Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul Third Party, 2008-2012: How to Do It AFR's powerful third-party plan to challenge Democrats and Republicans with the Free American Party -- a REAL third party with some teeth!by Nelson Hultberg
(libertarian)
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The political revolution spawned by Ron Paul will not be won in one campaign. No profound paradigmatic change in society comes so easily. Unfortunately those "sunshine patriots" who expected this to be easy sailing with no setbacks will now abandon the fight and accuse Ron Paul of selling out. Such is human nature.
This being said, however, we do have to acknowledge that the Ron Paul campaign had some serious flaws, and the most important one was this: He ran as a Republican! To anyone with a sense of history, it should be obvious that trying to change the Republicans into Jeffersonian individualists is a fool's game. They sold out the cause of freedom way back in '68 when they embraced Richard Nixon, and then furthered their capitulation by accommodating the neo-con infiltration of the 70s and 80s.
This sell-out took place because that ol' devil "human nature" gets in the way of common sense for all politicians after they have been in Washington for a while. They dare not opt for principle in front of the voters because they fear they will not get re-elected. It's basically been this way since 1913 when Congress established the Federal Reserve and the progressive income tax. These two institutions gave politicians the power to confiscate our earnings to redistribute wealth and buy votes. This has compelled the Republicans to ideologically merge with the Democrats to play the game of dispensing pork and privilege. It's the only way to survive.
Most Republican politicians start out with the desire to slay the spending dragon on the Potomac. They imagine themselves as Mr. Smith in the old Frank Capra movie; but they soon cave into the reality of the system and realize that they must tax and spend like the Democrats to be re-elected. None of this will change by working within the Republican Party, for the members of the party hierarchy know what serves them best. They know that they must maintain the tyrannical tools of wealth redistribution, i.e., the present tax and monetary systems, in order to maintain their power. And they will rise up in opposition to smear any maverick such as Ron Paul who attempts to attack their use of these tools.
Contrary to present thinking, this evil cannot be ended by trying to vote "more conservative" Republicans into Congress. Those that we manage to elect eventually cave in to the system just like their predecessors. Very few possess the integrity to become Ron Pauls, and those that do gradually get worn down, give up, and return to the private sector. This is the nature of the beast we created in 1913 and the nature of humans.
What I will try to show in the rest of this essay is that the evil of our present political system cannot be ended by changing Republican behavior. It can only be ended by changing the tax and monetary systems that lie at the root of the contemptible "vote buying" that the system's participants partake in. As we will soon see, this can only be done from without, from a third party that is not tied to perpetuating the system.
Here lies the flaw of all those who preach that we must work within the GOP to change the system. Freedom activists have been working within the GOP for 40 years now, and Republicans have only gotten more brazen in their statism as each decade passes. The reason for this is that without a third party in the field, there is no counteracting force to mandate that Republicans try to distinguish themselves from the Democrats and start acting on right principle. Without the people being aware of another vision (e.g., of small government), they will not demand that the Republicans change their stripes. If there is no demand from the voters, then good ol' human nature gets in the way, and Republicans take the path of least resistance, which is: join with the Democrats to tax and spend so as to assure their re-election every two years and every six years.
We must come to realize that Republicans are now one and the same with collectivist liberals, and they are not about to embrace a limited government perspective as long as they and the Democrats possess their present monopoly over the political system and the National TV Election Debates. The use of pork and privilege to buy votes will not vanish until their monopoly is broken.
Our nation is now a ONE PARTY STATE! Democrats and Republicans are nothing but two divisions of the same party -- the Demopublican Party. No matter who wins, we always get more taxes, more inflation, more bureaucracies, more wars, and less freedom.
There is only one hope for reform. We must challenge the Demopublican monopoly with a third political party. Ron Paul is the man to lead such a party; but it must be a real third party that can actually pose a threat to the Demopublicans' monopolistic rule.
It is a fallacy to say third parties in America cannot work! The reason why is because all third parties in the past century, like the Libertarians and Perot's Reformers, have been built upon TWO DISASTROUS STRATEGY FLAWSthat automatically doom them to failure. But correct these two fundamental errors and a genuine challenge to the Demopublicans can be launched.
The Two Third Party Mistakes Explained
Ross Perot's Reform Party, The Libertarian Party, and the Constitution Party (formerly the U.S. Taxpayer's Party) have appeared at times to be a start toward genuine political reformation. But all three have failed to gain adequate support because they have structured themselves upon one or the other of two basic flaws: 1) Marginalization and 2) Cloning.
1) Marginalization is the flaw of the Libertarian and Constitution Parties. This takes place because these two parties both have ideal visions of the way that society should be politically organized, and they attempt to implement their visions all at once through the political process. They ignore the fact that politics is a game of incrementalism, that it is not an arena in which an "ideal society" can suddenly be voted into place. Because they try to do this, they are perceived by the public as not living in the real world.
