Contact us now: Phone: +111111111

CHP

Commentary

Only Two Choices?

Tue, July 02, 2024   |   Author: Rod Taylor   |   Volume 31    Issue 27 | Share: Gab | Facebook | Twitter   

Last night, we watched the first televised debate between two of the 2024 US Presidential candidates. One was the 45th US President, Donald Trump. The other was the current sitting President, Joe Biden. Although neither man has been officially nominated by their respective parties, they are being called the “presumptive nominees” for the Republican and Democrat parties. Most Americans presume that one or the other of these two will go on to win the White House in November of this year.

Both men carry some considerable baggage and both face some significant obstacles in their quest to win the support of a majority of American voters . . . or at least a majority of the votes in critical “swing states” where American voters will cast ballots that will determine the deciding result through the somewhat convoluted structure of the Electoral College. The process is quite different than ours here in Canada where we choose in a “first-past-the-post” system who will be our local Member of Parliament and the party with the greatest number of MPs is given the opportunity to “form government.” In the US, the voters in each state (by voting for the President of their choice) actually elect members of the Electoral College and those members determine the final outcome. In some states, a majority vote for one candidate will mean 100% of the state support will go to that candidate. In other states, those electoral votes will be allotted according to the actual percentage of the vote. As I said, it’s complicated.

The significant element I want to focus on is the fact that, in the US, it is presumed that the next President will be either a Republican or a Democrat. However, there is a provision that allows other candidates to seek to have their names on the ballot and—potentially—be elected to the highest office in the land. One such candidate seeking the presidency is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He is working very hard to be recognized as a legitimate candidate and believes he has a realistic chance of becoming the 47th US President if he is given equal opportunity to present his case to the American people. So far, he has not been given the level playing field he believes he is entitled to. He was not invited to participate in CNN’s first televised debate so he held his own debate at the same time; he called it the Real Debate. Whatever you may think of Mr. Kennedy’s platform or his likelihood of succeeding in November, one has to admire his pluck and creativity for taking on the giants and generating excitement about his alternative vision.

The purpose of this article is not to promote RFK Jr. While I appreciate his candour, his energy, his vision and his integrity, he is not a champion for the pro-life cause. His running mate for the VP slot, Nicole Shanahan, is also a supporter of abortion rights for women, although she and Kennedy have both indicated that they agree with some yet-to-be-agreed-upon gestational term limits. This position is unacceptable to both pro-abort Democrats and committed pro-lifers and is certainly not a position I could endorse. But then, neither of the two name-brand candidates on the CNN stage have a highly principled stance on this issue either. Joe Biden supports abortion up to birth for any reason or no reason and Trump waffled on stage, saying he agreed with the Supreme Court allowing legal access to “abortion pills” and seemed satisfied that by getting rid of Roe v. Wade and putting abortion legislation back in the jurisdiction of state legislators, the moral debate over the issue was put to rest. Still, of the three, Trump has the highest rating among pro-lifers for his past statements about protecting innocent life and his participation—as President in the March for Life in Washington.

My main point, though, has to do with the presumptions of a society—and especially the media—that there are only two choices when there is at least one obvious and viable alternative. Bobby Kennedy Jr. has name recognition, an enthusiastic support group, has already gotten his name on a number of state ballots, has raised tens of millions of dollars and has generated polling numbers between 10% and 15% in a handful of states. He fills an obvious gap for voters who cannot in good conscience support an ailing Biden or a Trump they regard as unfit for the presidency due to his character or behaviour (they don’t like his Tweets). Not only was Mr. Kennedy denied access to the CNN televised debate, he’s also been denied (by the Biden White House) the kind of Secret Service protection that many other presidential candidates have been granted in the past. The fact that his father, Robert Kennedy and his uncle, President John F. Kennedy were both assassinated makes this denial of protection especially dangerous. It also means that RFK Jr. has had to use about 25% of his campaign donations to hire his own personal protection, further disadvantaging him in the campaign.

So the USA continues to cling to binary politics: the presumption that only one of the two main political parties could possibly be elected President and that no other candidates are worthy of public attention . . . which, of course, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If only Trump and Biden are seen on TV, if theirs are the only stories being told by the mainstream media, the likelihood of a third-party or independent candidate being elected is very small. Never impossible.

In Canada—although we are much more willing to recognize a multitude of parties—we mostly operate under the same presumptions. The Liberals and the Conservatives are seen as the only possible parties to form government in the next election. Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Trudeau are the only party leaders whose daily comments are discussed and analyzed on the evening news of our state-funded national broadcaster, with an occasional reference to Mr. Singh or Ms. May. By constantly contrasting the policies of the Cons and Libs, CBC, CTV, the Globe and Mail, etc. basically give voters and taxpayers the impression that they really only have two choices.

This is not only a disservice to the smaller parties (CHP Canada among them) but a terrible disservice to voters who deserve to know what we stand for and how we can help them achieve the kind of Canada they desire: debt-free, prosperous, and respectful of human life and family values. Learn more about us at chp.ca. You have more than two choices!



Download PDF Version

Share to Gab

Other Commentary by Rod Taylor: