Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
The Libertarian that Can Win If the Libertarian Party wants to do well this year, it should not try to run Ron Paul, and it should not choose another no-name candidate.by Jeff Wrobel
(Libertarian)
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
There are still a few people that believe it's too early to concede defeat in Ron Paul's bid for the presidency, but for most of his supporters, his race is over. While there's still time before the November election, it's worthwhile to do a postmortem of Paul's run for office in order to help other libertarian minded candidates -- especially anyone contemplating a run for President.
Why did Paul do so poorly? It was a combination of the following reasons:
Voters slid into the old quagmire of voting for the lesser of two evils. People who hate McCain looked for the candidate that they thought had the best chance of defeating him, so they voted for Romney or Huckabee. People who hate Hillary looked for the Republican that had the best chance of beating her, so they voted for McCain. Anti-war voters looked for the person they believed had the best chance of defeating the pro-war throng of candidates, so they (probably unwisely) voted for Obama. Ron Paul didn't fit anywhere into this misguided scheme.
The corporate-owned media did a very effective job of painting Paul as a nut-case, fringe candidate. And they did a great job of keeping him out of the public eye.
Ron Paul is too radical a libertarian for most people. A lot of people got scared off when they gave serious thought to the fact that Paul really was going to dismantle major portions of the government. Since most people receive some form of milk from one or more government teat, their perceived self-interest moved them to another candidate.
What can be done to avoid the pitfalls of the Paul campaign?
Using the Nolan Chart, convince people that voting for the lesser of two evils is a misguided endeavor. Of course, this is much easier said than done. This will take a lot of education for the general public, which requires a lot of air time for the candidate. But no matter how much air time the candidate buys, the corporate media will laugh him down unless the following two points are also achieved.
Find a candidate that's already a darling of the media. That probably means finding a movie or TV star. Choose a likeable, well-spoken actor that people will take seriously.
Find a candidate that's not as radical as Ron Paul. The average voter is not looking for an idealist, but rather a person they view as practical.
Who could the Libertarian Party choose to avoid the Ron Paul pitfalls? A good place to start the search for the right candidate is The Advocates' Celebrities website. Look at each person on the list and ask yourself if he or she would be taken seriously. The best choice might be Clint Eastwood -- he's widely admired around the world, he does very well in interviews, and he's even got executive political experience (as mayor of Carmel, California). If Ronald, Arnold, and Jesse could be taken seriously enough to win high offices, certainly Clint could. And if the Iranians appeased the U.S. when the cowboy Reagan took office, imagine how they'd react after the Chief Justice swore in Dirty Harry.
Other possible choices for Libertarian candidates are Kurt Russell and Tom Selleck. Even though they are unimpressive in spontaneous interviews, as actors they should be able to learn to make convincing canned responses. John Stossel could also be considered; he doesn't have the star quality of the others, but he's a great speaker and would be taken seriously.
The announced presidential candidates for the Libertarian Party this year seem like a fine group of people. But virtually no one has heard of any of them. Even riding on the coattails of Ron Paul's surprising success, any one of them can expect to get no more than 1% of the vote this November. How many decades is the LP going to go through this futile routine?
If the Libertarian Party wants to make a difference this November, it should not run an unknown candidate -- that's been proven not to work. The LP should also not try to draft Ron Paul -- he went as far as he could. If the Libertarian Party really wants to make a showing, it should seek out a moderate libertarian celebrity.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 22 thumbs so far
2008 Jeff Wrobel, all rights reserved.
Published: Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jeff Wrobel only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jeff Wrobel is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Stossell actually seems like the most realistic possibility. I seriously doubt Clint Eastwood would even consider it. He appeared to be supporting McCain when I saw him on Cavuto recently. Even when given the opportunity to support RP by Neil himself.
Also whether you believe them or not those newsletters are a real impediment for RP. Another reason not to pursue him as an LP candidate.
Finding the perfect candidate with name recognition is near impossible. But the search is worthwhile and should be started immediately.
First, there's nobody on the list who has the type of experience needed to run for POTUS. Governor, Senator, or VP. You need to get one of those people into one of those seats first. The only reason RP wasn't lambasted on this is because he had spent two decades in the House, which ordinarily doesn't make presidents. There has to be SOME experience, and hopefully the right experience.