For example, when asked what tax policy they advocate for the country, libertarians reply that the income tax should be totally abolished and government should be stripped down to a minimal state that can exist upon excise taxes and tariffs. Now this is a beautiful vision of a truly limited government. It would be wonderful to have an America like that. But this is not a credible political platform to be gained through a political campaign; it is rather an "ideal" that could be approached in 50 years or so.
The members of the Constitution Party respond in the same way. Both of these parties wish to instantly implement their visions of the ideal in total. There is no acceptance of the need for incrementalism that all of politics is based upon. As a result, both of these parties are marginalized as foolishly utopian. They end up getting at best 1% of the vote every year. They remain obscure fringe voices. No national media pursue them, no big money flows into their coffers, and most importantly they are never invited to the three National TV Election debates in September and October.
These three National Election debates are televised to 80-100 million voters by the major networks. It is these debates that legitimize a candidate and his party in the people's eyes. They are absolutely essential to participate in if a third party is to have a chance to substantively change the role of government in America.
Statism is running rampant throughout America primarily because our two major parties have a monopoly over the conveyance of policy information in the debates at election time. There is no counter vision being effectively presented to the voters that will demonstrate both the necessity and the means of restoring limited government. But if a third party could gain entrance to the National Election debates, then the Demopublican "monopoly of ideas" would be broken, which would allow the counter vision of freedom to be presented to the people. And if history is any judge, people always choose freedom if given the choice of freedom.
Until we give the people a clear choice between big government and small government in the National Election Debates there will be no end to our march toward tyrannical centralization of government. But this provision of choice must be done in a rational way that does not sound utopian and radical to the people. This has never been done in the past 70 years.
Thus since the Libertarian and Constitution Parties have no national media pursuing them, and since they never get invited to the National TV Election Debates, they garner nothing more than 1% and never pose a challenge to Washington. The result is that because they campaign on "instant idealization," they become marginalized and fail.
2)Cloning is the flaw of groups like the Reform Party that Ross Perot founded (and also John Anderson's Independent candidacy in 1980). Because of its desire for immediately winning the Presidency, the Reform Party ended up becoming nothing but a Demopublican clone. While the Libertarians project too much radicalness, the Reform Party projected no radicalness. They ended up with no substantive differences ideologically between themselves and the Demopublicans.
Because they wanted to win right away, they had to offer only more of the same statist pabulum of their opponents. They were thus reduced to running on the notion that they would somehow govern the monster welfare state better because they would bring "better personnel" to Washington. Their experts and bureaucrats would supposedly do a more professional job of confiscating our money and throwing it down the rat holes of political boondoggles. Needless to say, this did not excite the electorate who didn't see the need for still another big government party. The bottom line is that because the Reform Party campaigned on a platform designed for "instant victory," it became nothing but a clone and failed.
These then are the two crucial mistakes that any third party challenge of the establishment must avoid: 1) pursuit of "instant victory," which clones the party, and 2) pursuit of "instant idealization," which marginalizes the party. If a third party wishes to become viable and succeed, it must offer radical enough change to avoid cloning with the Demopublicans, but not so radical that it becomes marginalized like the Libertarian and Constitution Parties.
AFR's Plan to Take On the Demopublicans
Americans for a Free Republic in Dallas has developed an innovative plan to do this, to correct the two fundamental errors of all third parties and challenge today's establishment with formation of the FREE AMERICAN PARTY. I must warn the reader, however. To fully understand the essence of the AFR plan will require that one totally abandon conventional "paint-by-the-numbers" third-party politics and think "outside the box." The reader will have to forget most of what he has been taught about third parties; it's severely flawed.
AFR's unique "Two Pillars Strategy" of monetary reform and tax reform will garner the necessary 15% in the polls and put a freedom candidate with gravitas into the National TV Election debates held in September and October. This is because our plan does not sound "utopian and radical." This will get the libertarian-conservative message in front of 100 million voters and allow us to effectively challenge the Demopublican candidates every election year. This is an absolute must. Presently there are no counterveiling arguments at all to the Demopublicans in these ever so crucial debates. Is it any wonder then that the people opt for statism every election year? Statism is the only choice they are given because of the Demopublican monopoly and the media's complicity to support it.
A very important feature of the AFR plan is that its candidate will not strive for instant victory and thus have to clone himself to the Demopublicans like Ross Perot did. This will allow the party candidate to tell the truth to the people because he has no fear of electoral loss. His immediate goal is not to try and win the White House (it's way too early in history for a true Constitutionalist to do that). His immediate goal is merely to gain entrance to the debates in order to gain a podium in front of 100 million Americans every election year. This will allow him to put the Demopublicans' feet to the fire and explain to the people how both Democrats and Republicans are taking away our freedom, our rights, and our money. Imagine a Constitutionalist giving a half-hour lecture like Ross Perot did before each debate. Could the money be raised to pay for such TV time? Of course it could. Witness this last year of fund-raising for Ron Paul.
