Campaine, August 19, 2000

At this time I have some very mixed feelings about the current presidential campaine. I would really like to actively support some candidate since that is, I believe, a noble thing to do. Also, at the present time I feel that there is a need for me to do something noble, that is, I feel a need to really be seen as standing for something, and a presidential election is a good way to rather easily accomplish this. (That is, as long as someone else is running.)

The problem is, who do I support? The choices are, George W. Bush (Republican), Al Gore (Democratic), Ralph Nader(Green), Harry Brown (Libertarian), and the Reform party candiate, whoever that might be. There are a few other people running, but I have not been made aware of their names.

I could never vote for George W. Bush. The reason is experience. That is, the Republicans base their bid for the White House on a tax cut, and an increase in spending for the military. This is the recipe for disaster. I recall in 1980, Ronald Reagan made the same promise. That is, he promised that he would cut taxes which would increase the revenue because of the increase in business activity. One can argue the the increase in military spending was needed due to the cold war (or not, depending on which set of fanatics one chooses to listen to), but I think it is fairly obvious that the increase in revenue did not occur. Currently Reagan is responsible for, if I recall correctly, about 90? of the federal debt.

Personally, I'm waiting for the big one. If we continue the road of fiscal responsibility that has been followed (throught government deadlock, as much as any thing else) for the last 6 years, then the debt will be paid off at some point. Then congress would have to send a big tax cut (maybe even a 100? tax cut) though to avoid a large government surplus. I will write a more detailed article at some point in the future.

The second big candidate is Al Gore. Al Gore is slightly better in this regard because he does not favor a big ill advised tax cut. However, he still supports increasing spending, in this case for social programs that really don't work, and tend to perpetuate the racial and class problems that currently exist in the country. I might consider voting for Al Gore in that he would possibly continue the government deadlock of the last 6 years that have managed to do precisely the right thing, nothing.

The Democrats favor continuing the afirmative action program, for example. This, more than anything else, tends to perpetuate racism in this country. That is, when I was growing up, I was not taught about racism. That is, for a time my next door neighbor, and good friend, was black, a fact that I only became aware of 20 years after we had left. My parents didn't bother to tell me that because this person's skin is slightly darker than mine that I have to treat them any differently than anyone else, and I did not.

I saw an excellent article on this subject about 12 years ago, and I might add that to my WEB site if I can get permission.

Then there are the minor candiates. I do not want to dismiss them out of hand anyway. I heard an excellent reason for not dismissing them a few weeks ago. Someone pointed out that in an election one should vote for what one believes rather than trying to vote for a winner because otherwise the election is a fraud. (This is a liberal paraphrase.)

Personally, I would not want to vote for a winner I didn't believe in. That is, if the person that I vote for wins, then I have to take some responsibility for his (or her) actions, even if those actions are something that I disagree with. It just occurred to me that this is similar to the course of action that resulting in Adolf Hitler being elected chancellor of Germany. In that case, would I want to have to tell my children and grandchildren that I voted for Hitler? I'd rather be able to say that I voted in a failed attempt to outst him.

I must admit that I have glanced through the Green party platform, and it is not as fanatical as I had thought it might be. Including the fact that it is realistic about its chance for winning. They will say that they are more interested in getting a presence locally than in the presidency, which they recogonize that will loose. The impression that I got from their platform is that they are the party that believes in a community. A community cannot exist, by the way, if the environment is destroyed, so they do favor saving the environment.

A few years ago I had the opportunity to do some travelling in Germany. In the course of my time there (actually, only one week, on business) I did some travelling in the former East Germany. I was impressed by the results of the polution, the entire forests of dead trees. This is the result of the former Communist government which ignored the environment.

Yet, I fear the Green party in that they could manage to tread on our freedom even more than the major parties. But then, in reality we are born into a community, and we must learn to live together.

Then there is the Libertarian candidate, Harry Browne. Harry would, in fact, increase personal liberties, or at least in theory would. The problems are that the "personal liberties" that are pushed are only certain ones.

For example, there would be no laws regarding owning guns. Yet these laws were enacted for a reason. That is, look at any old western, and then ask yourself if that is the type of shootouts you would like to see on a daily basis today. One could make similar comments about other aspects of the platform.

Yet the Libertarian party is, really, the third party in the United States. The Green party is new, and may catch on, but the libertarian party ideals are very liberating.

Yet, it has been pointed out that the liberties proposed by the Libertarian party are good for adults, particularly rich adults. However, it totally leaves the children behind, particularly poor children.

The most easily commented on candidate it the Reform party candidate. This party would not currently exist if it were not for the federal campaine financing laws. That is, there are currently two people who are, or have been, fighting it out for the nomination. Niether is above 2? in current polls, and both have run for the presidency before on wildly different platforms. (Even Jesse Ventura, their most visible elected persosn, has chosen to leave the party.)

In reality, I have always been impressed by the fact that the Reform party really doesn't stand for anything. All other political parties have some meaning. I might radically disagree with their meaning, or (in the case of the Libertarian party) disagree with the way the party chooses to implement their ideas, but they stand for something.

Looking over what I have written, I think that I ought to give my support to the Green party as being the least objectionable. Also, since it is a very new party in the United States, there is ample room for me to make an impression on this organization, perhaps even persuading others to accept some of my political ideas.