16 October 2008

The Debate, Marxism, and the Folly of Third Party Voting (or, the Tyranny of Majoritarian Mathematics)

Senator McCain was clearly more aggressively on the attack last night, but by leaving out Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he's left out one of the strongest reasons why not to vote for Barack Obama.

Bill Ayers? Unrepentant "washed up" domestic terrorist, yes, but the Weather Underground was a Marxist/left-wing organization.

ACORN? Yes, they're involved with voter registration fraud, but at their heart, they're a Marxist/left-wing organization trying to radicalize students (under the education "reform" arm) and agitate for left wing causes.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright? The context for "America's chickens have come home to roost" and "G-D America" is his Black Liberation Theology - which could just as easily be described as Urban American Marxism.

It's not that Barack Obama has individual one-time relationships with any of these people; it's that he has had fifteen-to-twenty-year relationships with all of them, concurrently. That paints a picture of a radical, Marxist leaning candidate, running for office as a Democrat.

And it's his answer to Joe the Plumber ("Spread the Wealth") that provides the meat of the charge - that Barack Obama the Marxist is a terrible choice for the country at any time, but especially in a time of economic difficulty and two wars.

Which brings me to my friends trying to get me to vote for the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party (you know who you are).

A vote for Chuck Baldwin is a pro-choice, anti-family vote - not because Baldwin is pro-choice (he clearly isn't) but because in voting for someone with no chance of getting elected, you are allowing Barack Obama to become President - the most radically pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda candidate in our nation's history. A vote for Chuck Baldwin is a vote for Barack Obama. Please think about that before you vote. If nothing else - check out Obama's answer on Roe v. Wade last night. Roe was a constitutional disaster - and Obama thinks it was correctly decided. That alone should send shudders...

For my Libertarian friends, a vote for Bob Barr is a pro-Big Government vote - not because Barr's Big Government (he clearly isn't), but becuase in voting for someone with no chance of getting elected, you are allowing Barack Obama to become President - the most liberal, big spender in the Senate, voting against the taxpayers (either for tax increases or against tax cuts) 94 times in his short stint in the Senate. A vote for Bob Barr is a vote for Barack Obama. Please think about that before you vote.

Now, I give you these two prior paragraphs knowing that voting for a Third Party in America is an inherently irrational thing to do in a winner-take-all Electoral College sort of way. Not to get into the weeds of "rational voter theory", but as we get closer to the election, what tends to happen amongst rational voters is that they see which of the two biggest candidates can win, and choose which one they want, knowing that they want their vote to count and matter (and voting for third place usually means knowing beforehand that you aren't going to win.)

Clearly, there have been the rare exception to the rule - Independent Senators in Vermont and Connecticut come to mind. But, as a rule, and especially at the Presidential level, voting third party actually damages your cause in the long term. Rather than the two possible things you hope to do (either pull your former party in the direction you wish it was going - in this case Republicans to the right - socially or fiscally; or establish a new force in politics), what tends to happen is the opposite. By pulling your forces away from the party you used to belong to, you ensure it's electoral defeat - and get all the blame. The party in question then is free to become less like you (since you are no longer there to influence it) and your third party is also unlikely to succeed (since no new party has won a Presidential Election since Abraham Lincoln in 1860 - the first Republican President. The last President to get elected without being a Republican or a Democrat was Zachary Taylor in 1848. He was a Whig. I digress...)

My point, conservative friends, is that we have but one real, working choice to vote for President - like him or not, it's Senator John McCain.

I'm voting for McCain with my eyes open - I know the day after he gets elected that I'll be working against his policies on global warming, immigration, and probably a few other things as well. But I also know that Barack Obama is the most left-wing, Marxist major party candidate in our nation's history. And for that reason, (and for others), my car sports a McCain/Palin sticker, and I'll be voting for them.

I hope you will, too.


Anonymous said...

