Candidate Mike Gravel – Libertarian? Can you just decide to be a Libertarian?

The Washington Post, CNN and the New York Times reported yesterday on my second favorite Presidential candidate (the first obviously being Kucinich still) dropping from the Democratic race and re-entered the race for the Libertarian Party Nomination.  After serving a lifetime with the Democrats, Gravel has switched teams, or has he puts it, the team switched on him. Gravel stood out like a sore (and particularly PO’d) thumb at the early Democratic debates (before the media decided that he wasn’t a real candidate), so it shouldn’t really come as a surprise that he’s made this move.  The Democrats have made no effort to connect and hold onto this American hero during this campaign. And when I say “American hero”, I mean it.

Who filibustered until the draft was halted during Vietnam?  Who helped
to release the Watergate documents? No, not the StoneCutters (odd
school Simpsons reference) but Mike Gravel. The media and the Democrats
treated him like he was some crazy old grandpa that you have to invite
over for dinner because he can’t cook for himself anymore. Not only is
Mike Gravel capable of cooking for himself but he also is one of the
few candidates willing to challenge the establishment and offer more
realistic insights.  Sure Obama and Clinton talk a lot about all the
“good things” they’re going to accomplish.  So when Gravel and Kucinich
challenge them on the fact that they’ve had the power the entire time
to end the war in the Senate, they turn the cold shoulder and so does
the Democratic party because that sort of talk “hurts the
front-runners”.

The (Wo)Man

I find it interesting that people are so willing to buy into the whole Obama/Clinton popularity contest. Clinton would have you believe this is a battle of credentials vs. charisma. She’s about half right. It’s a battle of charisma vs. charisma. The typical American doesn’t seem to be fully aware of what Obama and Clinton stand for or what their history in the Senate is, they just like their presentation of familiarity. Now, there are certainly people that are aware of the issues, but those people would rather have Kucinich be President (okay, some people just like Obama and Clinton based on policies and records).  Nevertheless, this has become a popularity contest more than anything else. It is typically this way because most people don’t make the effort to be informed and if Clinton and Obama really talked about what they stood for in more specifics, they’d turn people off just like Kucinich and Gravel might have. Again, that’s not to say that there aren’t informed people out their going for the mainstream candidates, but to deny the power of the image would be ignorant. This is why individuals like Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich can’t be President, they lack the image Clinton and certainly Obama have, primarily because they refuse to put up that ambiguous front.

In his book The 48 Laws of Power, Robert Greene discusses Coriolanus, a military hero of ancient Rome that ran for a high rank of consul in 454 B.C. Pulling the glory of a stunning military career behind him, Coriolanus’ victory appeared definite. However, when the Romans actually heard what Coriolanus had to say they found him arrogant and rude. Needless to say Coriolanus did not get elected (in fact he was banished from Rome for life). Had Coriolanus remained ambiguously golden, holding onto previous conceptions of him as a hero and a patriot, he would have certainly won the election. Once, Coriolanus expressed himself he quickly lost favor with the masses.

The Middle Ground

What’s easier, agreeing with a candidate that takes the generic popular routes and seems like a nice guy (or girl) or supporting a leader that seems he’s making a lot of ruckus about nothing?
I’ll admit, when I heard Barrack Obama was running for President, I nearly jumped on board, because – after all – he seemed like a nice guy and I’d heard he’d do “good things” for America. Upon further investigation, I found out those “good things” don’t exactly fit with my viewpoints. Now, (yet again) I’m not saying that their aren’t people out there that haven’t done their research and agree with Obama’s or Clinton’s generalized viewpoints, but I know there are a lot of people out their that have just jumped on the bandwagon and purchased a Obama t-shirt, just because he seems like a nice guy and he’ll apparently do “good things” for America. I almost did.

Mainstream candidates take the middle road, speaking generic popular route responses and avoiding true answers. This is because they know that if they went too into depth about their views, not only would they confuse the mainstream public, but they might run into some conflicts that would force their popularity to wan. To deter this, these candidates speak in clichéd banalities (yeah, that’s double the power), dodge real questions and hope that the American public doesn’t catch on to the fact that they don’t stand for anything (John Kerry for example). By remaining ambiguous candidates allow their images (created by the media) to sway voters.

Mainstream candidates will even take positions they shouldn’t and probably won’t stand by, simply for votes. This is and always has been a common practice in politics. If you look at the Iowa primaries, you saw most front runner candidates jiving about ethanol and corn subsidies (something most Americans don’t care about). Although the Ionians would love to have a tax break on corn and ethanol, the truth is if Iowa gets subsidies the rest of country has to deal with higher taxes.
Big candidates gain popularity first by hype (created by news/media) and then by not really answering questions as to not upset their popularity.

The Media

The media plays a pivotal part in all of this. As mentioned earlier, organizations decide which candidates they are more interested in broadcasting (sometimes from an initial bogus poll, sometimes based on their own motives) and then they cover that candidate relentlessly. A fine example of this is the gargoyle candidate from Law and Order – Fred Thompson. Who in the hell thought this guy had any chance? Nobody! That’s who. Yet, before this guy announced his candidacy the media was a blitz with reports about his suave masculinity and likability. On the other hand candidates like Ron Paul have a huge following on the internet. Paul was bringing in way more interest and cash than candidates like John McCain. Yet, Ron Paul is rarely covered on mainstream media. For some reason either they don’t think people want to hear about Ron Paul (which people do), or they have some other agenda – maybe it’s to convince people that Paul is not going to get elected.

For another important example of the media driving election let’s look at the 2004 race. Anyone remember Howard Dean, the now chairman of the Democratic National Committee? Well, if you recall, Mr. Dean emerged as an early frontrunner in the 2004 democratic primaries until he got excited at one of his rallies and yelled. Yes, that’s all that happened. He got excited and yelled. Dean didn’t even realize anything had happened until the media started reporting the “Dean scream” as somehow a negative attribute to his character. Following this bizarre media catastrophe, Dean’s popularity took a serious hit and he eventually withdrew from the primaries.

Why did Mike Gravel switch to the Libertarian Party? Because the Democratic party wants to win. What happens when you want to win more than anything else? You lose touch with your values and end up with someone that stands for the party but doesn’t speak for the party. Look what happen to the Bush and the Republicans.  No Barack Obama is not George Bush (he’s far better), but it should come as no surprise when he doesn’t end up being as capable as he seemed.

The Core of it: Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinch and Ron Paul want to be a real candidate, not some figure. The Democrats won’t give Gravel that. When was the last time a party did and a mainstream candidate was real? 

Maybe you don’t like Gravel or Kucinich because of their policies. Wouldn’t it be great to hold Clinton and Obama on the same level? Wouldn’t it be great if we really understood what these people have done and what they believe in, rather than who they are and how many “good things” they’re going to do for America?

I’ll leave you with this: He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else – Benjamin Franklin

Somewhat related cartoon:

This entry was posted on Friday, March 28th, 2008 at 12:06 am and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.