"Why do Third Parties run candidates for president? Wouldn't it make sense to start with local and state races that are less long-shot, and build their way up?
Maybe you have asked that question yourself. It's a fair question.
This thread's for you.
To start, off we absolutely agree that state and local races are important. We're a party that believes in subsidiarity. That's the idea that higher levels of authority exist to support the lower levels in their proper function.
But there's the thing:
State and local races are also very difficult for third parties. The odds are stacked against us by the duopoly. To be a real contender takes resources. Even something as relatively low-level as a state representative race takes ample volunteers and tens of thousands of dollars.
Getting those resources requires that people know about us. As you probably know, there's one time every 4 years when lots of Americans are paying attention to politics.
Here's what's been happening to interest in the ASP as the election approaches (based on Google trends).
The graph there is in proportional terms, so people are looking us up about ten times as often now as they were over the summer.
That means more members, more donors, and more enthusiasm.
In turn, we'll be able to put those resources to work to give Americans some real #WholeLife choices at the ballot box in the next four years. We're already working on plans to do just that on a scale we haven't achieved before.
Of course, that's not all a presidential campaign does. It lets Americans who embrace our values vote their conscience, and it puts pressure on the duopoly parties by denying them votes when they fail to live up to those values.
But crucially, it's also about movement building.
To make a difference, we have to be willing to play the long game, and every vote, retweet, donation, or friendly ASP-related conversation with neighbor helps us do that.
Eventually? You never know.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For a long time American conservatives liked to say that liberals were the party of "moral relativism." The conservatives stood up for the old fashioned moral truths, while liberals believed "if it feels good do it."
They weren't *entirely* wrong about this, but...
...the American Right has long suffered from its own form of moral relativism in the economic sphere.
Specifically, the idea that outcomes in the marketplace are somehow above moral judgement.
Right-leaning economists tend to believe that the market produces the best outcomes because it rationally aggregates the subjective preferences of all the actors involved. Whatever exchange value people are willing to give up to get something, that is what it is worth, they say.
It's Monday night, let's kick back with a distributism thread.
Remember back when George W Bush had this idea called the "ownership society?"
Yes, that does seem like a lifetime ago.
Here's what President Bush said about it back then: "If you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital stake in the future of this country."
This poll a good example of what often passes for conservatism in this country.
It has such an impoverished understanding of liberty that it can't conceive of anything between "I do what I want" and communism.
Edmund Burke, often considered the founder of conservatism as a political philosophy, had this to say:
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites."
Guess he should have subscribed to Prager U.
The truth is that neither of the duopoly parties in this country have a remotely adequate understanding of how our individual rights should be balanced with responsibilities to serve the common good.
This is an excellent piece. Ramesh writes from a Republican perspective, but there is wisdom here for anybody who refuses to be blackmailed into accepting the unacceptable from both duopoly parties.
"The voter who decides that neither Biden nor Trump deserves his support will be accused of irresponsibility, of escapism...of wasting a vote. There is, on this view, an obligation to pick among the top two candidates. It is worth resisting this supposed imperative..."
"If a vote that does not determine the outcome of an election is wasted, then every vote is wasted — and wasted all the more if it is cast for someone the voter does not want to be president."