[quote]Mick28 wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
I guess politics wouldn’t be the first thing I’ve failed to understand, so you’ll get no argument from me. Question though, given the national IQ of this country is pretty shitty these days, how come I’m so alone in my support of Ron Paul? I mean, if lack of political acumen is the defining characteristic of a Ron Paul supporter, I’d expect him to be polling higher. All well, maybe I’ll vote for Giuliani and enter the ranks of the informed. See ya in a couple months…
You’re confusing the issue. Simply because someone is politically astute does not mean that they’ll be voting for the winning candidate. Conversely, because someone is politically naive doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ll be voting for Paul. But he does attract a great amount of supporters who may very well be first time voters. They’re young and don’t quite understand that Paul will never become President.[/quote]
I was only being facetious; that wasn’t meant to be a serious question, and I know I’m misrepresenting the implication of your post concerning my failure to understand politics. That being said, I’d be willing to bet – because I include myself in the following category – that a large number of Paul supporters fully understand the impossibility of his ever becoming president. (As is evidenced by my very first post in this thread and the subsequent chastisement of my comment.) The question, though, is whether because of this they (those in this category, that is) ought to support someone else? In other words, are the practical chances of a candidate the deciding factor to be considered when offering support? I think not. Practical considerations are important – and when there is an acceptable alternative, it ought to be the deciding factor – but if one is presented with only one candidate, regardless of his chances, who articulates those political and philosophical maxims with which one most agrees, I think it a mistake to withhold support.
The candidacy of Berry Goldwater might serve as an historical example of what I’m getting at – though not a perfect one, for obvious reasons. Goldwater was not what anyone would consider a charismatic candidate – and I think it was clear he stood very little chance of ever being elected president. However, his supporters, and the movement his candidacy helped popularize, ultimately led to the Reagan presidency. So, in that respect, whether or not he personally stands a chance of winning, Ron Paul serves as a potential catalyst for a political shift in this country, and whether or not that shift ever materializes – I acknowledge it has much farther to go than the conservative movement of Goldwater – for those of us who agree with his philosophy it is incumbent on us to lend him our most ardent support. If the supporters of Goldwater had succumb to such practical appeals, I doubt very much Reagan would have ever been elected – how much more so for the supporters of Paul, who represents a movement in its mere infancy. (I hope to see it beat the odds and live on to adolescence and eventually adulthood.)
[quote]One more interesting point, since the media age people are swayed by how a candidate looks and speaks, regardless of what he’s saying.
A Lincoln or even a Teddy Roosevelt would never be elected in 2008.
Scary huh?
Take a look at who has gotten the nomination for each party over the past 30 or 40 years, and the also rans as well. And then take a good look at which candidate won.
Tell me how many of the winners have been shrill, short, bald or just plain ugly?
If you do decide to give this a good look, I’d be interested in reading your thoughts.
All the best.[/quote]
You are absolutely right. The JFK/Nixon debate, as you’ve pointed out, is the perfect example. But if we are to ever change this reality – whether that’s even possible – ought we make a principled stand? Because, honestly – to barrow from South Park – I feel like I’m faced with a douche bag, a turd sandwich and a guy who doesn’t stand a chance in hell of winning…but who’s ideas may stand a chance of winning in the long run.
