It's unlikely, but if you happened to watch any of C-SPAN's coverage of the recent Libertarian Party convention, you got a fairly unvarnished view of real grassroots politics in action, on display for anyone to see. The three leading candidates for the Presidential nomination participated in a debate, responding to questions posed by Tom Baxter, chief political correspondent for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

It seems clear that the debate turned the voting to Michael Badnarik's favor, despite his having lost in polls and primaries prior to the convention. Badnarik's nomination was not only not clear until the 3rd ballot, but it was a surprise victory to most Libertarians. Badnarik's acceptance speech began with a believable "Never in my wildest dreams". Badnarik had traveled all over the country, speaking to libertarians at state and county conventions, where those delegates had an opportunity to meet and speak with him. He did so at his own expense, occasionally financed by presenting his course on the U.S. Constitution to paying students.

Such an old-fashioned method of gaining nomination is not unusual for Libertarian candidates, because their first hurdle in seeking the Presidency is in getting the nomination of their fellow Libertarians. Those seeking the LP nomination have no illusions about winning the general election; their goal is to represent well the LP and libertarianism to the voting public.

Notice the contrast with the two major parties? When the Democrats meet in late July, in Boston, there will be no question of who is nominated. When the Republicans meeting in late August, in NYC, there will be no question of who is nominated. These two massively televised, carefully orchestrated events will amount to little more than coronation ceremonies for the candidates.

There is another remarkable difference between the convention of the 3rd-place Libertarian convention and those of the D's and R's:

Unless you attended, the LP convention cost you nothing. Over 800 Libertarian delegates voluntarily paid their own way to Atlanta, paid for housing, meals, and to attend special convention events. They took their own time, spent their own money, and the convention itself was funded with no tax money. None... zip, nada... not a penny. Libertarians would not take it if it were available.

The Democratic and Republican conventions, in contrast, will cost taxpayers an astronomical $79 million. SEVENTY-NINE MILLION DOLLARS!... and network television coverage ad nauseam... to accomplish what? Not to choose candidates. Not to debate issues.

As stated in a recent LP press release:

"Because the Democratic and Republican nominees are both known in advance, their conventions are just obscenely expensive, taxpayer-financed political ads," said Geoffrey Neale, the Libertarian Party's national chair. "They are having pretend conventions, but unfortunately they're paid for with real money."

The organizers of the Democratic and Republican national conventions have each already received checks for $14.5 million from the Federal Election Commission to finance their events, which will be held in Boston and New York, respectively.

That $29 million, combined with the estimated $25 million in security costs that each will incur, means that taxpayers will foot the bill for a staggering $79 million.

I recall that, a few years ago, someone discovered that the Republicans spent more money on the STAGE for their convention than the Libertarians spent on the whole campaign. 

Politics, for those in power, is very big business. With the power to produce laws and regulations that benefit some and handicap others, and the power to appoint thousands of people to good-paying positions, the two major parties maintain a stranglehold on all aspects of our society. They've parsed us up into "blue and red" zones, and seem quite content to share the spoils equally. Certainly, there are ebbs in control, subtle shiftings from one side to the other, but the real goal of both parties is to "keep it close"... to maintain the "horse race" that serves to keep the party faithful enthused with the struggle against "the evil other party" and convinces voters that they must choose the lesser of two evils.

I'm convinced that a great many of you are disgusted with politics as practiced by the two domineering parties. More than half don't even bother to vote, and that percentage would be far lower if so many of us didn't feel compelled to vote to maintain subsidies, political jobs, and tax money that supports their employment.

Neither voting for political expediency or dropping out of the political process will have a positive effect. Both will concede more power, and allow still more corruption. Either choice will further divide the people of the United States into political "haves" and "have-nots". When there are enough "haves" whose lives are completely dependent on political favor, voting will become a total farce. At some point, when they have effected more complete control, I believe the two major parties will merge. Their differences are virtually non-existent now. When that merging happens, we will be left with a completely uncontrollable government, very similar to that of communist nations such as the former Soviet Union.

Many believe we've already reached the point of no turning back. Libertarians haven't given up on returning to those ideals that created the greatest, most free nation in history, but unless many others join in that struggle soon, it WILL be too late to effect political change. What remains once that point has been reached is either a violent revolution or a national collapse, or both.