Why can't politicians come out and tell us who they really are?

Another Democratic presidential candidate has left the Democratic Party. First, we had Joe Lieberman (2004). Now it's Mike Gravel (2008).

Gravel has announced that he is entering the race for the Libertarian Party ticket for president.

Sen. Gravel noted that the Democratic Party "is no longer the party of FDR." But is Gravel really a Libertarian?

"He has some libertarian inclinations, but there's still a lot of issues that he doesn't fall into step that perfectly with the platform on," Andrew Davis, a spokesman for the Libertarian Party, said to The Washington Post. "We're hoping once he can become acquainted and see what the party's all about, he can adjust his views."

Gravel also noted in a letter to supporters that "I look forward to advancing my presidential candidacy within the Libertarian Party, which is considerably closer to my values, my foreign policy views and my domestic views."

If that is true, then why did Gravel run as a Democrat?

I wouldn't say Libertarians have all the right answers to the questions, but having them around improves the political discussion. But I always wonder why libertarians aren't always the ones running for the Libertarian Party top spot. Bob Barr, a Republican, is running as a Libertarian. Why? He's not a Libertarian.

Ron Paul, who is a libertarian in many ways, runs as a Republican in Congress and ran in the Republican primary for president. Paul has recently once again denied any interest in running in the Libertarian Party this fall.

If Gravel really is a Libertarian, then by all means let him run. But using a party's process as a publicity stunt cheapens the political process.

As much as we chastise Lieberman, it's nice to at least admit finally that he is an Independent. Calling him a Democrat, even in 2000, never seemed to fit. The fact that he caucuses with the Democrats, and yet endorses John McCain is something I can't wrap my mind around.

Sen. Bernie Sanders is a Socialist that caucuses with the Democrats. He doesn't say he's a Democrat because it's convenient. He stands by his principles, and even if you disagree with him, you know where he stands.

And this goes for Republicans. Jim Jeffords showed tremendous political courage in switching from a Republican to an Independent. But he shouldn't be the only one.

If you believe evangelical Christianity should be the state religion, establish that identity. If you caucus with the Republicans, that would make sense.

Maybe Larry Craig could start a secretly gay, yet conservative section. He likely wouldn't be the only member.

Perhaps some politicians are scared to admit who they are because of the mightiness of the two-party system. That's a sad reality, but more politicians should be braver and admit who they are.

Many politicians start out in one party early in their careers, and then switch. Some switch because the party truly changes: Trent Lott and Phil Gramm are two examples. Hillary Clinton also falls in that category. Others switch out of political convenience: Richard Shelby and Ben Nighthorse Campbell leap to mind.

Look at Michael Bloomberg's career: first a Democrat, then a Republican, and finally an Independent. Two major transformations within one political career, and he still has viability.

For those of us that grew up in the "Free to Be, You and Me" mentality, you truly can be what you want to be. You don't have to be a Democrat or a Republican; you can be a Libertarian, Socialist, Green, or a Conservative Closeted Gay party member. You can still lean toward one of the two parties, but work on showing us who you really are.

Maybe we'll elect one of them president some day.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

buzzflash | delicious | digg | technorati