First off, I am a self-identifying libertarian, so you can take what I’ll say with a grain of salt. I’m no political science major, either, but I do have a passion for politics, albeit on the fringes of the spectrum.

The GOP debate was hosted by CBS News and the National Journal this past Saturday night.  Typical of a Republican debate, it was a dais full of candidates invariably pandering to evangelical beliefs and hawkish foreign policy inclinations. The sole voice of sanity and integrity though out the entirety debate and the series of debates thus far has been Rep. Ron Paul, a devout libertarian and constitutionalist from Texas.

In Saturday’s debate, which was broadcast for an hour on CBS, Paul was allowed to speak for exactly 89 seconds. Eighty-nine seconds out of a possible 3,600 seconds. Whether intentional or not, CBS News is undoubtedly guilty of convenient concision and piss-poor journalism.

A debate, by definition, is an interactive argument. What was absent Saturday was exactly that –an argument. When every candidate save for Paul and Jon Hunstman advocated the illegal torture of terrorists, and a predisposition to go to war with Iran if they were to become nuclear-capable, how then is it a debate? When Paul isn’t given a chance to air his grievances with modern conservative logic, how then was it a debate?

In Noam Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent,” Chomksy states that the ownership of mass media outlets in America is concentrated to just a few international corporations, allowing them to pick and choose what’s fit to print, and what will be seen on air. So when someone like Paul holds beliefs that don’t jive with the political and media elite, naturally, they are summarily shut out of the discussion. The mass media holds the power to narrow the field of candidates before primaries by shutting them off from publicity and exposure.

To me, it is a travesty. A two-party political system is inherently flawed. For someone like me, electable officials rarely come into the fray. Same with any person with who believes socialism is the correct route. Luckily, libertarians do not have to deal with the stigma that socialists have to contend with. A two-party system largely benefits the elites by coalescing hundreds of issues into just two parties – that way no palpable progress or differences can be made in a sound amount of time. It makes sure that the system in place stays in place to benefit them. In 2008, Hilary Clinton was treated with some contempt in debates, while President Barack Obama was lobbed softball questions.

I realize Paul won’t get nominated. I’m not delusional. I just feel as though the system that is intact isn’t entirely fair to politicians, and more importantly it is not fair to the voters who decide the direction of our country. It’s impossible for two political parties to represent the diversity of ideas and viewpoints within a populous of 310 million.

Mark Bruso can be reached for comment at [email protected].