Again with the absurd complaint that a third candidate is – by definition – a spoiler
This week’s Fortune Magazine includes an article entitled, The 2016 Presidential Election Could Have Two Spoiler Candidates. The article reports on the campaigns of Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein.
By calling them spoilers, the magazine of Wall Street clings to the notion that anyone running against the two establishment candidates is, by definition, a spoiler.
Note: When I was petitioning for an opportunity to run for governor in Connecticut, headlines read;
“Spoiler alert: Pelto to challenge Malloy as 3rd-party candidate,” “Spoiler alert: Pelto goes all-in for governor,” “Spoiler Fears on Left in Connecticut Governor Race,” and “Spoiler Alert, Connecticut: Jon Pelto Says He Isn’t One.”
Putting aside the notion that we are supposed to be an egalitarian democracy that thrives on choice, the “mass media” continues to serve as pawns for the Democrat and Republican parties when they state, suggest or imply that more political choices will “spoil” (i.e. ruin) the American political system.
It is an outrageous approach to covering elections considering that the United States was founded on the fundamental concept of democracy, one in which the notion of political parties was frowned upon by some of the most eloquent founders of the country.
In his farewell address, the nation’s first President, George Washington warned;
“Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner Again with the absurd complaint that a third candidate is – by definition – a spoiler - Wait What?:
