Hey all.
So as you know, I’m a student at Brandeis University.
Tomorrow, Mike Gravel is coming to speak, after being invited by the SDS chapter on campus. There was so much interest – 137 confirmed guests on facebook and counting – that they had to change venues for him (from Pearlman lounge to Lown Auditorium).
Why should this concern you? First off, you’re invited! Brandeis University, Lown Auditorium at 8pm.
Secondly, does anyone have any suggestions as to what to ask this guy?
Please share widely!
I would love for him to explain his “Fair Tax” in detail.
All I have heard is sound bites about how he has a way to make it something other than the regressive tax method that it is.
But I never hear any actual detail.
Maybe now as a Libertarian he will take the time to explain his idea in detail?
did a wonderful two-part interview with Mike Gravel in December of 2006 in case you missed it. It does cover Gravel’s opinions on a fair tax in some detail.
That was an interesting and thought provoking piece.
Check it out.
What would ever possess him to join the libertarians?
<
p>Why on earth would he support a national sales tax to replace an income tax?
<
p>If he wanted to run for President, why didn’t he… err… campaign!?!?
<
p>Mike Gravel = Ralph Nader 2.0
why is his party a traitor to him? Trying to exclude someone with ideas from the debates is not exactly supposed to be the “Democratic” way.
<
p>I’ve talked with an economist who absolutely rejects the national sales tax concept. However, the rejection was based upon conservative proposals and not those presented by Gravel. If you read what he has to say about taxes, Gravel’s ideas are quite different and take tax fairness and progressivism into account. The current system is flawed, regressive and corrupted. According to same economist, one of the ways to make the current system work would be to eliminate the mortgage exemption. That would have even less appeal than a national sales tax.
<
p>I have no love for Nader, but I do understand why progressive Dems feel like the party has abandoned them time and time again. Mike Gravel is no Ralph Nader, and he will have no impact on the election other than to have more of a voice for his cause. I imagine that was his motivation. I doubt the Libertarian party will ever be the same with Mike Gravel as a member. Let’s hope he pushes some Libertarians back into the Democratic party!
If it can welcome Ron Paul and Mike Gravel, at least one of you were in the wrong primary process…or the Libertarian Party doesn’t really have any core principles.
It seems more likely that the Libertarian Party has finaly come of age in that it can entertain fundamental ideological debate between forces with actual differing viewpoints. This is in contrast with the model of the (former?) duopoly of power which had sought to consolidate a single view point by promoting like mindedness through constant repition and the marginalization of anyone with fundamental differences.
See DK in the doghouse again? Back where he belongs?
It will be refreshing to see the give and take as people like Mike Gravel and Bob Barr hammer out an actual strategy to confront the coming times.
Certainly more interesting than listening to people trying to convince the public that a debate as to who personaly can best implement the undebatable is in fact a political debate at all.
I can definitely see it to an extent, and on some grounds Paul and Gravel agree. But, remember that on most issues, there are a multitude of reasons to take a certain position. For example, the war on Iraq can be opposed as American involvement and entanglement in foreign affairs…or a failure because America did not use international influence and affiliation in good faith. It can be opposed as unfairly placing a burden on the minority and poor who are more likely to sign up for the military…or a waste of American sacrifice for the betterment of “lesser” races.
<
p>You can adopt a policy for a variety of reasons that can represent contradictory values. While Gravel and Paul agreed on many issues, they did so from such different worldviews that I fail to understand how one party can contain both.
And thus compromise is made and a rational policy is enabled.
You might find it interesting to note just how many general concepts can be completely agreed upon by various “opposing” factions even if for vastly different ideological reasoning.
These agreements used to be known as progress. Focusing on common ground rather than differences is sometimes the norm.
These days apparently statism holds the edge.
You can make a policy this way, but not a set of cogent policies — or a platform. Those come from a shared worldview, not a serendipitous sharing of desired outcomes. We’re not talking about policymaker which legislatures do, but rather proposing policies, which are born of shared worldviews.
Perhaps your concept of “worldview” is a bit too all encompassing then.
If in defining “worldview” you are refering to a desire to see a prospering peacable nation in which all have an opportunity to participate in the enjoyment of the benifit than I think that you will find that most breathing humans can saftely be lumped together as agreeable.
If you define “worldview” as encompassing the specific method to be pursued to achieve the above then problems arise.
I think it is safe to conclude that you at least have considered the possibility that the correct solution may not always be the most obvious.
When doing something as complex as directing a modern state, I think you need to have a plan, and a plan would be rooted in a worldview. I just can’t imagine that a platform that is half Gravel and half Paul could really hold together.
<
p>For example, Paul has some definite plans about economic direction. Gravel has some definite plans about government-by-referendum. What happens if a referendum passes that preserves the status quo and militates against Paul’s fiscal policies? Muddling through with the best intentions is an idea that the Democrats have already stolen, anyway…
You keep using Ron Paul as your example and I just want to point out that he is apparantly staying within the Republican fold.
I think for your analogy though, that we should be discussing Bob Barr as the ying to Mike Gravels yang.
What I think you will find, regardless of who the chosen characters are, is that they are all quick to point out that what they would be trying to do is get us pointed into a general direction … and whatever concrete steps that would be taken would be transitional steps, no abrupt 180s, with an eye on getting us pointed towards a place where we would at least be closer to the objective,
a place where the future is at least in theory a palatable place to find oneself, rather than the bankrupt wasteland that the present course promises to deliver us to.
I think most supporters understand that we will not get there overnight and I think anyone would get some slack as long as it was percieved that they were working on delivering us from this mess rather than just digging deeper roots with which to entrench themselves.
‘My’ in the sense of era, not membership…no matter WHAT my FBI file says (the dangers of working at a coffee house in my youth…).
And what role did he play in the concept of the ads? Those were award deserving pieces! Played on his kookiness, expressed his anger but kept it inside of a box people could still handle.
<
p>Complete opposite of his performance during the debates or interviews. Apparently he does not have control of his inner voice.