I have no use for the Obama and Romney presidential debates. The only way I could be tempted to watch them would be if some kind of BS-Beer-Bingo were involved. Perhaps drink a sip of beer with every lie or fallacy. Could one even enjoy the beer that way? Nah, if I want to see crazy antics and general silliness I will go for deliberate comedy.

The debates that get attention and support from the mainstream media are those that are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates2 (CPD), an organization created by the Republican and Democrat parties to control presidential debates. These debates appear to be no more than theater designed to make a viewer believe that the only tickets that matter are those of the Republican and Democratic parties, and that the race outcome is not yet determined. I would like to see candidates from all the parties engage in an actual debate of the major issues. The questions should be exposed in advance so that they can be judged prior to the execution of the debate. The debate should be scored where candidates are penalized when they use logical fallacies, evasions and lies. They should also be scored on how well each question was addressed in the time allotted. It would then be up to the viewer/listener to select the candidate that best aligns with their values, not by how funny a candidate is or how great he or she looks on TV.

What I see happening here is a game of divide et impera4 (divide and rule). The idea is that one may overpower an adversary by diluting/dividing the adversary’s strength. This technique has been used effectively for military, political, economic and other conquests dating back to at least ancient Rome. Imagine a ball-game with a home team and a visitors team. If the visitors team can start a quarrel between two of the home team players then the visitors team may gain an unfair advantage over the home team. The strength of the quarreling players would no longer be directed at the visitors team, thus the visitors team would be able to make better use of its strength against the home team.

I believe an interesting slight of hand takes place every election cycle where the conflict between liberty and statism5 is obscured and redirected into a contest between two statists. It is remarkably clever how the majority of the American population can be divided into two teams, a red team (Republicans) and a blue team (Democrats). It seems that the leadership of both teams/parties ensure that the nominees for important seats support a statist ideology. Combine this with the false dichotomy fallacy6 delivered by the main stream media and a statist presidency is virtually assured. A false dichotomy fallacy is used in this case to make one believe that there are only two tickets in the race for presidency, a ticket from the Democratic party and a ticket from the Republican party. The reality is that many other parties continue to exist in the US and support alternative Presidential tickets7. The fallacy is used to manipulate us into believing that if we do not vote for one of the two tickets mentioned above, that our vote will somehow be of less value. I often hear “If you don’t vote for ____, you are throwing away your vote!” The reality is that the only way I throw away my vote is if I cast it for somebody other than the candidate that most closely aligns with my values. Lets get real folks, the presidential election in the US is not decided by the popular vote anyway. We all remember the electoral college system, right? Vote your conscience, vote your values and let your voice be heard! After all, your voice is all you have in the Presidential election. Another element of Divide and Rule is to encourage useless spending to reduce funds available for useful spending. Save your energy and campaign contributions for other races, like the Senate, where your vote actually contributes to the outcome.

The way the divide and rule illusion seems to work is that the elements of liberty are divided between the two major parties. This way one party can not become the party of liberty and thus become a real threat to the status quo. An example would be that currently, social liberty is associated with the Democratic party, and fiscal liberty with the Republican party. I am oversimplifying a bit here because the Republican party also attracts people who support decentralized government and oppose the disarming of the people. The key is often in the statist implementation of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. The two major parties are then separated on emotional issues. Emotional issues are good to keep the focus away from issues than can be debated logically. They are what distract us from needs and interests common to both major parties, and to solutions that address the causes rather than the expression of our problems. They keep the people distracted and divided and thus weaker. Before the election is complete I expect to see many attempts to divide the American people, such as by race, religion, economic status, education or anything else that proves effective, but especially issues that produce a strong emotional response.

It is encouraging to see evidence of the statist paradigm braking down in the Republican party, but only time will tell if it can become the party of liberty. Ultimately the Republican liberty candidate, Ron Paul, did not win the nomination for President at the national convention. The irregularities, such as violations of parliamentary procedure, un-seating of delegates, and many others, discussed at length by Republican National Convention attendees, disenfranchised Ron Paul supporters but did not alter the likely predetermined outcome. This will hopefully motivate the people of future conventions to plan actual conventions rather than theatrical indoctrination ceremonies. Many folks reported issues at the Democratic National Convention as well, so It seems this kind of experience is not a shocking anomaly confined to one party.

In any case, a presidential debate should be an actual debate, of debatable issues, debated by all the candidates expected to be on the ballot of at least one state, not simply Republicans and Democrats. Being less popular before a debate does not lessen the value of a candidate’s position.

I am excited and encouraged to see there will be an alternate presidential debate hosted by Free and Equal Elections8 on October 23rd. More information can be found at freeandequal.org. I wonder how this debate will compare with the CPD debates? Will it be a real debate?

  1. stock.xchng - Horse smile (stock photo by LilGoldWmn) [id: 822158] Available at: http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=download&id=822158 [Accessed October 18, 2012].
     
  2. Commission on Presidential Debates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates [Accessed October 15, 2012].

     

  3. stock.xchng - bust (stock photo by myles) [id: 43300] Available at: http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=download&id=43300 [Accessed October 18, 2012].
     
  4. Divide and rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule [Accessed October 17, 2012].

     

  5. Statism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism [Accessed October 15, 2012].

     

  6. False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma [Accessed October 18, 2012].

     

  7. 2012 Presidential Candidates (P2012) Available at: http://politics1.com/p2012.htm [Accessed October 17, 2012].