In this way the Free American Party candidate can explain the "Two Pillars" of monetary and tax reform to the people, which if persistently and persuasively presented will gradually destroy the validity of Washington's power to confiscate our money and regiment our country. Because of the way the "Two Pillars" of reform are designed, they can be used to pull power away from the Demopublicans every election year and gradually induce the people to begin voting for the restoration of limited government.
Space prohibits a discussion here of the intricacies as to how and why this will take place. For a more thorough analysis, see the AFR Mission Statement. It explainsin layman's languagehow the plan will work over time through the persuasiveness of the "Two Pillars" of monetary reform and tax reform.
Please note:If the reader wishes to gain a true understanding of the AFR third-party plan, the above linked Mission Statement simply must be read. This present article is but a preface to it. AFR's "Two Pillars Strategy" is the only hope to stop our relentless march toward more and more tyrannical government. Remember we must think "outside the box" here! Treading the same failed paths that we have taken for the past 40 years and mouthing the same failed doctrines is what mules do. Freedom requires strong, open-minded human beings who think for themselves, or as Ayn Rand put it, "see through their own eyes." It requires real revolutionaries, not play actors.
There is a massive groundswell of Americans out there that now senses an alternative political vision must be formed. Ron Paul is the leader to accomplish this, but we must convince him to run a third-party campaign.
If we fail to convince Congressman Paul for the 2008 campaign, then we must plan for the next battle. We must set about building the FREE AMERICAN PARTY for 2012.
Will Paul be willing to run again in 2012? And if so, will he be willing to go the third party route? If he isn't, then we will seek elsewhere. The nature of all freedom movements throughout history is that there are always several revolutionary leaders that rise up to lead. If Paul feels he is too old four years from now, then there will be other passionate champions to pick up the flag and carry on.
This past eight year reign of George Bush II and the GOP's subsequent embrace of John McCain should certainly put to rest any possibility of furthering the cause of freedom with the GOP. Millions of conservatives and libertarians will now be looking for an alternative for 2012. This bodes very well for the launching of a viable third-party effort.
The upcoming years are going to be rife with crises (both economic and cultural). And it is in times of crisis that people begin to open up their minds toward changing the political paradigm of their society in a substantive way. Thus we are going to have a golden opportunity to further the cause of freedom in the next decade. But such a furthering is going to require the formation of a third political party with some teeth.
AFR's third-party strategy is big time, TV oriented, major league politics that will rock the nation and make history. It will not win right away, but it will gradually over the next two decades stop the growth of the Leviathan cold.
Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, Texas and the Executive Director of Americans for a Free Republic. He can be contacted at: nhultberg@afr.org For further information see his bio.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 122 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Nelson Hultberg only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Nelson Hultberg 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.
Good analysis of the problem of third party campaigns, although I do not consider them without some value to the movement. I will have to study AFR to see what I think of the solution.
We have enough people in every state to put it on the ballots quit. We have a few months to get things done
Everyone I know is fed up with the RNC and they way they have treated Paul, not to mention how they have thrown republican voters out the door. Big tent no more. The are just of few people who hold power but they refuse to do what's best for America.
John McCain was born on the sovereign territory of the Republic of Panama to U.S. citizen parents. McCain is a United States citizen due to parentage, not by reason of birth.
The ineligibility of John McCain to serve as president may not prevent his run for the office. However, he cannot hold the office. If he were elected president, legal challenges would be inevitable.
Without an amendment to the Constitution, it is unlikely the Supreme Court of the United States could rule in his favor unless legislating from the bench. The more conservative Republican party has represented the case for separation of powers with a louder voice than the more liberal Democrat party. The sidestepping of this critical issue in the media and by the parties is alarming and may lead to a national crisis in the event of a McCain win in the general election.
The Act in 1790 that changed the definition for natural born citizen to include parentage was reversed in 1795. Since then, it has not been again defined to expand the scope of this constitutional requirement.
Some of the argument is presented together at www.idacres.com.
Consider The Naturalization Act of 1790. It read, "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United Staes, shall be considered as natural born citizens..." This was a concession. They never were considered to be natural born citizens until this act.
In The Naturalization Act of 1795 that repealed the act of 1790 the language was changed to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States." It would seem that this change was by design, recognizing that nature did not make these babies citizens, it was only by law. The law cannot change nature. The term "natural born Citizen" could not apply to these people. It only applies to jus soli (where the place one is born naturally determines citizenship).
