Saturday, April 14, 2012 Why Democrat vs Republican is the Wrong Way to Look at the 2012 Election

It is safe to say that, up to now, this Presidential election year has been less about ideas, than it has been about who said what to whom and what they did or did not mean. (Come to think of it, the previous election was like that too, did you notice?) But tonight, if you've got a half hour to kill, you can listen to two guys who are equally unimpressed with both sides of the argument.

“We had a non-Obama president recently, his name was George W Bush, it wasn’t all puppy dogs and rainbows.” - Matt Welch

“Being Republican is not enough to counter Obama. Mitt Romney is not offering an alternative to Obama.” - Nick Gillespie

As to Gillespie's remark, one might beg to disagree. Romney definitely has a more impressive resumé than Obama, even with the latter being able to put "President of the United States" on his up to now. But other than that, Romney hasn't been entirely specific about just what he would do or what he would cut. In fact, none of the Republican candidates (except Ron Paul, and everybody thinks he's crazy) have been very specific.

This is not just an indictment of any potential candidate, but the voters themselves. Everybody wants to have "smaller government," and nobody wants to give up anything that would make that possible. Is it any wonder that the candidates' stump speeches will reflect this duality?

Welch and Gillespie, the co-authors of “The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong with America” hosted a discussion with the above title at Reason Weekend, the annual donor event held by Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes the website). It is produced by Anthony L Fisher, and shot by Josh Swain and Fisher.

So, go make some popcorn, click on the full-screen option, and get ready to think for yourself.

For once.

No comments: