Why My Candidacy is Different
For Them, It's ONLY About "Winning"
"I won't vote for Libertarians because they never win." I hear this quote (or one like it) wherever I campaign, and it's absolutely true ... for the moment. "So, since this is true," most people seem to wonder, "why do you even try to compete?" Because, quite frankly, I don't believe that "winning the race" is the "end-all, be-all" of political existence.
Here's an analogy to illustrate how I perceive the Libertarian position. Suppose you're playing a relatively intense game of Monopoly. You've used all of the tricks and traps that you know to achieve your success, and you walk away with the win. Congratulations. Now, the game is over and while you're excitedly taking victory laps around the table and very animatedly shouting to anyone who can hear you about your success, the rest of us are quietly putting the game pieces back into the box. "But I won!" you exclaim because you still want everyone to know. "That's nice," we say as we calmly continue putting the game away. "Now what?"
"To live between the wars in our time, living in real time, holding the real time, holding on to yesterdays."
A political race is NOT a game, and winning one is only the first step in a longer journey. Everyone knows this, so that's not really any startling revelation. But in the media, the ONLY aspect of politics that is continually reported on is which tribe won and which tribe(s) lost. It's not about the issue; it's about the win-loss ratio, and how much "power" the winning tribe accumulates as a result of the win. Sure, there may be some analysis about how this win or loss will affect this tribe or that one, and maybe some coverage about how they perceive the issue, but the only aspect that partisans ever seem to care about is whether they won or not.
The Old Parties Don't (or Won't) Compromise
And why do they only care about "winning"?
There's an axiom that is currently applied to American politics: "You can eat anywhere you like as long as it's McDonalds or Burger King. You can drink any soda you like as long as it's Coke or Pepsi." Despite the gallows humor associated with the axiom, I think the more important question to ask, especially in Texas, is "what if I like tacos and cerveza?"
Old Party candidates only seem to seek out information that fits with their existing biases, appeals to their existing sensibilities or morals, or fills gaps in their knowledge and awareness (as long as that knowledge conforms to the first two criteria). This is because the aspects of "either-or" and "for-against" that seem to have predominated American politics since the turn of the century have created a political atmosphere where candidates never actually discuss the issues. Instead, they only talk about their positions on the issues, and hope that you agree with them. Both sides of the political duopoly have their pet issues and simplified views, and the majority of the populace is tempted by the allure, the narcotic-like effect of these simplistic solutions that seemingly need only the "political will" to succeed. But if there really were a simplistic answer to all of our political woes, it would probably be some idealized campaign bumper sticker slogan that sounds great but would have a perfect failure rate in the real world. That's because for all of their compelling partisan bickering, nothing ever seems to change from two-view stalemate with power that ebbs and flows with each election cycle.
I don't have any simplistic answers, nor will I pretend that I do (except for the "tacos and cerveza"; that's pretty simple, I think). The single most important idea that I can bring to the Texas legislature as a representative is "compromise", a compromise that allows me to take the best parts of each side and put together something that (at the very least) most people can agree with even if they don't get everything that they wanted.
One of the primary reasons that I ran for the Texas House of Representatives is that I was not offering to be a “better” candidate, simply a “different” one.
Libertarians refer to the Democratic and Republican Parties as "the Old Parties". To us, they are sedimentary behemoths who do not believe in compromise despite all of their rhetoric to the contrary, especially during their campaigns.
That is an advantage that I had hoped to bring to the Texas legislature as the representative from District 57: compromise.
Compromise allows us (you AND I)
- to work together to build and repair our crumbling infrastructure, both the physical and cultural.
- to have both tough border security AND a hard-working immigrant/citizen population.
- to lead the world in clean energy production AND protect our environment for future generations.
- to drive down healthcare costs, keep insurance private AND ensure that no one (regardless of citizenship status) goes without adequate healthcare.
- to protect our rights under the Second Amendment AND ensure that dangerous weapons are withheld from those who should not have them.
If you are as tired as I am of the Old Parties continually bickering about their respective "righteousness" and are eager to solve problems instead of recycling old ones to bicker about, then I would appreciate your consideration and support. You WILL have a choice: you can vote for more of the status quo, or you can vote for something different -- someone who might actually get something done for a change. Choose wisely.
If you're tired of the two-view stalemate political atmosphere where everybody talks but no one ever seems to say anything, and nothing ever seems to actually get done, then perhaps it's time for a change. I would appreciate your support for something new and someone different in the Texas legislature because I feel that the people of District 57 deserve a representative who is not going to get stuck in the stalemate of partisan politics.
