When do you stop voting for the lesser of two evils?

[Boats]

The GOP was substantially changed one time in recent memory or does no one recall the rise of Barry Goldwater, who begat Ronald Reagan, at the expense of the Rockerfeller wing of the party, which has been in decline ever since? THe Republican Party, which used to be a really Northeast and parts of the rural midwest and mountain time zone party has become the Party of the South and West in addition to hanging onto the mountain west.

Sometimes it takes a smashing defeat to reform a party or take it in a new direction. Nothing about abject failure seems able to reform the total fecklessness of the LP.


BTW, no one has answered my question yet, save for one individual who felt the need to alter it.

What do you think you are really accomplishing by voting for Badnarik? Takers? My bet is that it boils down to some misbegotten sense of vanity masquerading as "maintaining one's self-respect," or some other canard, that diverts attention from the real world futility of the gesture.

 

[dischord]

boats: What do you think you are really accomplishing by voting for Badnarik? Takers? My bet is that it boils down to some misbegotten sense of vanity masquerading as "maintaining one's self-respect," or some other canard, that diverts attention from the real world futility of the gesture.

If maintaining self-respect is a mockable non-accomplishment, then I won't accomplish anything by voting for Badnarik.

However, Bush has moved the GOP away from liberty. I cannot reward that with my vote.

I will not buy into the utopian fantasy that voting for someone (Bush) who has moved us away from liberty will help restore liberty.

At least I'm aware of the futility of my position. Pro-liberty Bush voters are deluding themselves into thinkig they'll slow down the slide and somehow change the party from within by rewarding the party for doing what they oppose.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

However, Bush has moved the GOP away from liberty. I cannot reward that with my vote.

I agree 100%.

Voting for someone who will sign things he knows are unconstitutional cannot be logically justified. The Republicans know this too, and thats why they are scared that their conservative base will not show up in great numbers to vote for Bush.


To quote Barry Goldwater:

Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.

 

[Boats]

If maintaining self-respect is a mockable non-accomplishment, then I won't accomplish anything by voting for Badnarik.

Except, of course, it is worse than that. A vote for Badnarik maintains the illusion of self-respect whilst aiding the greater evil.

The communists used to call the support of those foolishly misguided about their true nature useful idiots. I imagine the Democrats are all for the growth of the Libertarian Party in a similar light as the LP amounts to little more than a vote diversion tool employed against their only viable opposition.

If maintaining a fantasy ideology gives your life meaning, by all means, imagine you are doing something that empowers you in the face of implacable apathy.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Pro-liberty Bush voters are deluding themselves into thinkig they'll slow down the slide and somehow change the party from within by rewarding the party for doing what they oppose.

Or alternatively, they realize that any group large enough to wield political power will often disagree on goals and policy. If people left a political party every time that happened, the party would never get the chance to wield power (much like several third parties). Political parties derive their power entirely from people who vote for the party even though it doesn't agree with them 100%.

This is why parties have primaries. The primary is where you express your dissatisfaction with the goals or policies being pursued by the party. If you have enough people, your side wins and the direction of the party changes. If you don't, your side loses. The primary is the place to cast the protest vote and let your dissatisfaction be known.

In the general election, the debate is over. Your party has decided how it will fight that battle and what policies it will use. At this point, you either get on the bandwagon or take your ball and go home.

Perhaps the people who are trying to change the party from within would have better luck if all of those people standing to one side and clucking at they way work is being done joined them in the work?

 

[dischord]

Bartholomew Roberts: This is why parties have primaries. The primary is where you express your dissatisfaction with the goals or policies being pursued by the party ... Perhaps the people who are trying to change the party from within would have better luck if all of those people standing to one side and clucking at they way work is being done joined them in the work?

As I said earlier, RLC vs. LP is not necessarily an either-or option. It is possible to support both (especially in my Virginia and your Texas, where we don't register by parties). You can send money to both the RLC and the LP. You can vote in either primary, depending on which is most strategic.

If the GOP had put up a viable pro-liberty alternative to Bush in the primaries, then I'd have voted in the GOP primary. If one of the 10-or-so RLC candidates were on my ballot, then I'd likely vote for him.

But that's not the case. I'm still stuck with deciding whether I should reward Bush for moving us away from liberty.

Boats: A vote for Badnarik maintains the illusion of self-respect whilst aiding the greater evil.

My self-respect is not an illusion.

However, my vote for Badnarik will not help Kerry win -- he's going to lose my state (Virginia) no matter how I vote, so the "lesser evil strategy" is not a viable option for me.

I'd actually consider holding my nose and voting for Bush (yep, I'm contradicting myself and my self-respect) if I lived in, say, Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida. But I don't, so thinking that I'll help stave off a Kerry win would be just as much a fantasy as thinking Badnarak will win.

Since I don't have the option of helping Bush (or hurting Kerry), all I have left is my self respect.

 

[fix]

However, my vote for Badnarik will not help Kerry win -- he's going to lose my state (Virginia) no matter how I vote, so that the "lesser evil strategy" is not a viable option for me.

