Letter to the editor: Why Chase Oliver Deserves your vote
Richard Fast
While Alabama is virtually guaranteed to be won by Donald Trump on November 5, registered U.S. voters at the time of writing are about equally divided between the former president and his democratic rival, Vice President Kamala Harris: the two are hovering at 48%-48%, according to recent polls.
I want to focus on that projected 4% who reject both major party candidates. Remember that, in most states, voters don’t actually vote for the candidate; they vote for the party whose delegates are pledged to that candidate. Occasionally, so-called “faithless electors,” although pledged to a specific candidate, instead vote for a different candidate as a sign of no confidence.
Most mainstream news outlets, having abandoned objective reporting for woke “analysis,” will try their hardest to convince you there is a world of difference between the two establishment party candidates. I argue the difference is actually quite small. I will make the case of why the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Chase Oliver deserves your vote instead.
To start, Millennials and Gen Z, who use social media habitually, are all too familiar with the recurring narrative that portrays Trump as an egotistical maniac having a love affair with Vladimir Putin, and Harris as the DEI candidate who will restore our frail democracy, outlaw climate change, and be the patron saint of abortion: in short, “Orange Man bad”, “vote blue no matter who.”
As enlightened as many folks of these generations are, they fail to see that they’re only demonizing each other without any real useful policy discussion, which is what elections ideally should be about.
“Hold on,” you say. “That’s social media. No one takes anything there seriously. That’s not where real discussions happen.” Those are indeed valid points, but let’s look at reality.
Screen time on social media platforms is off the charts for young people, who often cite social media as a primary source of news and information despite countless misinformation warnings and censorship or account bans for publishing text perceived as ‘offensive’ (getting ‘Zucked’). Something to ponder is whether as a society that is the type of ‘informed electorate’ we want to have making important ballot decisions, or even whether such issues should be voted on to begin with (What is the proper role/scope of government?).
In addition, there are search costs associated with obtaining information about candidates; low information voters save time by relying on what their friends/family think, who often vote a certain way simply because their parents did and parrot the media instead of thinking critically. This results in people talking past each other, not to each other. This is also why the electorate receives voter guides – to present candidate statements and ballot measure arguments in a straight-forward, condensed and convenient manner since many voters are too busy with work and family to be “fully informed, "which is impossible.
Political parties seek to achieve political goals at the group level that would be essentially impossible at the individual level. Voters are spared the exhausting responsibility of independent research and rely instead on the leaders of the red team or blue team to dictate what is in their collective interest and then vote accordingly.
This reliance on others to feed us information has created a nationwide culture of dividing ourselves into increasingly polar camps, which explains why we get progressively lower quality presidential candidates despite having an ever more university-educated electorate.
There is stark any difference between Trump and Harris, as both pull support from political extremes whose sole interest is power and control: the otherwise opposites’ common goal. The former appeals to the economically liberal but socially conservative right, while the latter to the socially liberal but economically authoritarian left.
Team blue traditionally champions the welfare state, characterized as a dove, while team red the warfare state, a hawk. What these “opposites” have in common is both major party candidates seek to use the coercive power, if not outright force, of the federal government to undermine personal agency and autonomy by manipulating its citizens’ behavior and orchestrating people’s lives so they don’t have to think for themselves.
Education across the board is increasingly devolving into woke indoctrination; why think independently when chanting nostrums “education is a right, not just for the rich and white,” is so much easier? Education is not the only government department being weaponized to push a certain narrative and punish political opponents – it is nearly every institution in the government’s toolbox, including the Supreme Court. The problems outlined above, which only scratch the surface of the deeper issues I discuss, were primarily caused by over a century of democratic and republican policies that have failed the American people for at least the past three generations. The duopoly’s stronghold on federal power for over 150 years by installing ever higher barriers to entry for third parties and independent candidates has choked off countless efforts to improve and expand democracy, one of Americans’ most cherished values.
The Commision on Presidential Debates requires that candidates must raise the minimum support percent rate to be included in the presidential debates: 15%, a number they knew third party candidates could not reach. The reason none of them reach 15% is because they are excluded from most mainstream voter polls and those are the same polls, averaged, that the CPD uses to determine eligibility for inclusion in the debates. I believe this is intentional.
While it was dismissed, 2012 Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein filed a lawsuit against the commission, contending that the Obama (D) and Romney (R) campaigns had colluded to set debate terms that would intentionally exclude third party candidates, despite the fact that both Johnson and Stein both were on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical possibility of winning the election.
Only the elephant and donkey get heard; no other voice is allowed.
The duopoly in practice, despite CNN trying to fool you otherwise, is two heads of the same monster. This is because a problem of sinister methodology and dishonest ideology lies in both major parties: the two major parties need each other for controlled opposition and to maintain their power status.
An alternative viewpoint is seen by both as a threat. They sound like street gangs, don’t they?
