A Pet Peeve
The respectable and intelligent Hugh Hewitt has some interviews from the Texas Straw Poll, and I think they're great.
One note, though, about one of Hewitt's lines of questioning: he asks nearly everyone whether
-They want Dr. Paul to run as an independent if he fails to get the GOP nomination
-Whether they would support the GOP nominee if it's not Dr. Paul
and/or
-How they'd feel if they didn't get behind the GOP nominee, and Hillary "consequently" wins.
As a sometime Green, I have heard this line before. It was used to try to guilt Nader supporters into abandoning their candidate so that Gore could beat Bush.
The offensive assumption in this line of questioning is that some candidate -- by virtue of belonging to a "major party" -- has a right to my vote, and I have to defend my decision to give it to someone else. Sorry, but I find this abhorrent.
If Ron Paul is not the Republican Party's nominee, and runs as an independent, I become the GOPs political opponent. I am one of their obstacles; they have to try to defeat my candidate, by winning me and others over.
They may think that they have a right to my support because I'm "conservative", but they're just wrong. Giuliani does not have a right to my vote because I'm Catholic, and Hillary does not have a right to my vote because I'm a woman.
Fine, I'm not a woman; you get the idea though.
GOP: Run someone who can win. If you don't, you will lose and it will not be Ron Paul's fault.
One note, though, about one of Hewitt's lines of questioning: he asks nearly everyone whether
-They want Dr. Paul to run as an independent if he fails to get the GOP nomination
-Whether they would support the GOP nominee if it's not Dr. Paul
and/or
-How they'd feel if they didn't get behind the GOP nominee, and Hillary "consequently" wins.
As a sometime Green, I have heard this line before. It was used to try to guilt Nader supporters into abandoning their candidate so that Gore could beat Bush.
The offensive assumption in this line of questioning is that some candidate -- by virtue of belonging to a "major party" -- has a right to my vote, and I have to defend my decision to give it to someone else. Sorry, but I find this abhorrent.
If Ron Paul is not the Republican Party's nominee, and runs as an independent, I become the GOPs political opponent. I am one of their obstacles; they have to try to defeat my candidate, by winning me and others over.
They may think that they have a right to my support because I'm "conservative", but they're just wrong. Giuliani does not have a right to my vote because I'm Catholic, and Hillary does not have a right to my vote because I'm a woman.
Fine, I'm not a woman; you get the idea though.
GOP: Run someone who can win. If you don't, you will lose and it will not be Ron Paul's fault.
posted by Matt C at
6:55 AM
1 Comments:
This is one of the standard bag of voter control tricks pounded into our children's heads by the education system and trotted out routinely to make sure they keep control of the electorate to get the voting results they want.
"You must vote for one of the establishment candidates, or you throw your vote away."
"You must vote for someone, it is your duty; if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain."
"You must vote for your party's candidate."
etc. These are all ripe with logical fallacies that any 10 year old could recognize, if we still taught logic to 10 year olds. The last is the only one that actually holds to any demonstrated political science, due to the control typically exercised over party politicians by their party masters, but there are still exceptions.
By
Anonymous, at 7:48 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home