So you're saying that if your state was in the mix, you'd (GASP!!!) compromise your principles? Reward bad behavior? Delude yourself into thinking you'll slow down the slide into tyranny? Join me in my Republican utopia? Oh the horror...errr...hypocrisy!

 

[dischord]

fix: So you're saying that if your state was in the mix, you'd (GASP!!!) compromise your principles?

Yes, fix. I'm trying to be honest here.

fix: Oh the horror...errr...hypocrisy!

I've said many times in other threads that the "lesser of two evils" strategy has some legitimacy -- but only in the few states that are in-play.

Please do not ascribe other people's positions to me -- I've never said that principles are the only legitimate question.

I'm simply trying to explain that principles are all my vote counts for in this election.

 

[fix]

I've said many times in other threads that the "lesser of two evils" strategy has some legitimacy -- but only in the few states that are in-play.

You are correct. Sorry, I keep forgetting that you're the one. Unfortunately, I believe you are alone.

 

[Gordon Fink]

What do you think you are really accomplishing by voting for Badnarik?

I will be showing my support, however insignificant, for liberty over fascism or socialism. If that means John F. Kerry is elected, so be it. If that means George W. Bush is elected, so be it.

And, yes, I will also sleep better for it.

~G. Fink

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Still no Republican can answer the question:

Why vote for someone who has signed a law that he says is un-Constitutional?

So far we have heard how much Kerry would be, but we now have a sitting president who has said he thinks the campaign finance reform bill is unconstitutional, and then signed it anyway.

How can you vote for him knowing he doesn't care enough about the first amendment to stand up to political pressure and just veto it???

I have been waiting on an answer for this question for a while, and all I can get is "kerry would be worse".

 

[fix]

Why vote for someone who has signed a law that he says is un-Constitutional?
...
I have been waiting on an answer for this question for a while, and all I can get is "kerry would be worse".

That is the answer you have been given. Continuing to ask the question is not going to make anyone say "Gee, you're right! I'll vote for Baradnik!"

 

[Fred Fuller]

"The communists used to call the support of those foolishly misguided about their true nature useful idiots."

Boats, I think you are hoist on your own petard. Unless you consider it beyond the realm of possibility that there could be such a thing as Republican vs. Democrat useful idiots, some self examination might be in order.

When will I stop voting for the lesser of two evils? I stopped years ago, Moparmike, what took you so long?? ;^)

What do I think I am really accomplishing by voting for Badnarik? I am voting FOR something as opposed to voting against something else, that's what. And I don't have to hold my nose to do it, either. I am doing the only thing I see as a worthwhile option, given the degraded state of politics in modern America. I am voting for less government not more, I am refusing to make a choice between tax and spend versus spend and tax, I am not being suckered by false promises from a liar on one hand and an incumbent liar on the other.

I HAVE to vote, otherwise I couldn't legitimately b***h, and the Rs and Ds sure give me plenty to complain about. Thanks to folks who think the two parties are the only way to go, that's likely to continue for a long time.

Oh well... if voting really mattered it wouldn't be allowed anyway.

lpl/nc

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Fix, I am not voting for Badnarik, I am a conservative Republican. Badnarik doesnt have a chance, is kind of wierd, and doesn't really represent traditional conservative views anyway, and , so I won't be voting for him. I guess I will be sitting this one out, unless someone resurrects Reagan, Goldwater, or Nixon.

Anyway, I am certainly not trying to get you to vote for Bandarik.

But "Kerry is worse" just is a bad answer though for why someone should vote for president. Its the only thing the Republicans have to say for themselves though. They just harp on how much worse Kerry would be. It is not a very enlightening outlook.

 

[fix]

It is not a very enlightening outlook.

No doubt about that. If I had my way, Alan Keyes would have taken the nomination. I honestly think he had just as good a chance of beating Gore as Bush and McCain. But that didn't happen, so I'm voting for the candidate that will come closest to my views [key phrase]WHILE IN THE WHITE HOUSE[/key phrase] not just [key phrase]WHILE ON THE BALLOT[/key phrase]. Unfortunately, Bush is that candidate. I'd love for things to be different, but reality is what it is. Is he perfect? Far from it. Do I agree with what he's done? Less than half of the time. Am I willing to let Kerry (and Hillary I'm afraid) rise to power just to send GW the message that he's pissing me off? No. The best that could happen is that he would get the message and go home to Texas feeling guilty for pissing me off. The end result would be a guy who pleases me half the time sitting in Crawford while a guy who represents EVERYTHING I oppose, sits in the Oval Office. No thanks.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I see your point Fix.

I don't know of much Bush has done domestically that I support. There may not be anything. A lot of the things has done are just plain bad. I voted for him in 2000, and I am very saddened by how disappointing his presidency has been. I even donated a good bit of money to his 2000 campaign. "Compassionate Conservative" has turned out to mean "fiscal liberal".

I think he has done OK with the stuff in Iraq, WMD or not. Saddam needed to go. Thats about where my support ends.

I don't want Kerry to win, for sure. But it is very frustrating to me that Bush is the only other candidate with a chance of winning.

