A series of occasional columns on the next stage of the rEVOLution begins with a look back on and salute to the previous one. by George Dance
(libertarian)
Friday, March 4, 2011
rEVOLution 2.0
A series of occasional column on the next stage of the rEVOLution begins with a look back and salute to the previous one.
Welcome to rEVOLution 2.0, a series of occasional columns I intend to write on the next stage of the rEVOLution. By "rEVOLution" I mean the entire political struggle for a free society in the 21st century, but I intend to concentrate on one set of principal events in that struggle; arguably the most significant: the elections every four years for United States president. Other events will be treate here only in relation to the presidential campaign.
In that terminology (which is really all it is), rEVOLution 1.0 refers to the presidential election of 2008, and rEVOLution 2.0 to the coming one of 2012. As the title indicates, the intent is mainly a look ahead to the latter. However, I think it best to start with a look back at the earlier stage, if only to properly understand where rEVOLution 2.0 is beginning from.
The most significant event of rEVOLution 1.0 was Ron Paul's campaign for the 2008 Republican nomination. To put it that way, though, is to make an extreme understatement. For its 16 months of existence, the Ron Paul campaign was the rEVOLution. Its emergence as a mass movement was the 21st-century rEVOLution's emergence as a mass movement; and the very label it used to self-identify the Ron Paul rEVOLution is what gives the phenomenon its name.
The most important legacy of 2008's Ron Paul rEVOLution was that it gave back hope that achieving a free society could be accomplished politically.
During the culture wars of the mid-80's to mid-00s, the political fight for a free society political libertarianism had become marginalized. A small group of libertarians from the liberal side of the divide had organized as the Libertarian Party; an even smaller group of Buchanan-style conservative libertarians of the conservative side (the paleolibertarians') had organized into the even smaller Constitution Party. Neither party achieved much at the federal level, and neither was expected to by anyone in the the foreseeable future.
In those years by far the largest number of political libertarians were in the Republican Party, and their votes en masse for it were a k-ey part of the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, followed by the presidency in 2000. But those were as equally marginalized. After 1996 there is no noticeable libertarian influence on the GOP's congressional leadership, and it is doubtful if there ever was anyat all in the high-spending, high-deficit Bush administration.
In those days many pinned their hopes for a libertarian future on think tanks like the Reason nnd Future of Freedom foundations, and Cato and Independent institutes, whose purpose was to educate the powers-that-be much like the pre-revolutionary thinkers of the Enlightenment whose strategy was to educate the rulers as opposed to the revolutionary one of challenging, and if successful eliminating such rulers and powers). Political change to a free society was not often discussed as a realistic option.
The Ron Paul rEVOLution changed that thinking. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, there was a mass movement not a great mass, but an honest-to-goodness mass of volunteers a cadre behind a candidate with a platform explicitly advocating a free society. Amazed, long-time libertarians found themselves witnessing the apparently spontaneous birth of a cadre as Murray Rothbard argued decades ago, the precondition for any political success, revolutionary or otherwise. Where did that movement come from? Where was it going?
The events that sparked that movement were television ones. A televised debate exchange with then frontrunner Rudy Giuliani in a televised GOP debate (amazingly, provoked by Giuliani), at which Paul explained Rothbardian foreign policy to a booing Republican audience, was highly covered in the news. In turn that led to Paul's temporary adoption by some of the progressive media and enjoying 15 minutes of TV fame.
Long after television's attention had turned elsewhere, though, Paul (and his ideas) continued to enjoy star status, on and through the internet. (One has to add "and his ideas", because Paul has always made it about his ideas. He has always used his campaigns as opportunities to educate; unlike the think tanks, though, his education has been geared to Joe the Voter rather than to a ruling class.) Paul's following not only stayed together on the internet but increased. With Meet-ups, Facebook, Digg, and similar tools, the Web 2.0 internet allowed spontaneous organizing on a scale not seen before.
How big was the cadre? One cannot measure it by Paul's final vote-total: 1.3 million. That figure seriously underestimates his vote potential, since it was drawn from the relatively small pool of GOP primary and caucus voters. Except in write-ins that weren't counted, many if not most of Paul's supporters never had a chance to vote for him. As Justin Raimondo pointed out at the time, the only way for Paul to actualize all of his potential support would have been for him to have run third party.