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Money we have, $150,000,000,000.00 refunds starting in May. The issue of money covered for marketing and so on. The next issue is a leader. Ron Paul is the leader for 2008 presidential campaign. Ron seams like Moses arguing with God at the burnning bush about having to rescue Isreal from the Egyptins. Someone needs to head to Texas and talk come understanding into Ron on his destiny in American history. So who is going to Texas for a come to Jesus meeting.
I am so frustrated watching Americas future flush down the toilet while people and events evade the greatest human experience of mankind. Not just America but even greater is the world watching the American elections this year.
For those that don't know, Nelson has been at this a long time!
I like your idea of a half hour lecture before the debate.
I also agree that it is about getting a 3rd party into the debate. I had put the percentage needed at 10%, but 15% could be attainable since we have about eight more months to get the word out.
Even if we fell short of that goal to be invited to the debate, could we not still hold our own debate via your paid TV program idea? America would tune in if it was held just before the other debate. The only ones who woulld not participate is FOX News....
"Marginalization is the flaw of the Libertarian and Constitution Parties. This takes place because these two parties both have ideal visions of the way that society should be politically organized, and they attempt to implement their visions all at once through the political process. They ignore the fact that politics is a game of incrementalism"
So you can't really give a good reason of what is "wrong" with the Libertarian Party, can you? When you say that "politics is a game of incrementalism" what you are really saying is that the Libertarian Party should compromise its values and that the libertarian philosophy should be more collectivist in nature.
You go and create whatever party you want, but I will be staying right here with the Libertarian Party trying to fight off the infiltrators trying to muck up the LP in the void caused by the "Ron Paul Revolution."
I'm not trying to accuse Dr. Paul of anything, but I find it suspicious that Ron Paul is carrying on with the charade in the GOP at the expense of the LP. You know, the same Libertarian Party that has a platform which represents Ron Paul's platform? Yeah, you know what I'm talking about.
Now that Ron Paul is out of the GOP race in a practical sense, Ron Paul Revolutionaries should be refocusing their attention to the LP, only it seems that there are some suspicious individuals within the Ron Paul camp who bad-mouth the Libertarian Party quite often and speak of it as though it will never do anything good.
The line of, "The LP hasn't done anything yet, therefore it can't do anything," is played out beyond belief and is utterly outrageous coming from those who are supposedly part of a revolution, and the fact that they can go and overtake the GOP but can't do anything in the LP is ridiculously illogical and completely backwards.
Before this year, many people didn't know that the Libertarian Party existed and most certainly didn't know much about what it meant, but thanks to Ron Paul, that has changed. The changes we have seen as of late should spell it out loud and clear to those who think that the LP won't ever do anything. Change is a comin'...
The Democrat Party has been taken over by socialists, and as a result, many "old" Democrats jumped to the Republican Party. Back in the 50's and 60's, the South was solidly Democrat, but look at it now. So the modern day Republican Party is more or less what the Democrats were in, say, 1960.
The Democrat Party has been taken over by socialists, the Republican Party has been taken over by former Democrats, and conservative/libertarian Republicans have no home any more.
The Democrat Party has been taken over by socialists, the Republican Party has been taken over by former Democrats, and conservative/libertarian Republicans have no home any more.
Most accurate sound bite of problem I have seen yet. This is so true. The only other thing that I would add is that neither party, no matter how much they speak about the constitution think it's worth the paper it's written on or they couldn't pass 99% of the bills that become law.
Your analysis is spot on. However, the name "Free American Party" sounds too radical. You need to think of a name that has a classical ring to it, in the same vein as "democrat" or "republican".
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-03-12 18:04:21
Our defense of liberty this election cycle has been a rousing success after decades of little or no positive impact at all. This success is ONLY because Ron Paul is a Republican.
The ultimate effectiveness of the Ron Paul Revolution will be determined by how the current momentum plays out in the GOP over the next 3-4 election cycles
The constant drone of nonsense about real change arising from the sandbox of third parties undermines and could easily nullify any success we can credit to Dr. Paul and his campaign...if their numbers were 20 times larger.
Surrounding one's self with only like-minded folks sure makes third party politics easy. They have no impact on improving the quality of our candidates. They reap all the political success they earn...none what-so-ever. Why intelligent, passionate, politically involved individuals would deliberately choose to make themselves as ineffective as possible baffles me.
I've already seen several Ron Paul supporters leave the GOP and return to apathy and/or a third party because real politics is real hard work. Promoting one's values in a diverse, intense environment and fighting for power of the most powerful political machine the world has ever see is not for the faint of heart.
It is much easier to go play in the sandbox and preach to the choir, no challenge there. I hope you all make each other feel really good because personal feelings are the only result of a third party affiliation. Shaping candidates and party rules is the outcome of doing the hard work in the real politics of the GOP. It takes real effort, every day.
