Why
I am Running for President
James
L. Oyster
I
recently announced my candidacy for President. I have received a favorable
response from many of you, and I am very thankful to all of you who
responded. At this time I would like to further explain my candidacy.
First,
it is important to state that I am not a politician, and I am not running
based on my belief that I am "well positioned" to win the election.
I know full well that the "odds" of winning the election (or even a
significant percentage of the votes) are very much against me. Common
wisdom is that one must be the candidate chosen by either the Republican
or Democratic party to have any chance of winning the election. So why
run?
The reason
is simple. I am not running to "win." The purpose of this candidacy
is to provide a "choice." While it may be argued that such a choice
is meaningless, I do not agree. It is totally up to the American people
whether they want a choice or not. In this regard, I am reminded of
the very formation of this country. A band of settlers, tired of oppressive
government, decided to declare independence from the most powerful political
power of its day Ü Great Britain. They beat the "odds." They beat the
odds because their cause was just, and they were willing to pay the
price for their freedom from oppressive political power.
I am convinced
that many, if not most, Americans are sick and tired of partisan politics.
However, most believe that they are helpless to do anything about it.
The purpose of this candidacy is to say that there is an alternative.
There is something you can do about it. Our founding fathers did not
fight the War of Independence in vain. You don't have to accept politics
as usual. You don't have to come out of the ballot box following the
next election saying that you selected the "lesser of the two poor choices"
which were set before you.
However,
I am not saying that the right to a choice will come easy. It will take
the will and energy of the people. Most importantly, it will take the
"outrage" of the people Ü perhaps to the same degree that the settlers
who founded this country were outraged at the British government. I
don't know if this outrage exists to the degree necessary to cause the
American people to rise up and do what is required to create a change.
I will say that I am outraged. I am outraged at the partisanship which
has made "party" interests of greater concern to our elected representatives
than the interests of our country and its people.
I am also
outraged because I believe that the problem of partisanship is endemic
to our political system. You can't get nominated to be a candidate for
President by one of the two major parties unless you have proven your
loyalty to the party. As a result, you cannot have a "non-partisan"
President as long as the choice is one of the candidates selected by
the Republicans or Democrats. Partisanship is built into the system.
The problem
of the system is demonstrated by the impeachment debate. Republicans
and Democrats took an oath to be impartial in their decision-making.
Yet voting has been entirely along party lines while both sides claim
to take their oath seriously and to be acting impartially. Giving both
sides the benefit of the doubt (that from their perspective they are
being impartial), the only explanation for the party-line vote is that
both sides are so ingrained in their political beliefs that it is impossible
for them to be anything but partisan. This being the case, you cannot
elect a "non-partisan" President from either of the two parties. Expecting
a Republican or Democratic President to act in an impartial, non-partisan
way for the benefit of the country would be like expecting a zebra to
shed its stripes. The two-party system demands candidates who are loyal
to their respective parties and have proven their loyalty to the degree
that they can be expected to vote with their party on most any issue.
They may be sincere in their beliefs, but they would never have gotten
to the point of being selected if those beliefs did not predictably
run along party lines. There simply is no possibility of an independent
thinker being nominated by one of the two major parties.
For those
Americans who want a truly independent candidate who will be non-partisan
in nature, motivated first and foremost to serve the best interests
of the people and not some political party, I propose to offer a choice.
That is why I am running for President. It is up to voters as to whether
they want to be empowered to have a choice. It will take tremendous
effort among the people to make an independent candidate viable. I am
merely making myself available. I am providing a choice for those who
want it. It is up to the people as to whether they want choice enough
to make it a possibility. If they don't, they will have no one to blame
but themselves if they come out of the voting box in the next election
saying "they had no choice" and they selected "the lesser of two evils."
History
will judge this nation by the choices we make. If we select poor leaders
but had a choice to select good leaders, we as a people will be judged
by history. If our own apathy is the cause for our inability to select
good leaders, history will also judge us for our failure to act for
our own good.
I, for
one, want to have a choice, and I will not come out of the voting booth
saying I had no choice.
That is
why I am running for President.