However, there is no denying the Ron Paul rEVOLution's size and potential in staff a political campaign Paul managed to mobilize over 15,000 precinct captains nationwide for his primary effort; some state campaigns, as in Vermont, were run by the volunteers alone with no help from the official campaign.
Even more impressive was the financial support the movement provided. In its peak period (2007 4/4) the Paul campaign raised a whopping $14 million, $10 million of that in two one-day "money bombs" that set fundraising records.
All quite impressive. When one looks at the rest of the story, though, a word of caution must be sounded. While Paul himself insists that the rEVOLution must be bigger than, must be about more than, him. However, there is no sign as yet that the rEVOLution's cadres will support anyone else en masse.
In 2008, the Libertarians nominated Bob Barr, Paul's old Congressional ally, hoping to reap the rEVOLution would come to them, but that never happened: Barr ended up on Election Day with 500,000 votes, roughly $1 million raised. To this day some Libertarians that was only because of skeleton's in Barr's closet, and that a different candidate could have rallied the rEVOLution's troops. However, a look at the performance of the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin, the candidate Paul ultimately did endorse, one can see no transter of the rEVOLution's support to him.
In light of the election day vote, it's reasonable to think that the rEVOLution's base fragmented some to Barr or Baldwin, some to antiwar progressive Ralph Nader, some doggedly writing Paul's name in. Ultimately, then, rEVOLution 1.0 has to be judged as at best unfulfilled potential.
The Ron Paul rEVOLution of 2008 significantly changed the political landscape. But its gains were limited, and the enormous effort made to achieve them in vain unless they can be built on and consolidated in the next stage.
Hence the need for rEVOLution 2.0; and hence this column. In the coming weeks, it will be looking at presidential alternatives for the 2012 campaign. The next installment will deal with what is (in light of the above) the most obvious strategy: a second Ron Paul rEVOLution in 2012.
Welcome to rEVOLution 2.0, a series of occasional columns about the next stage of the rEVOLution. By "the rEVOLution" I mean the whole political struggle for a free society in the 21st century, but I intend to concentrate on one set of principal events in that struggle, arguably the most significant: elections for President of the United States. Other events will be treated as important here only relative to those presidential campaigns.
In that terminology (which is really all it is), rEVOLution 1.0 refers to the presidential election of 2008, and rEVOLution 2.0 to the coming one of 2012. As the title indicates, the intent is mainly a look ahead to the latter. However, I think it best to start with a look back at the earlier stage, if only to properly understand from what and where rEVOLution 2.0 is beginning.
The most significant event of rEVOLution 1.0 was Ron Paul's campaign for the 2008 Republican nomination. To put it that way, though, is to make an extreme understatement. For its 16 months of existence, the Ron Paul campaign was the rEVOLution. Its emergence as a mass movement was the 21st-century rEVOLution's emergence as a mass movement; and the very label it used to self-identify -- the Ron Paul rEVOLution -- is what gives the phenomenon its name. (1)
The enduring legacy of 2008's Ron Paul rEVOLution was the hope it awakened that a free society could be achieved through political means.
During the culture wars of the mid-80's to mid-00s, the political struggle for a free society -- political libertarianism -- had become marginalized. A small group of libertarians mainly from the liberal side of the cultural divide had organized as the small Libertarian Party; some Buchananesque-conservative libertarians (the 'paleolibertarians') had formed the smaller Constitution Party. Neither party achieved much at the federal level, and neither was expected to, by anyone, in the foreseeable future.
In those years most politically active libertarians were in the Republican Party, and their votes en masse for that party were a key part of its takeover of Congress in 1994 followed by the presidency in 2000. But those were as equally marginalized. After 1996 there is no noticeable libertarian influence on the GOP's congressional leadership, and it is doubtful if there ever was any at all in the high-spending, high-deficit Bush administration.
At that time many pinned their hopes for a libertarian future on think tanks like the Reason and Future of Freedom foundations, and Cato and Independent institutes, whose purpose was to educate the powers-that-be -- much like the pre-revolutionary thinkers of the Enlightenment whose strategy was to educate the rulers (as opposed to the revolutionary one of removing and whee possible eliminating such rulers and powers). Political change to a free society was not often discussed as a realistic option.
