From: Chris Thompson (x4@rocketmail.com)
Date: Tue Jun 17 1997 - 07:27:42 MDT
> Dear fellow Extropians:
>
> If you think about it a bit more seriously there is a germ of an idea
> there. From a more pragmatic perspective it might be more effective
to
> work from within the structure of an existing major political
> organization and modify its direction in order to help advance
society
> more directly. Logic would indicate that the political organization
you
> might want to consider changing is that organization which is the
least
> progressive and least representative of our diverse culture. I think
you
> can all figure out which party that is.
> What do you all think about that one?
The Communist Party?
Seriously though. Looking at the growth of the reform party, it's easy
to see that big things are possible. Even if your leader is insane.
(Well, that would describe the Nazi's too.) Look at the last US
Presidential election. The Libertarian party didnt even finish 4th.
They finished 5th. Ralph Nader and the Green Party finished 4th.
(Albeit many california/Alaska/Hawaii voters voted for him out of
spite in last minute voting because ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN had already
declared clinton the winner.)
What it all proves, however, is that Americans in particular are ready
for multipartisan politics. Winning elections today has nothing to do
with right ideas, vision, drive, determination, sincerity, or
integrity. It is a matter of having a candidate who is Photogenic,
quick witted, and able to 'handle' the press. Because honestly, most
voters base their decision on who to vote for based on what the press
tells them. Bob Dole lost the presidential election not because he
supported tobacco companies, not because he was republican, but
because he was older, not photogenic, cold, and aloof. Clinton, with
all of his whitewater/travel office/paula jones/funding baggage won
handily because he handles the press better.
So as extropians looking at the political arena, we must look at the
best "Intelligent Technology" to win elections. THAT is the prime
directive of a party today. You win elections first, make change
later. We need a slick, savvy, intelligent, photogenic person as a
mouthpiece, and once elected, work change from the shadows. Deceitful?
perhaps. The way things are done already in most other parties?
Definitely.
Take a look at the Libertarians and Howard Stern's Gubernatorial bid
for New York. My personal opinion is that he would have won. (Only in
New York, sheesh) He stated from the beginning that he would take
office, reinstitute the death penalty, and step down. Leaving, of
course, the lieutenant governor, a trusted hand picked libertarian
insider, as Governor. Stern says he dropped out because he didnt want
to disclose his income on the forms. I think he got cold feet because
he thought he would win. (ED Note: I dislike mostly everything about
Howard Stern)
As a 28 year old, I cannot run in the important elections for another
7 years. There is an Ohio Senatorial race in my 35th year, and I will
be running.
-Chris Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:30 MST