Topic: Political Parties
Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party Ron Paul's '08 campaign has paradoxically done some good for libertarianism but has hurt the Libertarian Party.by John Wingspread Howell
(libertarian)
Saturday, August 30, 2008
We all got excited a few months ago when TIME published an article entitled, "Libertarians Rising." It was inspired by the new fascination with libertarianism in response to the Ron Paul campaign. Finally, many of us thought, we get mentioned in the mainstream media. We get some positive publicity. We get publicity period, since if you're obscure, any publicity is good publicity.
In fact, a lot of good things happened relative to the Paul Campaign aka Revolution. Ron proved he can exploit the web as much as Howard Dean or Barak Obama. He proved a libertarian can raise a lot of money in a hurry. He proved a grass roots insurgency can at the very least earn a good candidate the proverbial fifteen minutes.
More recently I've been reading allusions to what Ron "couldn't" do because of the two-party monoploy. People who dwell on that miss the point. Dr. Paul exposed all sorts of openings, created cracks in the armor, found alternative strategies to do some damage, to raise the profile. And the enthusiasm that his message and his quirky persona generated and continues to generate is significant. In fact, it could be said that Ron Paul's influence and the degree of his impact on the political landscape this year is similar to that of Ronald Reagan at the beginning of the so-called Reagan Revolution.
But that's where the good news ends. A few months ago Dr. Paul was interviewed on NPR's TALK OF THE NATION. He was asked why he isn't a Libertarian (instead of being a Republican libertarian). His answer was, he wouldn't be able to get anything done as a Libertarian. Even he doesn't seem to realize that he has given the capital L's the playbook for success. That is if Libertarians could get their minds off Ron Paul and get them onto advancing the party that stands for what Ron Paul stands for.
I think it's safe to say that more Libertarians are focused on Ron Paul, even now, than on the Libertarian ticket. Part of what the Denver convention was about was a grief group trying to cope with the loss of the fantasy of Ron Paul coming home and carrying the flag. I attribute the eventual nomination of Bob Barr as a desperate attempt to make Barr another Paul. Well, we know Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a friend of ours. And Mr. Barr, you're no Ron Paul.
I disagree with the good doctor, that he can't get anything done in the Libertarian Party. I will concede that his Republican exile has enabled him to get elected to Congress and that his participation in the Republican primaries got him noticed, but that's as far as it can go in the G.O.P. The hope that an eventual libertarian insurgency will conquer the Republican Party is no more realistic than John McCain being transplanted with Ron Paul's brain. There are no anti-rejection drugs strong enough. The Republicrats are both genetically hard-wired for statism. The Libertarian Party or a future party dedicated to libertarian principles, is not only our best hope but our only hope.
I would like Ron Paul to come back. At this point it is likely he could keep his Congressional seat as a Libertarian and that would help the party immensely. Winning a Congressional seat as a Libertarian would generate even more publicity. The media would be all over it. It could help launch another Presidential campaign-- as a Libertarian. But if Dr. Paul does not come back, his followers need to move on. The first Libertarian President of the United States is out there somewhere. The quicker we let go of an old hope, the sooner we realize a new dream.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 13 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of John Wingspread Howell only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Wingspread Howell 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.
Could it be that those libertarians who were so inspired by Ron Paul have actually done a fair amount of research and concluded that ANY political party will only take us to a bigger state?
Could it be that the nomination of Bob Barr only served to cement that idea in their minds?
The Libertarian Party is an oxymoron by its very nature. Organizing those who wish to be left alone must be a very frustrating experience.
Political parties only attract those who want power over other people. True libertarians want no part of that. And that, sir, is the material point behind the Ron Paul Revolution. Nobody else is capable of such a movement because everybody else cares just a little bit too much about controlling the population.
When your party is as powerful as the republicrats currently are, you won't be a member any more. This is a self-defeating cause.
As a Ron Paul Republican who may end up voting for Barr in the end (as a first vote, ever, for a third party) I can easily see your point. Would he keep his Congressional seat? That is the only reason I see why he shouldn't go Libertarian party, assuming Barr would let him take the role. I'd certainly follow.