This is why RFK Jr. is labelled by the mainstream media as an anti-vaxx conspiracy theorist; anyone who challenges authority on the official narrative or their policies is ridiculed or silenced. But, one need only do some independent research from credible and reliable sources to see that what the government, media and education, often in unison, are projecting is only part of the whole story– that is, only the narrative (the false dichotomy of left and right) the establishment parties want voters to believe so that they stay in power.
Once power is given to government, it practically never relinquishes that power voluntarily. “Power corrupts, and…”, you finish that Lord Acton quote. The institutions (ie, the duopoly and the government agencies their members created to serve their special interests) that created these problems cannot be trusted to solve them, yet we are constantly hammered by the media, often deemed the fourth branch of government, that this narrow spectrum of discussion is the only allowed to be televised to a national audience.
It will take a grassroots movement from a new organization with new ideas and new ways of thinking to break the shackles of the Uniparty (reds and blues) that has muzzled any significant policy change in this country, particularly on foreign policy and peace and non-intervention, not to be confused with isolationism.
Beyond this institutional bond the donkeys and elephants share, their policies need to be exposed for the problems they pose. Harris promises to continue Biden’s failed foreign policy of constant meddling in other countries’ wars. Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan are dragging the U.S. into what could easily become World War III.
While Liz Cheney convinces fellow republicans to ditch Trump and vote for Harris, the neo-cons of the GOP seem to be more influential in advising Harris’ campaign such that the Trump-led GOP now sounds like the peace party and Harris and the Democrats the warmongers.
But make no mistake, Trump is more concerned about Vladimir Putin’s health, sending him Covid tests after he left office, than that of ordinary Americans. Harris will continue the inflationary policies that continue to drain Americans’ wallets.
Likewise, Trump’s call for increased tariffs on foreign steel hurts the American consumer, not the foreign producer. The U.S. also cannot afford to be the police force of the world.
We’ve racked up over $33 trillion in debt, most of which is owed to China, and we have no hope of realistically paying off. Why? So, that we can have the biggest military in the world, larger than the next five nations combined, among other programs domestically that would be better served by the free market, not as a central planner’s pet project.
I was hopeful when RFK Jr. announced his independent campaign and surged to over 20% support in voter polls, creating the closest to an equally three-way pie chart of voter support in the last three decades. I thought this was the candidate and now was the time for the two-party system to be seriously challenged.
Unfortunately, his invitation to “Declare Your Independence” from the two-party system was just a typical politician’s empty promise. As Harris replaced Biden as the blue team candidate and his poll numbers started declining, RFK joined Trump’s MAGA “semi-fascists,” to use President Biden’s term. So much for national unity.
RFK’s campaign has since self-suspended and is nothing more than a symbol of an American political dynasty just as divided and frail as the media claims “our democracy” is.
Enter libertarian party presidential candidate Chase Oliver. At 39-years-old and self-described as “armed and gay,” he is the youngest third-party presidential candidate with the best chance of winning (the libertarian party is the third largest political party in the U.S.).
Running on a platform of peace and prosperity both at home and abroad, Oliver specifically reaches out to millennials and Gen Z to get them involved in real political change outside of the duopoly.
Oliver entered the political scene as an anti-war activist during the Bush and Obama years. He pledges to dismantle U.S. imperialism and bring the troops home safely, streamline our backlogged immigration system with an Ellis Island-type approach, end the failed war on drugs, work to pardon Snowden, Assange, Ulbrect, and other exiled whistleblowers and is pro-choice on everything. He wants to eliminate taxes, tariffs and red tape to restore a free market so Americans can get back to work, feed their family and not have to worry about inflation.
In summary, Oliver’s small government philosophy is “Your body is your body, your life is your life, and your property is your property.” Government should not pick winners and losers, but let all consenting adults engage in whatever peaceful activities they choose.
The libertarian philosophy holds that government should be limited to army, for defense only, courts to settle property disputes, and police, even this could be replaced by community safety groups a la Minneapolis post-George Floyd.
Prior to running for the highest office in the land, Oliver received nationwide press coverage for his 2022 U.S. Senate campaign running as a libertarian in his home state of Georgia. By garnering over 2% of the vote in that race, he famously caused a high-stakes run-off election between the donkey and the elephant. It sparked a nationwide discussion on the benefits of ranked choice voting, as opposed to first past the post. This is one example of the effect that a third-party candidate can have.
As you consider which presidential candidate to vote for this November, I ask you to reflect on the authoritarian duopoly (the welfare/warfare state that creates dependents and muzzles free speech) versus the opportunity posed by breaking the cycle and engaging in democracy as a means of including alternative viewpoints from the status quo.
A vote for Oliver is a signal to the establishment that you reject the forever wars, want more options, and desire a country that puts peace and prosperity for all over groupthink, indoctrination and dependency.
Change can be uncomfortable; that is expected. But often, our best self-growth moments are found by operating outside our comfort zone, if only for a taste of what better alternatives there might be. Make a plan to vote, and vote Oliver for President.
votechaseoliver.com to learn more.
コメント