Many people just like to use politics as a social club where they can regularly vent to their friends. Have fun, but be sure to wipe the sand off your feet if you muster the courage to join the real fight. You're welcome any time.
"The Democrat Party has been taken over by socialists, the Republican Party has been taken over by former Democrats, and conservative/libertarian Republicans have no home any more.
Most accurate sound bite of problem I have seen yet. This is so true."
Thank you Flo (or fLO?) for your input, and also logicprobe. You are completely wrong. If you have libertarian principles, then I know of this party based on libertarian principles. It's called the Libertarian Party
"Your analysis is spot on. However, the name "Free American Party" sounds too radical. You need to think of a name that has a classical ring to it, in the same vein as "democrat" or "republican"."
Ryan,
Yes that's the problem, the name is too radical, OR you are too uptight, OR something else that I'll leave to the imagination. Say, how about the Libertarian Party, or is Libertarian too radical a name like you say Free is?
Posted By: Lisa in Vancouver
Date: 2008-03-12 18:48:13
I couldn't agree more; I have been telling everyone I know from the very beginning that RP running as a R was a huge mistake. My husband and I were treated as second-class citizens by the R party at our caucus and it's patently obvious that a 3rd party is the only viable solution. I love the two pillars, I have joined AFR and have regained the hope I had (almost) lost a few weeks ago when RP basically bowed out. Thank you Nelson and God save us all.
The REAL problem is that both the DINOs & RINOs are corporatists.
Forget the ideology, we need to stop using the words they use to divide us.
We need a coalition of people, to act together to create a new party, not a new "conservative" or "liberal" party. forget the ideology; act and think in practical terms.
The existing parties, including the 3rd parties are just used to divide people and keep them at odds.
Ron Paul should run with Ralph Nader, that ticket could not be blamed for drawing more D/RINOs votes to throw the election for either side.
Nader and Paul can discuss the issues and their solutions, that would make for a real debate not the facade sock puppet show we will have with the main party debates.
As long as you are more devoted to your ideology and continue to use the labels that divide us, we can never defeat the corporatists.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-03-13 08:05:04
I'd rather change the platform of the Libertarian Party to a much shorter one that doesn't pin candidates to a particular stance on the issues, but rather defends an overall adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle. That would effectively eliminate the marginalization issue as you have defined it. No party platform needs to be more than a few paragraphs long.
Why re-invent the wheel when all we really need to do is change a flat tire? The LP already has the best ballot-access organization in third party politics. We should use it, rather than abandoning it.
Posted By: The American Party
Date: 2008-03-13 08:14:49
I have had similar thoughts, Nelson. Prior to reading your article, I was thinking The American Party. Although the word "free" is a great word, it has taken a larger and less attractive sense than when meant to indicate "freedom." "FREE" has almost become a dirty word not to be trusted. Such as "nothing in life is free." It would be hard to find a negative in simply calling it "The American Party. "
But, I am not replying to critisize your ideas. My thoughts ran to incorporating, within a campaign, verbiage to expose in a very determined way, the CFR and it's ideals. The American Party would never allow any members or past members of the CFR. As part of the platform, it would be news worthy and the public may seek out information for themselves to find out why The American Party doesn't allow CFR members. In other words, the people that are part of the problem with America need not apply. The people that see a problem would become aware of where it comes from. Imagine if most Americans knew that most of the major candidates of the Republicrats or Demopublicans are members of the CFR... that would be the real awakening of America and the beginning of acceptance of a different party that truly is shown to represent the people and not the special interests.
What about the name "Freedom Party" ? e.g. a strong single word, just like Republican or Democrat. The promotion of liberty is the central issue.
One issue, if Ron Paul is to join and lead such a party/movement, should he not resign his seat then? Remember he also has several people running of congress (at least 4 already won in Maryland), at least one for senate and has some support, and if he abandons them or has to give up his seat, he and other have no influence or voice in congress then. The new party would then have to contest elections after the presidential election, most only in two year's time with the midday elections.
It seems to me the GOP require a solidarity, unified philosophy, while the Democratic Party has more certain factions? Not sure. In case Paul does not get the nomination, what about the idea working and organising across the floor with individual congressmen/women in a PAC, from both parties and also organise strong intellectual thought institutions and magazines and then - if the parties cannot be reformed, organize the creation of a new party some months after the election, especially with issues where there are disagreements witin the parties. Why do I argue this way? We already have a grassroots organisation and support - one of the big successes - but as much as a bottom up approach is important, a top down one - in combination will provide the new party with established experience and leadership from the two existing parties, which would play a huge role in convincing more people.
A radical event of crisis is often the needed and the incentive for people to take the radical action needed.
