Birthday Pony wrote:Election after election, I'm pretty tired of this "least bad candidate" nonsense. The argument detracts from things we should be doing, as anarchists, and serves as nothing more than a personal justification for why some anarchist somewhere is voting. It should be obvious that voting doesn't result in the revocation of your Anarchist Gold Member(tm) card, so why must we discuss the lesser of two or three or four evils?
The point is, that no candidate, no matter how obscure or radical or 'libertarian,' is really going to get what needs to be done done. I've seen so many people caught up in this Ron Paul debate to the point where some believe voting for Ron Paul would be a radical shift forward towards whatever ends it is Anarchists are trying to accomplish. While I'd agree that Ron Paul's America would be a different beast, I'm not sure it would be a weaker beast. For instance,
He's a nazi sympathizer. The effects of that should be pretty clear to anyone on this board with a critique of ancap. Nazis buy a storefront and make it their little nazi kingdom.
He wants to pull out of the UN, but supports private security. That just makes Blackwater about 500 times scarier, since the US will be completely unaccountable for any actions its companies commit overseas.
He wants a wall between the US and Mexico. Rather than destroy borders, Paul would just like stronger borders.
I'm sure there's more, but I don't want this to turn into an exhaustive list about why RP sucks. Basically, all I want to say, is that if you like Ron Paul, cool. But please, stop telling me he's the best choice for Anarchists.
Well, I'll tell you why I defend Ron Paul. Because its a way of engaging people. In the absence of electoral politics, people will make the same bad decisions, just not at a voting booth. Their sense of priority is so skewed sometimes I'm not even sure how to respond.
I have heard several people decry him for his pro-choice views ALONE. As a friend of mine put it "What's more important, preventing way in Iran, or making sure women don't have to drive to the next state over to have an abortion?"
You also have to remember that, many of the objections they would raise against a mainstream Right-Lib candidate are less violent versions of the reaction they would have to strict anarchist lines of reasoning. If I cannot for example convince someone that Ron Paul is a good candidate, because he'd like to cut back the military, stop fighting wars everywhere, end the war on drugs, eliminate the government monopoly on currency, etc etc, then there is even less hope of me convincing them that property itself needs to be called into question.