Modest Proposal: Why Not Support the Best Candidates in Each of the Two Parties?
Oct 13, 2007
I wrote the following on another
blog back in March. In view of the growing number of
Ron Paul supporters - people who believe we should take the
Constitution and its restrictions on government seriously - and Al
Gore's winning the Nobe Prize yesterday, my modest proposal
that we should work to support the best candidates in each of the
two major parties seems more viable and relevant than
ever...
The approach most people take to Presidential elections is, pick a
candidate - if you can - one candidate, and support him or her to
the hilt. If your candidate fails before getting the nomination,
you may or may not switch to another, and go through the same
process.
If your chosen candidate is a Democrat, you likely will have little
real interest in the Republicans, except to hope that they choose
the weakest person to run for office. And vice versa - if your
favorite candidate is a Republican, all you likely will care about
regarding the Democrats is what they can do, presumably
unintentionally, to help your Republican candidate win.
But does this approach get the best out of our democracy?
I'm trying something a little different this time around. I am
going to try to pick my favorites in both the Democratic and the
Republican fields, and do whatever little I can to help them get
nominated. If I'm lucky enough to see both nominated, I'll then
decide whom to vote for in the general election.
So far, here are my favorites, and why:
Democratic Party:
Al Gore: pluses: his election would correct the deep
injustice of the 2000 election, he was anti-Iraq-war from the
beginning, he is genuinely interested in science to improve our
human condition; minuses: I'm concerned that he may be in favor of
Congress's crackdown on "indecency," given his wife Tipper's
history on this issue
Barack Obama: pluses: he was anti-Iraq-war from the
beginning, he would bring a Kennedy-esque youthful vitality to the
White House, it would be healthy for America to have an
African-American President; minuses: not enough experience, and
untested on many issues
*John Edwards: see below for note added on April 21, in
which I've including Edwards in my Democratic favorites
Republican Party:
Ron Paul: pluses: he was anti-Iraq-war from the beginning
(and, better than Gore and Obama, was in office at the time, and
voted against the war resolutions), he is a vigorous defender of
the Constitution and the First Amendment, he is an opponent of
government censorship, he's in favor of private enterprise in space
(so is Gore); minuses: he's in favor of states (but not the Federal
government) banning abortion (I'm in favor of a women's right to
choose), an opponent of gun control (I agree that the Second
Amendment is consistent with Paul's position - I'm in favor of
amending it), urged US neutrality in Israeli-Hezbollah war.
***
So, there you have it. I currently consider myself a supporter of
all three candidates. Regarding Gore and Obama, I would certainly
be happy with a Democratic ticket that had them both (Gore for
Pres, Obama for VP), and I would be happy with a ticket that had
either for President. Regarding Ron Paul: at this point, there is
no other Republican even remotely as good, in my view.
Regarding the minuses for all three candidates: I'll keep
researching their positions and records, and of course be on the
look-out for new developments. And I'll also be open to any new
candidates, or to any dramatic shifts in all of the candidates
currently in the field, but I'm not holding my breath for
either.
***
*Added 21 April 2007 -
John Edwards' Favorite Book is I. F. Stone's The Trial of
Socrates. If find this so impressive - indicative of a love a
freedom of expression, and a philosophic depth - that I now include
Edwards along with Gore and Obama as Democratic candidates for
President that I could enthusiastically support.
=================
25-minute podcast of
this Modest Political Proposal