If Paul did not run as a Republican, he would never have received the exposure he had and the movement would probably not have developed so strong...think about it. As Paul said, even in the year 2000 the GOP run as the non-interference, non-nation building party and in the past won elections as the peace party. The peace party always wins. For the parties winning is everything. If the Iraq war occurred under a Democratic party (it has been planned during the Clinton administration), Paul would have been the hero of the whole GOP! In the UK the Tory opposition was at first for a long time for the war, but last year they have changed and to against the war, and if one want to compare, the Labour Party could be compared to the Democrats and the Conservatives to the GOP. In this way, in a possible McCain - Obama/Clinton line-up, the Democrats are destined to win this year (they won Dennis Hastert's old seat and the GOP had no senate competitor in Arkansas!) and after a possible strong win by the Democrats, it would be clear to the GOP that they have to change course and reorganise in order to become viable again and then is the time to move the GOP to its roots...with Ron Paul still playing an important role. He should actually have a position as senator of governor.
I wonder if an ordinary person such as myself could file a lawsuit against John McCain and the Republican party for allowing him to run for President when he was not born in the United States?
If so, I will vigorously persue this so Ron Paul can get the nomination.
Over at reason.com there was a recent PBS interview. Matt Welch concluded McCain won (the majority of the delegates so far) with the support of 2/3 of the anti-war vote (among Republicans and Independents, Independents being predominantly anti-war) as well those among the Republican party that are dissatisfied with Bush. Very interesting, but also significant. This means these people must be among McCain's delegates and if they can be persuaded that Paul is the real and true anti-war candidate and the strongest Bush-opponent within the GOP, he can get their votes at the convention, and together with his own delegates and some of Thompson, Huckabee and Romney (and the stealth delegates there may be for him among the other candidates), he may be able to refrain McCain from getting the majority in the first round, then all will be unbound for the second round...but has to be prepared for a strong neoconservative plot/alternative. Ron paul supporters should simply he planning for everything and have an excellent safe way of communication with two band radio's among precinct leaders etc. And of course with the remaining states the maximum delegates should be acquired with a strong, proactive campaign as well as awareness (and protest) marches on specific themes like Real ID. He should get some support from other politicians also and also address the middle and old age voters. Also if he is to run as an Indy or third party eventually, it is important to use the momentum and current campaign now to build up support. If he breaks now - which he would not do - it would be a strategic mistake IMHO. You need to tap stonger first into the conservative base int he GOP that is dissatisfied with Bush and especially with McCain. Even if they are pro-war, this issue may not be so important to them and would love most of Paul's domestic program and record.
Your goals are admirable. However, you are just launching another frustrated group that will further divide the advocates of Liberty. The problem we face is demonstrated by a slight variation of an old joke: If you stand all the advocates or Liberty in a line, no two would point in the same direction.
There is a system in place. The system is the Constitution. A document that has been ignored for the last 218 years. The Constitution was constructed in an attempt to: Amalgamate the thirteen Colonies into thirteen States. However, it has only served to let the first and all subsequent administrations know what laws they were ignoring. A Constitutional Republic (not a Democracy) is a system designed to protect “Natural Laws”. It was violated by the first administration, and all successive administrations.
The lessons you need to promulgate are far simpler than taking on the IRS and the Federal Reserve System. They are even simpler than trying to get enough voters to understand the Constitution. It is even simpler than getting voters to understand the much shorter, and more instructive Declaration of Independence. It is no more complicated than getting voters to understand and adopt the “non initiation of force” policy. If that is too complicated we must plan for a huge crash, and the resulting destruction. You see, nature is a wonderful teacher.
"I'd rather change the platform of the Libertarian Party to a much shorter one that doesn't pin candidates to a particular stance on the issues, but rather defends an overall adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle. That would effectively eliminate the marginalization issue as you have defined it. No party platform needs to be more than a few paragraphs long.
Why re-invent the wheel when all we really need to do is change a flat tire? The LP already has the best ballot-access organization in third party politics. We should use it, rather than abandoning it."
Yes! Well said! Two thumbs up! I think the challenge has been to retain the party's stance on pure principle while at the same time becoming a big umbrella. Walt, I think your great comment is a suggestion in this direction.
I appreciate Loddi Doddi standing up for the LP. Many Ron Paul supporters don't understand the great debt they owe to the Libertarian Party. Its a shame.
Chuck McGlawn said:
"The lessons you need to promulgate are far simpler than taking on the IRS and the Federal Reserve System. ... It is no more complicated than getting voters to understand and adopt the "non initiation of force" policy."
Amen to that! As you said, if we can't get that simple message across, or if the majority of people really don't believe in it, then we are all in big trouble.
IMO working from within the GOP was not the primary cause of Ron Paul's success. It was a factor, of course, but it was not the primary factor. As a commentor above said: Ron Paul did not create the Movement, the Movement found him. Most Ron Paul supporters were not Republicans initially.