However, your electing Barr kind of muffled the enthusiasm some of us would have otherwise naturally felt for your party. Barr may be a true convert, but what drew us to Ron Paul was that he didn't just talk the talk, but had walked the walk since forever. Even now, Barr seems more evasive when he answers questions than Ron Paul would ever be. Less tenure and more obvious sincerity would have pulled in my enthusiasm as Barr's candidacy didn't/doesn't, although, as I say, I may end up voting for him since I can't see myself voting for McBama.
I also agree that the GOP has raised ignoring the real issues and those who raise them to an art form. I've been a member for decades, but there it is. I never noticed before.
I'd love RP to run Libertarian, but it is entirely his choice. However, the Libertarian party has to stay true to itself, IMHO, in order to draw enthusiasm from others.
I totally agree with the statement: "Ron Paul's '08 campaign has paradoxically done some good for libertarianism but has hurt the Libertarian Party."
However, the Libertarian Party has never gotten anywhere on the National stage. Now libertarianism has gotten somewhere on the National stage thanks to Ron Paul. I have been a registered Libertarian since 1995 and will probably vote for Bob Barr (though I am very pleased with McCain's VP pick, but will vote for Pres, not VP). Ever since the founding of the Libertarian Party, it has made no inroads on the national scene. Something needs to be done NOW!!! and Ron Paul is doing that to best of his ability and every libertarian minded individual owes him a great debt of gratitude. If that means the demise of the Libertarian Party, then so be it, but Ron Paul is creating the effect that the Libertarian Party has been attempting since its founding. If that effect can be creaed without the Libertarian Party, then I think that is just fine. We owe the foundation of this country to men who have the courage of Ron Paul. I am so thankful to him for what he is doing and if it has to happen at the demise of the Libertarian Party, then so be it. I do wish it could happen otherwise, but I like what I see and hear from the Ron Paul camp.
The only dissappointment from the Ron Paul camp for me is that he is not running on an third party platform. But Dr. Paul has made it clear that there is so little chance of him winning that such an attempt is pointless. Having been in the business for some 20+ years, I trust him to know of what he speaks and there is evidence aplenty to indicate he is correct.
Sometimes having more time on the clock serves well, sometimes not so well.
I cofounded one of the state LP's in '72 and cast my first Presidential vote for John Hospers, one of ~4000 officially counted nationwide. I almost drove my car off the road as I first heard the audio of Spiro Agnew reporting Roger MacBride's electoral vote for Hospers and Nathan in January, 1973. "Faithless elector" my heinie -- people with MacBride's integrity were why the Electoral College was established.
Former Idaho Congressman, later Senator, Steven Symms was first elected to Congress as the nominated and ballot qualified candidate of both the Idaho LP and the Idaho GOP. As I recall, his campaign schtick playing off Idaho's apple industry was a once-bitten apple logo accompanied by the slogan "Take a bite out of government." I actually sent the man a Christmas card that year, congratulating him on his victory. Understandably the LP did not nominate him a second time.
I've never understood why the LP of Texas who never runs anyone in competition against Ron Paul, doesn't simply nominate Paul as their candidate, too. Maybe they cannot because of some quirk of Texas law.
As Benjamin Franklin (or was it Thomas Paine?) once said, "Where there's Liberty, that's my country."
Proud as I am of the LP, despite its self-destructive and blinkered faults over the years, I really don't care what LABEL someone runs under. Heck, I would with equal enthusiasm vote for former Democratic Congressman Tim Penny of Minnesota, if he were still the same man and were still running. (I actually disagree with Paul on some issues such as abortion or the UN or those strange conspiratarian Trilateral and Bilderberger embarrassments, but those are trivial in the scheme of things. Paul can be trusted to do the right thing by the Republic.)
All I truly care is what the candidates stand for when they run and whether they have the integrity to follow through on their word once elected. (Steve Symms, btw, did not, and proved an embarrassment to legitimate l/Libertarians. Interestingly, Wikipedia seems to have omitted any Libertarian reference, which may be a boon.)
