One of my favorite political horserace sites is Electoral-Vote.com. In addition to a daily run down of new polls and current projected candidate electoral counts, there’s usually an interesting commentary from the Votemaster. Today’s commentary mentioned the fight over political party platforms. On this the Votemaster stated:

Nobody ever reads the party platforms anyway, but activists are willing to draw blood to get them their way. It is probably the only aspect of American politics where ideas dominate.

He’s probably right considering that his site generally only recognizes Democratic and Republican candidates. However, when considering alternative political parties, he’s not quite right. As a Libertarian, I know that platforms occassionally are considered sources of ideas for negative attacks. And activists do their darnedest to make the platform represent the philosophy. Usually, alternative political parties and their candidates even express these ideas (often to their electoral deaths). I would say that this is the other place where ideas dominate in politics. But the general reluctance of people to vote for these idea-filled candidates gives us an insight to the American’s regard for the concept of ideas in politics.

Having been an aspiring political strategist for a number of years, I’ve sure that I’ve heard the term “triangulation” before today being used in a political sense. Today, one of the talking head bimbos of 24-7 cable “news” used the term in reference to Obama’s move toward the center over the recent few days. Saying one thing in the primary and then changing to appeal to a more general audience is one of the most glaring examples of why I would rather vote for candidates from alternative political parties. At least you know where so-called “third party” candidates are coming from, which is something I wholeheartedly agree we need in American politics today.

Beyond that, though, as a Libertarian, it only backs up what I’ve been saying for years is the basis of the Libertarian Party’s hidden appeal and potential electoral strength. Libertarians don’t need to adopt positions of conservatives or liberals or move to the middle, since libertarianism is a consistent political philosophy that embraces what some would call fiscal conservatism or social liberalism. And what it amounts to — leaving individuals alone so they can live their lives the way they want — is much more easily marketable than the hodgepodge of arbitrarily deciding what part of your life you should want controlled by the political bureaucracy.

I’ve been a bit perplexed lately by all the news coverage about immigration protests. It’s one of those issues that kind of runs together in my mind — guest worker programs, more border patrols, fast tracks to American citizenship, building really big walls and fences to keep illegals out, yo quiero Taco Bell. But here’s what I’ve gotten out of it so far.

First and foremost, you have to state exactly what you’re talking about. Stop using euphemistic terms. You’re talking about Mexicans wandering into and being in the United States without permission. You’re not talking about Canadians. There’s not a whole hell of a lot of coverage about tons of Irish people just showing up and deciding to stay.

Secondly, you need to look at this illegal exodus from Mexico in terms of security. Now I’m not a shill for the concept of Fatherland and Motherland Security, but you really do have to consider this. I’ve heard estimates that there are approximately eleven million illegals in the United States currently. That’s a sub-population, who if they were a US state, would be Ohio. And they are walking down the streets in major urban areas waving the flag of a foreign land. This is a terrible marketing idea that will discourage current citizens from welcoming illegal immigrants with open arms. This is particularly true in a day-and-age where the government has jacked up the typical citizen to believe that terrorists from other countries are lurking around every corner with an intent to kill them.

A third way of looking at this issue is economically. A commonly-cited justification for illegal immigration has been that there are jobs in the United States that are simply beneath the current American citizen. Now I’m not sure what propaganda office in Mexico City (or Washington, DC) is spouting this nonsense, but if I needed to support my family and didn’t have a job, I would snake toilets at the National Diarrhea Convention to feed and clothe them. Not that I know how to snake a toilet, but I’m sure I could be trained and pick it up fairly quickly. Would I enjoy it? Probably not, but I contend that there is no job that Americans wouldn’t take if their family’s lives depended on it.

If Mexico is such a bad place and people are clamoring to leave in droves, why doesn’t the United States simply declare war on Mexico? I’m sure some conservative genius in the White House could point out that eleven million illegals would constitute a substantial invading force or even a highly organized network of terrorist cells. The Mexican government’s complicity in encouraging its citizens to cross the border could be debated on the floor of the United Nations. The White House could even mobilize its Televangelist Special Forces Teams to take the “Just War” message to the masses watching Fox News. Hmmm… Something about that seems kind of familiar, but I digress.

The result would be this: The Mexican army would surrender. They would say, “Take us prisoner, and haul our asses to the United States.” While Vicente Fox would protest and resist, he’d just be protecting his job security like all bureaucrats do. Hell, he might even go for the idea of becoming an American, traveling to California and landing the lead role in the next Zorro remake. Mexico could be made a territory or a colony, all-the-while going through the process of becoming the fifty-first state.

I wouldn’t call declaring war on Mexico a libertarian solution. No, it is far from it. It’s an idea that I would suspect only authoritarian wackjobs would seriously hold. But then again, there’s a lot of authoritarian wackjobs at work in the US government today. Personally, I believe that peaceful and productive people should be allowed to cross borders and become citizens of whatever country they choose. The big question in my mind still is how to determine who’s peaceful and productive and who’s not. Declaring war may be an easy solution for some, but it would be far more advantageous to attack the problem of Mexico’s economy than to attack the people of Mexico who are just trying to make a buck.