Two, there's the throng of people like myself, who score pretty close to the upper tip, who will NEVER BE LIBERTARIANS. We believe in the rule of law and its correct application. We are not statists, we are simply not anarchists and never will be. "Drugs and abortions for everyone" is no more a constitutional, rule-of-law position than "drugs and abortions for nobody". The LP seems to continually miss that point.
I don't think you're giving Paul any credit. We all know he's not an idiot, so why are some of us criticizing him for staying in the race? I think he knows something that we don't. I think he understands something that we don't. If he really had no chance at all to win this thing, I'm pretty sure he would drop out and stop taking people's money. So I urge you to learn about his current delegate strategy before telling us he's done.
I'm familiar with the delegate strategy. It would be bittersweet to win it in this fashion. Kind of like a criminal getting off because of a technicality in the law. However, in this instance because of the insurmountable barriers put up in front of legitimate candidates who are not anointed by the "party" or the "media" and because I honestly believe we are the good guys fighting back against the bad guys and because ultimately the rules are the rules and we should use them to our advantage the delegate strategy is one I personally am holding out hope for. Albeit a small and somewhat cynical hope. These would be the Ron Paul Republicans I envision and would support to the bitter end. This is why instead of a feel good march on DC we should be planning an assembly at the convention in order to support the fight (figurative) that is sure to ensue should the delegate strategy unfold as imagined. Still it would be much better if we simply had a majority rule in terms of the popular vote in the primaries.
What about Jesse Ventura? He was already a third party candidate, governor of Minnesota, libertarian leaning, and pretty moderate. He is also articulate and although he has had issues with the media in the past, he is smart enough to do interviews. I don't know his position on Iraq (a central issue in the Paul campaign) but then again, it would be great to get an independent in there...
I disagree with the assumption that Dr. Paul did poorly. In fact I think it has been, and continues to be, the greatest grassroots Liberty movement in the history of the USA!
I like Bob Barr! He has experience. He has nationwide name recognition. He is a libertarian. He is well spoken and doesn't strike voters as being too radical. He has been on TV and does very well in interviews.
An actor with no political experience isn't good enough in my book.
Thank you for your comments. I have the following responses:
Beatnik: I think you're agreeing with my point that Paul was too radical a libertarian.
A.J.: I'm sorry that I gave the impression that Paul should quit the race. I hope he stays in until the end. But not too many people still think he'll win the nomination.
Mike: You're absolutely right -- Dr. Paul did much better than most of us dreamed possible.
Is Barr interested in running? Sounds like a viable candidate. But a look at his website shows no sign he has thrown his hat in the ring. Isn't the nominating process underway for the Libertarians? So.....what up? Also, I know he and RP are tight and I think if Ron withdraws his candidacy form the POTUS race he can give his donations to another candidate. I think. So....you seem to want him to run...why not contact his office and get back to us on his answer? Okay?
My comments continued (my last submission was cut off by the Nolan Chart web site):
Mike: The word "poorly" is a relative one. At moments I thought Paul actually had a chance of winning. In relation to that, he did poorly.
Laura: Bob Barr seems like a great choice. I think he'd be able to get around the pitfalls I listed.
Jason: I've talked to some people from Minnesota and I think that Ventura is not remembered too fondly there. I'd love to seem him seek the LP nomination, but I don't think he would. I read an interview long ago in which they asked him why he didn't run as a Libertarian. He replied something like, "Because the Libertarians told me I'm NOT one." That supports my opinion that the LP should be a less radical of an organization. And that's coming from a very radical libertarian -- me.
Those interested in the idea of Jesse Ventura for president might be interested in the web site http://www.voters4ventura.com. There you can sign a petition to convince him to run.
Odd you would say that the LP's current field of candidates are non-Celebrities. Wayne Root has been listed on that very Advocates for Self-Government List of "Libertarian Celebrities" for over 6 years.
Long before his run for President, Root was considered one of the only self-proclaimed "libertarians" in the World of Sports.
The LP has a Celebrity candidate: Wayne Root. The only question is will the LP be smart enough this time to go the Celebrity route, or will they choose a hardline purist like Steve Kubby or George Philies with no Celebrity?
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Jeff Wrobel, all rights reserved.