The Ron Paul rEVOLution changed all that. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, there was a mass movement -- not a giant mass, but an honest-to-goodness mass of volunteers -- behind a candidate explicitly advocating a free society. Amazed long-time libertarians found themselves witnessing the apparently spontaneous birth of a cadre -- as Murray Rothbard argued decades ago, the precondition for any political success, revolutionary or otherwise. Where did it come from? Where was it going?
The events that sparked that movement were television ones. A televised debate exchange with then frontrunner Rudy Giuliani in a televised GOP debate (amazingly, provoked by Giuliani), at which Paul explained Rothbardian foreign policy to a booing Republican audience, was highly covered in the news. In turn that led to Paul's being adopted by some of the antiwar progressive media and enjoying a 15 minutes of TV fame.
Long after television's attention had turned elsewhere, though, Paul (and his ideas) continued to enjoy star status, on and through the internet. (One has to add "and his ideas", because Paul has always made it about his ideas. He has always used his campaigns as opportunities to educate; unlike the think tanks, though, his education has been geared to Joe the Voter rather than to a ruling class.) Paul's grassroots following -- the actual rEVOLution -- not only stayed together on the internet but increased. With Meet-ups, Facebook, Digg, and similar tools, the Web 2.0 internet allowed spontaneous organizing on a scale not seen before.
How big was the cadre? One cannot measure it by Paul's final vote-total: 1.3 million. That figure seriously underestimates his vote potential, since it was drawn from the relatively small pool of GOP primary and caucus voters. Except in write-ins that weren't counted, many if not most of Paul's supporters never had a chance to vote for him. As Justin Raimondo pointed out at the time, the only way for Paul to realize all of his potential would have been for him to have run third party. (2)
However, there is no denying the Ron Paul rEVOLution's ability to staff a political campaign: Paul managed to mobilize over 15,000 precinct captains nationwide for his primary effort; some state campaigns, as in Vermont, were run by the volunteers alone with no help from the official campaign.
Even more impressive was the financial support the movement could provide. In its peak fundraising quarter (2007 4/4) the Paul campaign raised a whopping $14 million, $10 million of that in two one-day "money bombs" that set fundraising records. (1)
All of that is something of which to be proud. When one looks at the rest of the story, though, a word of caution must be sounded. While Paul himself insists that the rEVOLution must be bigger than, must be about more than, him. However, there is no sign as yet that the rEVOLution's cadres will support anyone else as a united movement.
In hopes of bringing the rEVOLution to them, the Libertarians nominated Bob Barr, Paul's old Congressional ally. (3) The hope was in vain: Barr ended up on Election Day with slightly over 500,000 votes and , roughly $1 million raised. To this day some Libertarians that was only because of skeleton's in Barr's closet (like his vote for the Patriot Act), and that a different candidate could have rallied the rEVOLution's troops. However, a look at the performance of the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin, the candidate Paul ultimately did endorse, shows no transter of the rEVOLution's support to him, either.
In light of the election day vote, it's reasonable to think that the rEVOLution's base fragmented: some to Barr some to Baldwin, some to antiwar progressive Ralph Nader; some voting for the eventual Republican nominee, McCain, some casting a Democratic ballot just to vote against him; some doggedly writing Paul's name in. Ultimately, then, rEVOLution 1.0 has to be judged as at best unfulfilled potential.
The Ron Paul rEVOLution of 2008 significantly changed the political landscape. But its gains were limited, and the enormous effort made to achieve them in vain unless they can be built on and consolidated in the next stage.
Hence the need for rEVOLution 2.0; and hence this column. In the coming weeks, it will be looking at presidential alternatives for the 2012 campaign. The next installment will deal with what is (in light of the above) the most obvious strategy: a second Ron Paul rEVOLution in 2012.
The views expressed
in this article are those of George Dance only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
George Dance 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.
The Ron Paul rEVOLution changed all that. Suddenly, as if from nowhere, there was a mass movement -- not a giant mass, but an honest-to-goodness mass of volunteers -- behind a candidate explicitly advocating a free society. Amazed long-time libertarians found themselves witnessing the apparently spontaneous birth of a cadre -- as Murray Rothbard argued decades ago, the precondition for any political success, revolutionary or otherwise. Where did it come from? Where was it going?