 

[Boats]

Well I don't know how hung up on my own petard I am, but I know that we Republicans pretty much concede we're less than thrilled with shrub's performance. We know the true nature of compassionate conservatism now. It is a reaction to the Clinton years in that we now know what a panderer from right of center looks like. What's funny in a rueful sort of way is that after signing the "unconstitutional" CFR bill, he was proven wrong by the SCOTUS. Ergo, GWB signed a constitutional CFR bill after all.

None of that changes the reality that Kerry is a damn sight worse and sometimes voting against someone is more compelling than voting for someone. Being anti-Kerry is not fearmongering, it is rooted firmly in reality. Who makes cabinet and executive appointments. Think ou are even going to get RKBA lipservice from a Kerry admin? Likely you'll see a resumption of HUD anti-gun litigation, renewed efforts to champion an AWB, restored funding to the CDC to "study gun violence," stricter sporting interpretations from the BATFE, the list goes on and on.

Being "reflexively" anti-Kerry doesn't make me or anyone of a like mind a mindless tool for the incumbent. Rather it brands us firmly as pragmatists.

Since Badnarik has no chance and since I live in the battleground state of Oregon, I will not willingly help Kerry through the conceit that I am somehow salving my own conscience by voting for somebody. Since I am in the position to help prevent a Kerry presidency with my vote, I have to use it to maximum effect and not as a feel-good noisemaker. I am not voting for Bush so much as voting against Kerry, because there is a difference, Bush doesn't actively encourage the antis.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

What's funny in a rueful sort of way is that after signing the "unconstitutional" CFR bill, he was proven wrong by the SCOTUS. Ergo, GWB signed a constitutional CFR bill after all.

Boats, the SC decision notwithstanding, do you believe in your heart the CFR bill is constitutional?


Also, at the time Bush rendered his opinion that it was probably unconstitutional, there had been no SC ruling. If in his heart he believed it was unconstitutional, then he should be duty bound to veto it.

 

[Moparmike]

Lee, this is my first POTUS election.

Obviously, YOUR "right thing" is way out of line with what I think of as RIGHT. Sorry if I have about 30 years of reality training on you, son.

So either you have no principles, or they dont matter to you. I am not telling you to vote LP. I am telling you to stop selling out what you believe in. If you saw a rape being committed, you would act to stop it, yes? All I am trying to do is ask people how much raping it takes to get them to say "no more." Sadly, it seems many here have "political" Stockholm Syndrome.

And your age has nothing to do with any of this. It has a nice elitist edge to it though. Good job.

 

[Boats]

I'd say age has a lot to do with this debate. The old saying is "youth is wasted on the young." Why does that have the ring of truth? The young ain't wised up yet.

The LP is a petulant self-indulgence when staring a Kerry administration in the face. Whatever. You'll learn, or you'll be wearing sansabelts at some Ramada years from now arguing over which goof railing against the 16th Amendment best represents your aspirations for a presidential candidate.

As for the CFR, what does it matter what I think about its constitutionality? (BTW, I think it is not). I happen to believe that any attempt to keep money away from politics is doomed to failure, constitutional or not. It does not seem to be the case that anyone has been too impaired by CFR so far. The NRA is a budding multimedia outlet now, which is an amusing unintended consequence for the proponents.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

It does not seem to be the case that anyone has been too impaired by CFR so far.

Republicans have attempted to block advertising for Michael Moore's Farhenheit 911 using the CFR law.

Michael Moore may be a jackass and an idiot, but he still should have protection under the first amendment.

If we use the logic that I quoted above, then we should not oppose the AWB because no one has really been impaired by not having bayonet lugs, flash hiders, and 30 round mags.

As for the CFR, what does it matter what I think about its constitutionality?

Well, if you think the First Amendment is good, and violating it is bad, then wouldn't you be against somebody who wanted to violate it?

 

[Moparmike]

Boats, why does my youthful opinion have less weight than yours? Just because one can happily sell his soul for pragmatism's sake does not mean that one he is "wise." And if it does, than I want no part of wisdom, thank you very little.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

unless someone resurrects Reagan, Goldwater, or Nixon

How in hell do you lump Richard M. - price controls - Nixon in with two great Americans like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

He's a distant third on the list, I admit, but better than either of the Bushes or Dole.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. Boats said,

What's funny in a rueful sort of way is that after signing the "unconstitutional" CFR bill, he was proven wrong by the SCOTUS. Ergo, GWB signed a constitutional CFR bill after all.

I'm sorry, I can't agree that it's funny, even ruefully.

Dubya's handlers told him to sign the bill. Even though he claimed to think that it was unconstitutional, he signed it anyway. Sort of like Viet Nam.......Sign them all and let SCOTUS sort them out. It never works. It's not funny.

If he had the strength to veto the CFR, then congress would have had to override and SCOTUS would have been out of the picture and it would have been an UNCONSTITUTIONAL Bill.

This is our leader? We want HIM to select the next 2 or 3 supremes?

This is not funny, it's frightening.