Parties should value ideals over figures
Current factions among Republicans, Democrats obstruct political goals
Josh Rabon
Issue date: 2/6/08 Section: Viewpoints
Mike Huckabee may have thrown the first punch on Super Tuesday, but it will be a mistake for Republicans to abandon John McCain.
It would be like South Africa flooding the diamond market - a sure-fire way to make a quick buck, but the bill would eventually come in the form of a price drop and downfall of the most effective political cartel, or a coalition of political or special-interest groups having a common cause, in history.
What does that have to do with anything?
I'll be joining a cartel soon. Hopefully, you will too. When I cast a ballot this November, I fully hope my cartel will flex its might and elect our candidates to office.
The two-party system is oft maligned in America, but I can't fathom any other system. For argument, let's assume there were four major players running, all approximately equal in the polls. I'm more than happy to sacrifice a few low-priority issues if I believe my candidate could merge with another candidate's supporters and easily overwhelm the remaining contenders.
Basically, I'd love to ensure a candidate that shares my top priorities wins even if it means electing someone with a different opinion on less pertinent issues. I'll take the guaranteed something, especially if it means the opposition will be left with a guaranteed nothing.
And, like South Africa selling diamonds on the side, breaking ranks will only hurt us. In 2000, Ralph Nader cannibalized enough liberal votes in Florida to change the outcome of the election, the next eight years and beyond.
It's important to note that the idea of a cartel as a political tool has its double edge. And that edge has already cut Democrats and threatens to shred the Republican advantage.
The original concept of mutual sacrifice and prioritization of ideals to select a candidate to carry the majority. In this primary system, however, both parties are damaging their top overall contenders in lieu of candidates who fit the ideals of their cartel, but not the general populace.
It would be like South Africa flooding the diamond market - a sure-fire way to make a quick buck, but the bill would eventually come in the form of a price drop and downfall of the most effective political cartel, or a coalition of political or special-interest groups having a common cause, in history.
What does that have to do with anything?
I'll be joining a cartel soon. Hopefully, you will too. When I cast a ballot this November, I fully hope my cartel will flex its might and elect our candidates to office.
The two-party system is oft maligned in America, but I can't fathom any other system. For argument, let's assume there were four major players running, all approximately equal in the polls. I'm more than happy to sacrifice a few low-priority issues if I believe my candidate could merge with another candidate's supporters and easily overwhelm the remaining contenders.
Basically, I'd love to ensure a candidate that shares my top priorities wins even if it means electing someone with a different opinion on less pertinent issues. I'll take the guaranteed something, especially if it means the opposition will be left with a guaranteed nothing.
And, like South Africa selling diamonds on the side, breaking ranks will only hurt us. In 2000, Ralph Nader cannibalized enough liberal votes in Florida to change the outcome of the election, the next eight years and beyond.
It's important to note that the idea of a cartel as a political tool has its double edge. And that edge has already cut Democrats and threatens to shred the Republican advantage.
The original concept of mutual sacrifice and prioritization of ideals to select a candidate to carry the majority. In this primary system, however, both parties are damaging their top overall contenders in lieu of candidates who fit the ideals of their cartel, but not the general populace.
Be the first to comment on this story