Elections in America: Choice or Chicanery?

Who is this Ron Paul guy? How did he get in the mix with all the other cookie-cutter, trigger-happy, pro-corporate-welfare, big government 'conservatives' who populate today's Republican party? According to this chart, he differs with the majority positions held by the other Republican presidential hopefuls on 12 out of 25 issues including capital punishment and virtually every facet of foreign policy and so-called 'homeland security'.

The Republican 'debate' on August 5th in Iowa was, as these proceedings usually are, little more than an exercise in bombastic lip flapping. The candidates took turns disagreeing on minutiae while offering virtually nothing in the way of honest, intellectual, or direct discourse. They are like different heads of the same political hydra.

Ron Paul was the lone voice of dissent. "Just come home," he said, to much applause, when asked what his strategy would be for ending the war in Iraq. The most notable moment came later when Paul said, "those individuals who have predicted these disastrous things to happen if we leave Iraq are the same ones who said, 'As soon as we go in, it will just be duck soup, it’ll be over in three months and it won’t cost us anything because the oil will pay for it.'":



Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's response-- no, interruption of Paul was just short of comical. Romney's winning presidential smile, pleading hand gestures and his funny-if-it-weren't-so-tragic utterance, "Have you forgotten about 9/11?" illustrates perfectly the neo-cons' contempt for the intelligence of the American public.

Let's be clear-- Paul is far from the 'ideal' candidate. He is against universal health care, same-sex marriage, amnesty for immigrants, and stem-cell research. But, in the current political climate he is surely a breath of fresh air-- for the true conservative and even for a progressive socialist. He is real and he is honest.

The unfortunate reality, however, is that candidates like Ron Paul and his liberal doppelgängers Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel have no significant chance at being elected. Not because their positions and ideas don't (or wouldn't) resonate with voters, but because they can't overcome a key roadblock for presidential hopefuls. Because of their policies, they are a 'bad investment' for corporate donors and campaign financiers, who are the critical deciders of which candidates are 'credible'.

It's a classic 'catch-22'-- in short, voters will not get any meaningful choice at the polls until campaign finance reform is introduced banning corporate donations and making elections truly free and open, but campaign finance reform is certainly not on the agenda of the current political elite, who, upon passing such legislation, would secure the final nail in the coffin of their political careers.