The Framers [of the Constitution] knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.

- Hugo Black

The Year's Biggest Sporting Event

Yes, the year’s biggest sporting event will be held this November. Some call it an election, but to most it is a horse race, a bowl game, a contest of two sides, and it is more important that “my side” wins than which side should win.

As I cruise the information outlets of Republicans and Democrats alike, I see them talking about winning, how important it is that they win. Then, I see little comments like “…we're going to see some Republican-lite out of Herseth in the coming months. It's the only chance we'll have to hold the seat.” And that’s what it is about, winning. Winning at any cost.

If it were not about winning at any cost, then one would act as they best see fit, on principal. One would throw their ideas (assuming they exist) on the table and say, “This is what I stand for, and if you agree elect me!” That doesn’t sound like a politician though, that sounds more like a leader, and politics attracts few true leaders these days.

When “The Great Contest” is upon us in November, a good question might be “Who is a better leader?” Unfortunately, the question will more likely be “Will we win?,” as most have long ago, with little ability to change, selected sides in this battle of Clear Politics. Ideas, leadership, principals of core, have long ago left their myopic view, supplanted by partisan Clear Politics, as we have become so tied up in our party that we cannot see who is the better candidate.

What if you looked at all of the candidates and you decided that the Libertarian candidate most closely represented your views? Could you vote for the candidate? Or, what if you were not in love with freedom but a societal leech, a fervent supporter of socialism? Do you have the principals to vote for your leader, or is it more important for you to vote for someone that can win? (There isn’t anyone dumb enough to support communism still, is there?)

In a conversation with a good friend who is European, with a slight socialist bent, he stated how much better off this country would be if there were four parties instead of two. I told him there were more than four, but that like any good sporting event, people aren’t interested in who is the best, but who can win. So, when you complain about how similar the two parties are, ask yourself who is at fault. If there is a party out there that better represents your views and you are voting for one of the two parties because they can win, it is you that makes them the same, because winning is more important than ideas. And, if the Republican or Democrat party is your is your cup of java, tell them to take a stand on principals, and not pander.

Vote for what you believe. Now there is a principal.

(Have you considered placing your bet? Come on, like all good sporting events, there are odds, and wagers are being accepted.)

;-)



posted at 03:57:00 on 06/03/04 by clearpolitics - Category: General - [Permalink]

Previous | Next

Comments

No comments yet

Add Comments

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it

Navigation

Please visit our sponsors: Moneyspot.com

Please visit our sponsors: Spreadware.com

The Gross National Debt