Perspectives: The candidate I never thought I’d vote for

OPINION –Working in the media, I’ve covered every general election for the past 24 years.

The pre-election hype from both parties is always the same: “These are your only choices. You have to choose one.” And yet, somehow, regardless of who wins, the size and costs of government predictably metastasize and freedom declines.

The current two-party system has made an absolute science out of promoting the illusion of choice minus the possibility of anything actually changing. If you doubt this, just consider the ridiculous contrived reasons for which people say they hate one candidate or the other in the presidential race.

Two-party groupthink encourages political theater and nothing more.

Yet, when someone refuses to follow the herd, the system’s supporters, in a classic case of psychological projection, accuse the non-compliant of succumbing to narcissism and self-aggrandizement.

How dare someone think outside the box when there is political power at stake and legal plunder to be done? But wouldn’t a vote that perpetuates such a system constitute an admission of surrender?

I thought about this as I took advantage of the opportunity to vote early this week. As I participated in the high sacrament of our civic religion, I had an epiphany about how to make my vote count like never before.

Over the years, I’ve often written in the names of good, honest, and wise men and women who I felt best represented the principles of good governance. But for the first time, I added a name that I had never before put on the ballot – my own.

This year I wrote myself in for President. And here is why I did it.

Whether I win the presidency or not, I’ll be spending the next four years bringing about some serious, and long overdue, changes. I plan on bringing about a number of sweeping reforms that will measurably make this nation a better place to live.

What’s more, I will accomplish this without adding a single dime to the already bloated federal budget. I will not be borrowing money to achieve my goals. Reducing or completely eliminating debt will be my top priority during this time.

My presidential policies will promote peace, friendship and commerce with all, while carefully avoiding entangling alliances with those who thrive on conflict. I will maintain the ability to effectively defend life, liberty, property and sovereignty, but this will not require having to exercise dominion over others.

I will place greater emphasis on shoring up education, health care, agriculture and wise use of energy. I will promote increased independence from outside resources and greater self-sufficiency. Aid for the truly needy will continue on a strictly voluntary basis, but there will be increased emphasis on community service.

I expect these improvements to cultivate an increased degree of patriotism and love of country. They will demonstrate to all who have eyes to see, that the promise of America still exists and thrives.

Be honest. Do my reforms seem too idealistic?

If I were suggesting that these policies should be applied to the nation generally, I’d have to agree. But when applied to myself, as an individual, they are completely within the realm of possibility. Living within my means, paying off debt, tending to my greenhouse, and strengthening myself intellectually, physically and spiritually are all things I can do.

That’s why I chose to vote for me.

I have absolute say over every single reform listed above because I have absolute influence over the individual for whom I voted. Each of my policies will have a real and measurable impact on my own life as well as a positive effect on the lives of those around me.

Whether others sign off on these reforms or not, does not hinder my ability to pursue them as I choose. And they won’t cost you a dime nor will they infringe upon any of your rights. I’ll take full responsibility for making them happen.

My happiness will not be dependent upon making change through politics or exercising dominion over others. Best of all, I will not have wasted my vote on a two-party system that has only its own best interests at heart.

Grumble about how I’ve thrown my vote away if it makes you feel better. But it’s what we do after we’ve voted that determines whether we’ll ever see real improvement.

Bryan Hyde is a news commentator and co-host of the Perspectives morning show on Fox News 1450 AM 93.1 FM. The opinions stated in this article are his and not representative of St. George News.

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @youcancallmebry

Copyright St. George News, LLC, 2012, all rights reserved.

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!


  • Jenny October 25, 2012 at 10:43 am

    I can’t listen to your morning show any more. I tried. You act like no one is as intelligent as you are and if someone doesn’t agree with you, they are made to look ignorant, or uneducated. I disagree with you politically. I would like to hear a show that values everyone’s opinion. That has open discussions without the host ramming his own fringe views down everyone’s throat. Let the people talk!!!!!

  • william October 25, 2012 at 11:00 am

    There seems to be the desire to be a martyr when voting like this. The people who do not vote for the two-party nominees want to see change happen when they vote, that change being anything that may start a third major party.
    The martyrs know that their vote will not matter in electing their candidate and at most, can only keep them from voting for the better candidate between the two major political parties.
    The martyrs know this, but they vote this way anyway because they think if enough people do it, then a third party may start. This would, of course, be a fantastic thing to have in America, and no rational and well educated person would deny that if the third party was the voice of the people that the party should exist. However, there is a laziness with being a voting martyr. The laziness is in deciding on a candidate and trying to make a difference

    • Stephen Palmer October 25, 2012 at 2:22 pm

      Bryan, excellent piece.

      William, on what do you base your assumption that “their vote will not matter”? Not matter for what purpose? For getting a candidate they don’t like or agree with into our out of office?

      That faulty assumption is precisely why change doesn’t happen in America — everyone keeps parroting it without analyzing the logic.

      If I don’t like Obama or Romney and don’t think either merit the office of presidency, then how does a vote for either “matter” in any meaningful sense?

      Until more people start rethinking those kinds of assumptions, we’ll continue getting lesser-of-two-evil candidates. Continuing to vote for party candidates in the name of our votes “mattering” is precisely the path for never getting substantive change.

      • william October 26, 2012 at 9:34 am

        With that argument, imagine what a patriotic thrill you would receive if, in the next presidential election, a mere 10 percent of the electorate, instead of the usual 50 percent or so, voted.
        The upside is that it might just be possible that some politicians in Washington would get the message.
        But in the real world the 10 percent win is a win and so is the policy that will come from that win that affect your daily life for the next 4 years and beyond.

  • Omari October 25, 2012 at 11:57 am

    Excellent artilcle. We the people are not really in power-at all…

  • Sista October 25, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    Sometimes a vote is a statement against someone’s policies more than an endorsement of the other candidate. If enough people vote out of the box in protest, at least it will become known that the two-party system is broken. Bryan, you’ve got my vote.

  • Sean October 25, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    Quite a twist on voting your conscience.

  • Ron A October 25, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    You’re nuts. You can’t be president. You don’t even have any secret service. And I’ll bet you don’t have your own health care plan. If you did, I’m quite sure we’d have all heard about this “BryanCare”. If I’ve never heard of you, you’re most likely a phony.


  • Frank October 26, 2012 at 5:58 am

    I believe it should be “I voted for whom?!” Nonetheless I would vote for you unless I decide to vote for myself.Guess that makes me an ‘undecided voter’. Great article and interesting concept. Keep up the good work and call my neighbor (your mother).

  • Allen Levie October 26, 2012 at 3:07 pm

    The article brings question home where it should be, but also begs the classic question what are the correct limits of collective action and corresponding political structures. I think Romney is well within reasonable range for a presidential candidate. Given the scope of the situation, he fits that bill. I think this may hold true for any other candidate since the founding generation started this whole thing. Your wanting something well beyond that range.

    Is politics the right forum to do what you are suggesting? I would be interested in breaking that down into smaller chunks and understanding what you would want to happen. What if everyone did this? Can we do both? I think that’s redundant, but if so, how does this look in form?

    If Romney gets in, which is looking like it might be in the distant range of possibility (still not counting his chickens), are there ways of working with him and the system to bring about what you are wanting?

  • Curtis October 27, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    Is it possible to start calling for impeachment before someone is elected ??

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.