Freedom and constitutionally limited government aren't always on the winning team, but that doesn't mean I switch sides. I'll vote for what I really believe in, and keep building on that and keep encouraging those in my circle of influence to do the same. The lesser of two evils voting cycle will never effect the kind of reforms this country needs to see. That said, I really appreciate your zeal.

Anonymous said...

How well I remember the pious logic of annymous 6:24 when it was used with Perot. Bill Clinton was elected because of it and there were no reforms for sure. Logic dictates that there is a higher principle applied when the lesser would be threatened or obliterated if the greater is not supported. Mr. Obama makes Bill Clinton look like Reagan. A so-called vote you "believe in", ought to make your conscience ache. Any vote for any one other than McCain is a vote for Obama. Plain and simple. It just makes me furious. I am NO McCainiac. I am a desperate American who is terribly worried about the Supreme Court Justices to come in the next administration that will affect this country for generations to come. WAKE UP! IT will be YOUR fault if all of those babies continue to be slaughtered because of your "principaled" vote. It will be on your account if the homosexuals continue to confuse the family issue and push their way into our culture and society and law. But there you will sit, content with the vote you thought you could believe in, while the rest of America goes to hell in hand basket.

Anonymous said...

Logic also dictates that you don't use "either-or" logical fallacies. Sorry you are feeling furious, but I am feeling curious why you think voting for someone you don't like out of fear is logical. Is it logical to vote for the same kind of candidates every four years and expect the issues you are so upset about to be rectified? Have you been satisfied with the results thus far? You obviously must think that at some point there will be no "bad guy" candidate running for office who you "have" to vote against. Will you start voting for the best man (or woman) for the job when there is opposition that is only moderately harmful to your freedom?

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Reagan,I remember why he said he'd ve voting for Jerry Ford (who could barely be called conservative, but who was a genuinely nice man). He said, "It's because the alternative (i.e., Carter) is so unthinkable".

Four years of Carter, which included 19% interest rates, mile-long gas lines, "the misery index", "the malaise quotient", the hostages in Iran, the 1980 non-Olympics (which several of my decathlete friends lost their livelihoods over) and the most critical deficits in military readiness in post-WWII history proved Reagan right.

And so does your post, Joshua. Keep it up, man.

Kat said...

Baldwin certainly comes closest to being what I believe in on many, many points. The problem I have with the voting out of fear (vote McCain because Baldwin can't win)is this: If everyone voted their conscience rather than out of fear, who then would be elected? We've been saying the same thing for years and we always get what we've always gotten. What does it take to change? Actually, I have a pretty good idea: sue the press for biased reporting ... how many people even know that anyone else is in the race besides McCain and Obamanation? Maybe that's the solution for the long-run. Require that presidential debates include all contenders and require a certain level of coverage on all candidates. Is that possible? Then again ... by requiring it ... it is no longer a free press. It's hard to not feel like the elections are rigged.

Anonymous said...

Reality check: A vote for Baldwin is a vote for Obama.

Anonymous said...

No, it's a vote for Baldwin.

Sam said...

If the Republicans put up a quality candidate people wouldn't be running to Baldwin and Barr. It's that simple.

Jessica said...

But a vote for Cynthia Mckinney or Nader is a vote against Obama. The laws of common sense says it equals out. Also, McCain confirmed two of Clinton's pro-choice judicial appointments. So, maybe he's not the best way to go.

Todd said...

I have a couple of comments. First, I was able to forward your post to someone who plans to vote for Baldwin. The same person rejected a vote for Michael Peroutka in 2004 on the grounds that a vote for Peroutka was a vote for Kerry. (And Peroutka was running from the same party that Baldwin is -- the Constitution Party.)

Second, I have a concern about your linking to Powerline Blog. Here's why. One of the ways in which Powerline dealt with the Richard Durbin comparison of American interrogators at Gitmo to Nazis and Soviets was to say, "[Durbin is] soon to become Turban Durbin". I thought such use of the term "Turban Durbin" was slanderous to decent turban-wearers. Please correct me if I am wrong.