Reese makes the argument that because of the length and cost of the upcoming election, we ought to abolish primary elections. While I agree with his sentiment and disgust with televised politicking, shortening the length of this campaign and its ability to target average citizens will only end up hurting the one real shot limited government has in this country—Ron Paul. A prolonged campaign will not only increase Paul’s chances of being elected, but will give him a platform to further the cause of liberty by reaching a larger number of people.
The more we find out about our candidates, the less we like them. As a culture we are constantly looking for people to slip-up because it makes great television. The reason why this rule doesn’t apply to Paul is because the more the public finds out about him, the more they will be exposed to the arguments for limited government. I can’t imagine Paul having any non-ideological skeletons in his closet, and he doesn’t seem like the kind of person to erupt in a fit of uncontrolled, Marxist histrionics . At best, the media would be able to say, “Look, he’s a racist, he voted against giving the Congressional Medal of Honor to Rosa Parks.” Fortunately, in a longer campaign, where his airtime would only increase, he would be able to not only explain the Constitutional rationale for his decision but the fact that he offered to donate his own money to cast the medal. As economist Ludwig von Mises points out, “In the long run even the most despotic governments with all their brutality and cruelty are no match for ideas.” The longer Paul has a platform, the greater a chance he has of effecting a real change in this country.
Reese makes the point that, “Our present system means we will have as a president the candidate with the largest satchel full of political IOUs…the candidates will be forced to spend their time begging for money rather than thinking about ways to solve the nation's problems.” There are two main problems with this argument. First, I don’t think that it would be so terrible if Comrade Hillary and the other socialist candidates had to worry about appeasing the rich. The more a politician needs money, the more they are willing to compromise, and from a limited government perspective, any compromise away from statism is not bad. These people are devoid of principles anyway. The second problem with this argument is that it doesn’t speak to the good candidates. Ron Paul already knows that to solve the nation’s problems, the government needs to adopt laissez-faire approach to both domestic and foreign issues. As a doctor, Paul understands that trying to have the federal government solve our health care crisis would be like using a shotgun to cure a cancer. And it is clear from his record that Paul will not compromise his principles for anything, least of all to appeal to various interest groups.
It is clear, then, that if we want to see a proponent of individual liberty get elected, we must accept primaries and use them to our advantage. The primary election came out of the Progressive Era, and has done much to shift our political spectrum in a completely wrong direction. So why is it a good thing? Well, the fact is that although most grassroots movements seek to take away liberty, a Paul for President campaign will do the opposite. If the primary election is the best way to channel the will of the majority, then so long as the will of the majority is correct, primaries are a good idea—the majority just usually isn’t correct.
This time, however, there is much reason for optimism. With the Internet, Paul has the ability to create a massive grassroots movement that could mobilize all sorts of people to get him elected. Because he appeals to all different kinds of voters, they each can bring something to his big tent campaign. The time to abolish the primaries would be after Paul is elected (along with the Federal Reserve and 16th Amendment). For now, let us not fall into the trap of pessimism and defeatism, and instead use the existing system to our advantage.
posted by Ben-T | 6:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home