Thanks for coming! I plan to post a lot of interesting articles and comment on a wide range of things-- from political to religious, from private to public, from formal writing on public policy to snippets on random observations.
Why doesn't a network produce a debate for the third-party candidates on a certain number of ballots?
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 11:23 PM
3 Comments
First and foremost, I am saved by God's grace as manifested most clearly through the atoning death of Jesus Christ-- and thus, adopted into His family. As a result, I increasingly seek to extend His grace to others in my daily life. On the home front, I am a husband and father to four young men (two by adoption and two the more conventional way). Professionally, I am an economist who loves to teach and is active in public policy circles. Vocationally, I am an active writer and the author of three books (one on the book of Joshua; two on public policy-- one secular, one Christian). Finally, I am the co-author of a 21-month discipleship curriculum, Thoroughly Equipped (and a lighter 36-week version), for developing competent lay-leaders in the Church. Related to that work, Kurt and I have two books, Enough Horses in the Barn and Roll Up Your Sleeves.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
3 Comments:
The problem is, where do you draw the line as to which 3rd party candidates to invite? Some of them might be reasonably mainstream, such as Bob Barr or Ralph Nader (who currently poll 1-2% in polls that include them). Some of them are more on the fringe, such as Chuck Baldwin, or entirely on the fringe, as (in years past) John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party.
I fear such a debate would end up becoming an argument as to why the US is in such peril: Is it because we have turned away from the Law of God as specified in the Old Testament, or because we continue to ignore the Vedic Sciences, or because the Illuminati control everything? That might draw a big audience—just for the entertainment value.
Yes, it would be a necessarily arbitrary standard. I'd connect it to ballot access-- those on enough ballots to win enough electoral votes to conceivably win. If that disqualified too many, some other criteria could be invoked.
I'm not complaining as much as I am interested in the "why not" of it. It seems to me that it would get a good audience-- at least 1/4 of the VP debate. Sounds like you agree.
As to the particulars you mention, was that something that Hagelin talked about? Of the current crop, only McKinney might represent a similar worldview.
None of the three particulars were meant to apply to any specific fringe candidate. But a quick bit of Googling indicates that John Hagelin does indeed talk about the Vedic sciences. (I only remembered that he was associated with some kind of religious cult.)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home