We may be fooled again, as we were with Symms, but at least we can look ourselves in the mirror every morning. I'd rather be honest but mistaken, than pragmatically compromise and be played for a sucker. (Can you believe the lame falsehood the McCain bully boys are trying to circulate that Palin is an olive-branch to the honorable Goldwater/Paul wing of the GOP? Eat my shorts. She appears to be another cookie-cutter pro-war Bush-neocon, albeit one with just enough integrity to blow the whistle on crooks.)
Wow that was great! Time for Ron Paul supporters to join the vote. This movement is great but on election day they can vote D, R or L. Voting L puts the action to the words.
When thinking of politicians, you must ask yourself, "How do politicians appeal to us"? In politics that word carries a lot of weight.
Appeal in politics is to have charisma. or an appealing personality in which other people are drawn to. Ron Paul had that. Barack Obama has that too. So does John Mccain, and Sarah Palin.
I guess it depends on how many people will follow you and for how long to really know just what any particular politicians appeal is. Take John F. Kennedy. People were absolutely crazy over him. Or Martin Luther King. He too had and still does have many many followers.
I never really thought about that word in politics before as I usually relate the word appeal with law.
But there are two meanings to it or maybe even more. When I do think about it , I tend to look inside of myself. It tends to make me think like, "am I really still that influenced by someone's nice words"? What a scary thought as I generally like to think that I can think for myself.
But we are. We are all influenced by nice words from politicians. Especially when we are unsure of the road ahead of us.
The one thing that man fears the most is the unknown. Any politician who has enough appeal to generate the masses recognition and support for him, the more others will also follow. After all, how can so many people be wrong about him or her if those masses of thousands of people tend to think , this will work.
Appeal.
Right or wrong, charisma, will eat you alive.
One thing Ron Paul has and will always have is that not only does he have the charisma to generate those feelings of genuine taste for honesty speaking to you, he also leaves the trail of crumbs to follow after everyone else has gone home.
One thing the Dems and the Reps can always agree on: making it impossible for a viable third party to emerge. In some states, the incumbent parties have make it virtually impossible for a third party to even get ballot access. As Ron Paul has said himself, a third party would have to have millions of dollars to spend on ballot access drives alone, and even then, it would probably be impossible to get on the ballot in Oklahoma.
To succeed politically, libertarians will have to infiltrate the GOP the way communists and socialists have infiltrated the Democrat party (incrementally, relentlessly and completely).
Until grassroots activists throw out the incumbent bums and change ballot access laws in every state, the Libertarian Party's most useful role will be educational (educating non-libertarians on the benefits of liberty, and educating libertarians on effective politicking).
I am a democrat and former Obama supporter who has been brought to this site by Dr. Paul. I don't know anything about the Libertarian Party. But, I read Dr. Paul's Manifesto and I definitely see a clear vision for this country in what Dr.Paul wrote.
Dr. Paul is the best thing that ever happened to the Libertarian Party.
There is a Revolution out there. You need to tap into it. People are eager to figure out what to do.
I agree with Kathleen.However, you should infiltrate the democratic party, also. It would be a terrible miscalculation to leave the Democrats out.
For example, Many of the pressing issues for minorities in this country have a Libertarian solution. We are terribly afraid of how the government can be used to oppress us and we run to the Democrats because they are the only party which "speaks" as if it will protect and assist us. We don't need help, we need true freedom.
I am going to check out the info here and learn more about the Libertarian party. If you have any useful links. Please post them. I'm looking for Libertarian News, especially economic news.
Ron Paul has hurt the Libertarian Party by taking the emphasis away from it for his "campaign for liberty." I haven't quite figured out what it is that he is trying to accomplish by this campaign since he is not running, but it has taken the money that could have gone to a LP candidate to his campaign (but he's not running for any office under this campaign.
I'm sorry, don't get me wrong, Ron Paul has great libertarian convictions, but he is not helping to promote any cause but his own. He hasn't helped the LP because he is focusing all attention on himself. Which may be a good thing, but he should point to the fact that there is a whole party that represents his feelings.
I agree that if he wants to promote the LP, he should register as such and run for office as such. However, that is not going to happen, so this is the situation we are stuck with.
I personally think Ron is trying to start his own party. It is the only thing that makes sense to me. Hopefully, he will have better luck than Ross Perot.
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.
