The 2016 presidential campaign is arguably the most interesting, unconventional and controversial in American history. We have seen the rise of authoritarian populists and the fall of establishment relics, and the theme for this election has become nothing less than an ultimatum for the status quo. However, in viewing all the novelties of this circus of an election year, we can't help looking through blinding antique spectacles with a heat-seeking upgrade.
The spectacles, the sight-guiding tools which filter the raw, unclear world for the looker's comprehension, are of course a metaphor for the media. Nowadays, we often think of "the media" as this massive leviathan with a thousand different heads, all trying to influence our thoughts and perceptions of the world. It's a reasonable view, and it has never been truer. While you have CNN, NBC, Fox, all with their own styles of reporting, they're all guilty of the same thing: picking the political orchard and putting the reddest apples out front. But red apples can be mealy, rotten and wormy just like the rest of them. Let me get to the core of the situation.
The media is guilty of silencing certain candidates and highlighting others. By devoting more air time and ink to a handful of candidates, the viewers, readers and listeners are systematically denied sufficient and complete information about all the others. This is known as the great media blackout, and it's shaped elections in the past, just like it's currently shaping the most important election of our lifetimes. Polls are the leading method for blackouts: they conduct a faulty poll, the leaders get attention. The more attention, the better the poll results. Unfortunately for America, the polls just started voting. The more votes, the more attention. It's an endless cycle, and this is the reason for the rise of the despotic Donald, and the quiet, unnoticeable departure of too many a great candidate on both sides.
I'm writing this as a Rand Paul supporter, a limited-government Jeffersonian conservative, and I still haven't gotten over his departure from the race. Rand was, and still is, the candidate with whom I emphatically agree the most. I found out much of my information partially from news media, but mostly from Rand's campaign website, speeches, videos and Facebook posts. All it takes is a little effort on our part to get to know who we're voting for. Losing honest, liberty-seeking candidates is how we ended up with the likes of John McCain, Mitt Romney and now the Trump-Cruz-Rubio triumvirate. And it's also why so many true conservatives stayed home in 2008 and 2012 in protest. As we observed, however, abstinence in protest is silence in support (of the left).
The primaries are the time to elect the candidate we want representing the cause in November. In my opinion, the primary is no less important than the general election, because if we nominate someone who can't win in November, the buck (or elephant, or donkey) stops at the wrong place. Now is the time for choosing: do we really want to restore our republic, after eight years of miserable governance? Or do we want good looks and wisecracks?
Don't let the media herd us like sheep, toward the water where we will surely drown. Look, learn, challenge, and decide for yourself your choice for President of the United States. It's your vote anyway.
