Topic: Election 2008
Ron, Ralph and Bob Ron Paul, Ralph Nader and Bob Barr have all mounted presidential campaigns. What can they accomplish this year?by rtbohan
(Libertarian)
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Ron Paul is still in the race for the Republican nomination, although he is clearly not going to be nominated at the Republican convention. Ralph Nader is running another independent race for the presidency, must to the disgust of the Democrats. Bob Barr has achieved the nomination of the Libertarian Party for President, and is hoping to bring that Party its largest vote ever.
None of the three is going to be elected President this year. None of the three expects to be elected President this year. What are they trying to accomplish? What can they accomplish? What difference will it make?
This is Ralph Nader's fifth campaign for the presidency. He began by running in the Democratic primaries in 1992, ran as the candidate of the Green Party in 1996 and 2000, and as an independent in 2004 and again this year. In 2000 he became a scapegoat for the Democratic Party, which claimed that their candidate had lost the vote in Florida--and therefore the election--because Nader's candidacy "stole votes" from the Democrats. While that argument is fallacious (it is one of many excuses the Democrats gave for their failure), there is no doubt that Nader's votes are going to come from Progressive voters who are disappointed with their party's nomination.
Nader has so far listed twelve issues on which he expects to campaign, and promises more in the future(www.votenader.org.issues). Of the twelve so far listed, three will have to be resolved before he could become president and the failure to achieve two of these three would pretty much guarantee that he will not become President. These three are "Impeach Bush/Cheney" (obviously neither Bush nor Cheney can be impeached once they are out of office); "Put an end to ballot access obstructions"(if the obstructions are not removed Nader will not be on the ballot); "Open up the Presidential debates" (without mdia exposure throught he debates, Nader cannot hope to achieve success).
The other nine issues can be devided between Nader's plans for taxing and spending and his solution for the cure of the nation's problems. The first group calls for: Single payer (government) national health insurance; Cut the military budget; Adopt a Carbon pollution tax; Adopt a securities speculation tax. The last group includes: No to nuclear power, solar energy first (but not exclusively); Repeal the Taft-Heartly Act; Work to end corporate personhood; Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare; Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East.
It is not clear exactly what Mr. Nader means by some of his proposals--does he want the United States to join in the call for the elimination of the state of Israel? Certainly the United States needs a new policy in the Middle, but a "reversal" seems a little drastic.
One of Nader's problems is that his campaign is purely personal and idiosycratic. He has no organization behind him. And while he has a following, that by itself will not bring electoral success. So he has no chance of winning, and the only purpose his candidacy serves is to draw off some of the more left wing elements in the Democratic Party. He is quite right to point out that the democratic Party lost the Presidency not because of his candidacy but because of the poor campaign the Democrats ran. (He also said he thought the Republicans stole the election, but he does not dwell on it.) He is right that he did not cause the Democrats to lose: with a poor campaign strategy and a poor candidate the Democrats failed to convince enough people that they could be trusted.
But under current circumstances, all that Nader can hope to accomplish is to draw votes away from the Democrats. He cannot win, and he probably will not again get as much as two per cent of the vote. He will not poll enough votes to pull the Democratic party to the left, which would (from his point of view) be a legitimate goal.
Former Congressman Bob Barr has won the nomination of the Libertarian Party this year. As a Republican congressman, Barr was known as conservative, with some anti-Libertarian as well as some Libertarian principles. Since leaving Congress he has become known as a lawyer for his defense of Libertarian causees, and as a campaigner and organizer for the Libertarian Party. In working for the presidential nomination of the party, he has stated clearly his change of position on some issues and announced his intention of working for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which he sponsored.
Unlike Nader, Barr does ha ve a strong organization behind him in the Libertarian Party (www.lp.org). The party is already on the ballot in twenty-eight states and is working to qualify in more. With his record as a Republican congressman from Georgia, Barr will probably increase interest in the party's campaign in the South. An early poll in North Carolina shows that he currently has the support of six percent of the voters in that state. Early indications are that this might be the best year in the history of the Libertarian Party in terms of the percentage of the popular vote.
The Barr campaign team has already put forward an electoral strategy, the gold state strategy, which holds real promise for the future. The American Spectator blog contains a good description of the strategy and its potential by Robert Stacy McCain ([link edited for length]). The strategy certainly looks promising for the future. Unfortunately, there is probably not enough time left for it to be used as effectively as it might be in this election.
This means that success for the Barr candidacy this year probably means achieving a significant increase in the national libertarian vote, and possibly drawing enough votes in closely contested states to bring about the defeat of John McCain. In other words, his success will be measured against the success of Ralph Nader in causing the loss of some close states for the Democratic nominee. It might also lay the groundwork for the Libertarian Party to become a major factor in furture elections.
The problem facing both Barr and Nader is whether it can be considered a victory for their campaign if they help bring about the election of John McCain, in Nader's case, or Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in Barr's case. A good showing by Barr in the election promises a greater chance of bringing about change in the Republican Party than a good showing by Nader has of bringing about a change in the Democratic party. The question is whether that is necesarily a good thing.
Ron Paul and his supporters have made strides this year in becoming a force for liberty within the Republican Party. There will be Paul supporters inside the Republican convention as delegates, as well as outside the convention hall. Some of the Ron Paul resolutions are being sent forward by the state conventions to the national convention. Progress, although too little, has been made in moving the party back to its origins. That progress can continue and move forward in the future if the movement continues to hold the ground taken and move forward within the party.
Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party are counting in the influence of the Paul movement to provide voting and other support for this year's Libertarian campaign. A good many Paul supporters will probably vote for Barr if Paul (as expected) does not win the Republican nomination.
What you do in the voting booth is a private matter. It should be kept that way. What the Paul voters do in the voting booth is their business. What Ron Paul does and what the Paul supporters who are delegates to the national convention or who hold party offices do should not give ammunition to the Republican leaders who claim that Paul and supporters are not Republicans but raiders who are out to damage the Republican Party.
Of the three "marginal" candidates, Ron Paul, the one most disregarded and unrespected by the media, is the one who has the greatest influence for this year and for the future of American politics. Let's not lose the progress for liberty that has been made.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 12 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of rtbohan only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. rtbohan 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.
Posted By: Richard Winger
Date: 2008-06-06 21:05:55
It does not follow that Nader hurts Obama. Both poll research (see the Oct. 22, 2004 Washington Post, front page) and election data analysis (see Ballot Access News, Jan. 1, 2005, front page) show that in 2004, Nader did not injure Democrats (although I agree that he did injure them in 2000). The people who supported Nader in 2004 are not the same voters who supported him in 2000. And the CNN poll announced on May 6 again shows that Nader does not affect the margin between Obama and McCain.
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.