Personally, I was attracted to Ron Paul for two main reasons: (1) He appears to be a paleolibertarian and not a conservative Republican; (2) He has been in Congress for a long time and has always based his decisions on the Constitution. This consistency and trustworthyness is what really caught my eye. In fact, him being a Republican almost made me not want to support him.
Posted By: Jeremy D. Young
Date: 2008-03-14 14:50:11
The problem with any third party are the massive books of laws about how a party must be structured and all the other obstructions to entry that Republicans and Democrats have erected to prevent new parties onto the scene. There are 0 congressman and 0 senators that are members of a third party. One or two may be labelled as independent, but they're usually celebrities.
The reason that we're working within the Republican party is because the structure is already there, we just need to plug the people into it. There are a very large number of people that work within the Republican party that are uneasy with the direction that the party and our country are headed, but they're MORE afraid of the direction we'd be going with Democrats. It's of course a significant lie that is being foisted by the national leadership of the party, but if these people can be awakened, we will have new allies that are already adept at local politics.
If we want to apply the ideas of incrementalism, then the best way to do that is from within the Republican party. If you're an incrementalist, and you form a Third Party, how are you going to convince people that you're any different than the Republicans? You'll just be a little better, plus in their minds, have "no chance of winning". Remember, that's all that it takes to destroy a campaign. Labelling it as a long shot.
Furthermore, you must remember that the vast majority of primary (vs caucus) voters think this is a horse race. They're not voting with the intention of identifying the direction our country should go, they're voting on who they think will win. They're betting on horses, not declaring ideals! If people refuse to think, but are still powerful enough to determine the elections, we have to work within that framework, not choose a path that requires all the sheep to wake up! They're putting themselves to sleep in front of the TV all day and night, we cannot break through that paradigm. We must take advantage of it.
But, I am not replying to critisize your ideas. My thoughts ran to incorporating, within a campaign, verbiage to expose in a very determined way, the CFR and it's ideals. The American Party would never allow any members or past members of the CFR. As part of the platform, it would be news worthy and the public may seek out information for themselves to find out why The American Party doesn't allow CFR members. In other words, the people that are part of the problem with America need not apply. The people that see a problem would become aware of where it comes from. Imagine if most Americans knew that most of the major candidates of the Republicrats or Demopublicans are members of the CFR... that would be the real awakening of America and the beginning of acceptance of a different party that truly is shown to represent the people and not the special interests.
I've had similar thoughts before--the American Party, or something close to it--is it. If we liposuction the Republican Party, there won't be anything left to work with. Many of us know that the Republican "brand" is ruined; a lot of young people simply won't go there, and quite a few of the more seasoned citizens have nowhere to go.
It's time to send a message, change the brand, or do anything other than follow the party apparatchiks across the River Styx.
"It is no more complicated than getting voters to understand and adopt the 'non initiation of force' policy."
- Chuck McGlawn
For over 30 years advocates of liberty have been trying to educate/persuade voters via the Libertarian Party and other operations such as Cato Institute and Advocates for Self-Government, obviously without much success. Ron Paul spent what? $50 million? Again, talking to voters.
All of this assumes that voters are kind of a "blank slate" willing to listen to a variety of issues and then choose a candidate from any party with the most reasonable policy.
Experience shows, however, that voters are not malleable and instead - for the most part - are already committed to a particular political philosophy - the philosophy, policies and programs of the Democrats and Republicans.
Voters participate in politics to promote programs and policies to which they already subscribe on account of years of influence by many factors.
Campaigning consists in energizing and motivating like-minded voters to actually go cast a vote. Campaigning is not about persuading people to change their political philosophy.
This is why a guy like Ron Paul was doomed to receiving almost no support when asking Republicans to support a Libertarian. On the other hand, Ron Paul would get very significant support if he were addressing Libertarians, but it's hard to find a large group of Libertarians anywhere.
There are many people in America who are libertarian in their thinking. Rasmussen polling indicates that this is a little under 20% of all Americans.
But, quite obviously, they don't vote. That's of course consistent with their libertarian thinking - since they aren't interested in running other people's lives, they aren't much interested in politics.
Rather than go out and "get voters to understand" anything, it is incumbent on advocates of liberty to go out among the 50% of American who are non-voters, organize the libertarians among them into a viable political party (and certainly the LP is as good a way to do that as any), energize these libertarians, and get them to the polls.
So far, libertarians have done precious little of that, focusing instead on the really impossible chore of changing the minds of existing voters who are overwhelmingly committed Ds and Rs.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-03-18 11:02:35
First off great article, well written.
I agree in the fact that we need a third party. All checks and balances within our Constitution exist in groups of three, this helps keep the other two honest, as it should be in politics.