     

  8. About - Free & Equal Available at: http://freeandequal.org/about/ [Accessed October 18, 2012].

     

 
 
 

Here is genuine feedback from a first-timer's experience through the time that we were involved in both the Senate District and the State Convention this year.

Let me first start by saying that this year we represented “the local business owner” as citizens of Texas, USA! We have consistently voted Republican, but we have never participated this intimately in politics ever in our lives! It was fantastic to see our vote affecting the State level results, and we helped elect several people (whom we have met and know), that will represent our view on the National stage from our State, and even from our home town!! Wehoooooooo! That is really a thrilling experience. That is what I wanted my wife and I to be a part of this year! Now, who’s gonna say I didn’t do my part!? I hope you understand (which I know you do) that this is a real boots on the ground testimony of how our group as a whole came together and successfully became representatives within a hierarchical establishment system, and truly legitimized our cause. Now I can say that there is something better than getting the “I voted” sticker to wear around. I went into this thing with no faith in the electoral process, and came out the other side, having a lot more to say about it, for the positive1. I am still struggling in my political faith! But, now I know what to expect for the next time that I get involved. Let me tell you, there will be a next time!

OK, all of that said, I knew some of the participants in the room who were more established within the ranks. That comes from having been a business owner in Texas for seven years, and having been a tax-paying citizen who actively votes, for 17 years. (Though, I have never participated beyond the voting booth until this year!) I have good relations with the other participants, so that might influence what I’m going to say next. We felt welcome, and we had some great interactions with everyone. There was not one negative interaction that we experienced, in or out of the convention setting. In fact, I think those we interacted with were friendly, very personable, and impressed upon me their willingness to include the younger, less experienced participants, such as us. Because of their willingness to engage with us in the process, we will continue to work alongside specific people in the next election, to struggle for our cause, and continue to change the platform to be more appropriately reflective of a desire to preserve the future of our personal liberty, locally, and then nationally.

I’m sorry for my lack of experience, but I have to transcribe my best description into a hypothetical of what I believe Ron Paul would respectfully say, when he is asked if he will endorse Mitt Romney.

I will consider working together with those established participants, because that’s what I strive to do daily, in every facet of my life, and this will be no different. Furthermore, I am quite familiar with this normal struggle, as a business owner, and a husband. In fact, it was an assumption of mine that while this was everyone’s desire at the State Convention, “working together” was not to trump the power of my vote ! With all due respect, I’m afraid that this attitude appears to imply that I haven’t considered “working together” to get to the State Convention, or even to write this letter. So, I hope this is a clear indication to the reader, whomever it is that should have interest in my response, that I have quite thoroughly considered working together, just as successfully as I have duly accomplished my goals of speaking my voice, influencing the platform, voting my delegate choices, and walking away proudly flashing my distinguished delegate badge at every person I walked by on the street that day! I found this question initially unsettling, but after writing this letter, I realize that this is a great start to the very interaction that I seek, which is in getting the readers attention to such a degree that I have to reply with this tone. I don’t think I’ll be able to support any ideology that I can’t agree with, or more importantly, one that cannot reflect The Constitution of the United States.

Until I begin to SEE an active platform that is:

  • indicative of a more fiscally conservative view point in Defense, Immigration, and Domestic Infrastructural Rebuilding and Improvement (roads, bridges, over-passes)
  • a constitutionally focused dialogue that invites serious debate on returning to a pre-Federal Reserve Bank (Gold and Silver Standard) non-fiat currency
  • proving to truly struggle and fight to preserve the health of an accountable democratic process that embraces a reduction of Governmental Power, and Increased Liberty

Until I begin to see a platform taking strides to embrace this verbiage with forward motion, I won’t feel that I am representing a genuine voice for those who have died to preserve The Constitution of the United States.
Instead, I think the perception that is “US against THEM” on both sides of this pink elephant in the room, exists simply because there is an appearance that those representing The Constitution of the United States are under reasonable suspicion of not doing so. I urge you to remain above reproach with regard to protecting The Constitution of the United States in your public service, when possible, and be blatant about it, when impossible! Please re-read my bullet points, because I suggest that they would be good first-steps to “tear down this wall”, and represent the opinions of so many people who are being


Huge Chains.jpg

chained down by forced inflation, increasing slavery, depleting resources for prosperity, and an ever-diminishing sense of empowerment to vote their conscience! If those citizens whom I’ve just described knew that this kind of self-empowering opportunity existed within the public debate, and their own voices could impact the national election, like mine just did, I believe they would stop blaming the past, and they would immediately begin to create the future. It can take effect that fast! I have just learned how to vote people into office that want this, like I do. Thank you for enabling me in this effort. Imagine, they would wake up from the dream that money grows on shovel-ready trees, and they would begin truly struggling and fighting for the front of the line to join our team of Liberty Warriors. That is who we all are, I hope.

That would cause me to want to have continued participation, and not just passively let the Obama-types have unobstructed access to the Oval Office. All in the same spirit of why I began listening to, and eventually voting for Ron Paul, because of his genuine commitment, above everything else, to The Constitution of the United States. Thank you for enabling my opportunity, and serving with me this year in celebrating freedom, by participating in our most powerful expression of freedom; Voting our Conscience.

  1. esp. How Votes Truly Count