As Chuck said, the Constitution has been violated from the Jay Treaty until present, yet even the REPUBLICan triumveret of Jefferson, Madison and Monroe took advantage of the power of the Exec at the exspense of the Constitution (albiet for the good of the Country and always just this one time). But the days of true REPUBLICanism are long since past, so working within the frame of an old corrupt empty suit seems counter productive.
Even though the REPUBLICan party has one thing going for it that most third parties do not, and that is name recognition. This is how McCain is winning the nomination in the primaries. Now name recognition can work for you or against you depending on media spin. McCain is a war hero, McCain-Fiengold (no one knows what it is, but it has his name on it) McCain-Liberman (again no one knows) McCain and Keating (again that McCain guy) McCain saves a puppy, vs. brothel owners endorse fringe long shot darkhorse black sheep flakey quake job LIBERTARIAN Ron Paul. See originally his name has no recognition, yet LIBERTARIAN gets tagged as a dergogatory label. This can obviously overcome as DEMOCRATS were intially labeled as panderers to the mob.
Leslie makes a good point that self imposed labels divide us. But I think the ideal is king. How can a responsible person argue against LIBERTY? I have been a LIBERTARIAN for over a decade, but was among the apathetic masses, now willing to grab the guidon of LIBERTY and march forward to battle.
Walt in his vast wisdom yet again places things into a simple plan. We need to modify the LIBERTARIAN Party and not the GOP. People have heard of the LP yet they only know us as fringe lunatics. Loddi I appreciate your vigor! Fight on, yet takes some time to read the wisdom of Franklin. Adams got no where with such vigor only when balanced with finesse and rational reasoning can you win. The head on battle died out during WWI.
The LP needs to re-define their manifesto (I said the same thing at my state LP convention last weekend). Make it simple, something like LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY with a Golden Rule Foriegn Policy. This is our advantage. Get the Dems and Repubs to define their platform. Most voters dont know what a REPULICan or DEMOCRAT is, yet simply think REPUBLICans are for the rich and DEMOCRATS are for the working man. They have seperated themselves upon financial ideologies which divides the haves and the have nots. We need to preach LIBERTY as LIBERTARIANS, again who is against LIBERTY but those in power that we all are so sick of? LIBERTY alienates no one, so the LIBERTARIAN Party has to broaden its principles simply to LIBERTY. In doing so we unite the disenchanted masses, because today when it comes to LIBERTY we are all have-nots.
As far as Dr. Paul and his leadership, we all owe a great deal of debt to the man for awakening the masses. If he chooses his current course whithin the GOP let him, at least we know we have someone in Congress fighting the good fight even if on his own terms. I hope and pray that enough PATRIOTS would write the good Dr. and plead with him to help guide us and take his rightful place within the annals of our history. I have often thought of trying to gather the necessary signatures/petition to put him (read draft him) on the ballot for President here in TN. I think it would be a remarkable testament to our ability to organize and place OUR guy in office. In the 1790s it was an abomination to "RUN" for office, as it was the PEOPLEs responsibilty to pick (read draft) their guy to represent them. We could do this with alot of hard work, but we have the grass-roots organization to do so.
BOTTOM LINE: We need to unify under the principles of LIBERTY not just a party, the route to go about it may not be clear, but swabbling leads to more division and less numbers for the present contest of LIBERTY.
Even if McCain's birthplace does exclude him from eligibility, well, it would hardly be the first time that the constitution was flouted because it suited them....
Third Parties CAN work, but you have to be willing to think long-term.
The Reform Party in Canada began as a group of conservatives who were frustrated at the philosophical melding of the Liberal and Conservative parties. They didn't gain huge support their first time around, and were naturally demonized by the media, but they gained enough initial support to keep them encouraged.
It was helpful that the Reform Party focused its early efforts on Canada's conservative strong-hold, which is Western Canada, particularly Alberta.
Alberta has long had plenty of reason to be disenchanted by the federal government. It is a province which, according to Ottawa policy-makers, has pretty much existed for the purpose of taxing. The wealth transfer typically goes to Quebec, whose purpose within federation is to whine.
It took several elections, but the Reform Party of Canada eventually annihilated the Conservative Party. It was a beautiful thing....
Politics being what is though, that dysmorphed into the current Alliance, but Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, is one of those former Reform Party radicals!
Third Parties CAN make it! Just not immediately....
Strategy wise, it might be useful to focus efforts where people have been constitutionally abused and gain a strong base.
The problem in the USA, I think, is that our culture of debt and immediate gratification has conditioned people into wanting their problems solved in the space of time it takes James Bond to save the world -- in about an hour and half.
We should be attempting to reform the republican party and at the same time building an alternative party too huge to be ingored. 2012 is around the corner.
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.
