The Revolution and the Republican Party
This is the final installment in a four-part symposium on the Ron Paul movement. John Derbyshire, Justin Raimondo, and Paul Gottfried have made previous contributions.
A colleague, for whom paleoconservatism is as esoteric as paleontology, recently inquired into the mood of Ron Paul supporters: Do they view his campaign as a worthwhile endeavor, if not a success, or as a bust?
There are nearly as many answers to this question as there are Ron Paul supporters. Even among this website’s contributors and readers, there isn’t anything approaching unanimity when it comes to Paul postmortems. But the Good Doctor’s presidential bid has had some salutary effects, even if we won’t get to see President Paul take the oath of office and actually mean it, much less turn to his two immediate predecessors and announce, “You have the right to remain silent.”
First the good news: Paul attracted a large, impassioned, and surprisingly young grassroots following. Even after dozens of primary defeats, he continues to bring in crowds that rival those of the frontrunning candidates, outdrawing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at Georgetown University just this month. Paul has raised millions of dollars, including more than $19 million in the last quarter alone, winning the fourth quarter Republican “money primary.” And though Paul hasn’t done well in many big-state primaries, he has registered double-digit showings in a number of caucuses, likely won more delegates than most media estimates suggest, and finished ahead of every top-tier Republican in at least one contest.
Best of all, Paul has gotten such seemingly antique notions as limited constitutional government, sound money, and the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers unprecedented exposure on the Internet and even in the mainstream media. Not bad, for a “fringe candidacy.”
On to the bad news: Those tens of millions raised, the huge rallies, and the strong online presence raised expectations. Despite successful money bombs, straw poll victories, and big, young crowds on the trail, the Paul campaign has seldom met those expectations where they count most—at the ballot box. Sometimes the Paulites came agonizingly close—a little over three more points apiece in Iowa and New Hampshire would have ensured third-place showings in both pivotal early states, making Paul an indisputable part of the 2008 race narrative. Sometimes, it wasn’t even close, as when Paul finished behind the recently departed Rudy Giuliani in California.
Short of a Paul administration, what would success have looked like? First, a solid enough showing to demonstrate that even a critical mass of Republicans had turned against the war in Iraq—a final nail in the Bush Doctrine’s coffin. Wobblier Republicans like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee might have been encouraged to continue their early gestures toward foreign-policy independence. Even more reliable hawks like John McCain might have felt constrained in widening the war. And the entire debate would have been freed from its artificial red-team/blue-team boundaries.
Second, a strong enough showing to force Republicans (and enterprising Democrats) to pander to Paulites on other issues. Even as few as a million primary votes—the number Alan Keyes won in 2000—would have been the beginnings of a formidable constituency for smaller government. Early signs of success were enough to win favorable press in the Wall Street Journal and Newsmax, the latter publishing a cover story that argues that Paul might be onto something when it comes to government-cutting, if not all that wacky antiwar stuff. These examples suggest that even if mainline Republicans had tried to co-opt Paul without rethinking foreign policy, it still might have nudged the conservative movement in the right direction.
Third, the Paul campaign could have succeeded simply by doing well enough to establish that there is an identifiable “Ron Paul” wing of the Republican Party. In 1988, Pat Robertson’s failed bid for the GOP nomination helped identify conservative Christians and organize them in an effective national pressure group. Paul could have done the same for libertarian, antiwar, and small-government conservative Republicans.
Some of these goals may still be achievable. Paul did start something of an intra-Republican war debate, albeit against the party’s will. Libertarians and less statist conservatives will be looking for Paul’s donor lists when the campaign is over. Some people already identify as Ron Paul Republicans. But none of these objectives have been realized to the extent that once seemed possible.
In Iowa, some polls found that a small majority of registered Republicans wanted to withdraw from Iraq within six months. Yet Paul won 10 percent of the vote there—not bad, but nowhere close to the 51 percent that could reasonably be described as antiwar. In New Hampshire, Paul actually lost self-described opponents of our current Iraq policy to John McCain of all people. That’s the same McCain who would be “fine with” a 100-year presence in Iraq.
Since Super Tuesday, Paul’s share of the vote in most primaries has settled into the 3-to-5 percent range. Paul advertised in Arkansas, a state most of the top-tier Republicans had ceded to Huckabee, and still managed to win just 5 percent of the vote. He also went on the air in Tennessee, where he did only slightly better with 6 percent of the final tally.
What went wrong? Some of the problems had little to do with the candidate or his campaign. Huckabee’s rise into the top tier absorbed the media’s limited attention for candidates other than Rudy McRompson. Mitt Romney’s poor showings in the primaries forced him to devote resources to caucuses like Maine and Alaska, where Paul had his best chances for victory. Four of the five original candidates who were trailing Paul dropped out before the first ballots were cast. Only Duncan Hunter stayed in to take his beating.
But a successful presidential campaign must do more than rise above the also-rans. Paul’s message was often mismatched with the Republican primary electorate. Sometimes, as Paul Gottfried documents, the problem was with Paul. Often it was with the increasingly big-government, “invade the world, invite the world” GOP. Either way, Paul frequently did not campaign as if he were trying to win over the major voting blocs that actually reside in the Republican Party.
In the Jan. 14 American Conservative, I observed that paleoconservatives are divided tactically: some prefer to work within the larger conservative movement; others hope to replace that movement with a Real Right; others still think it best to forge a Left-Right coalition against the neocons. By running for the Republican presidential nomination, for better or worse Paul chose to adopt the first strategy. In practice, his campaign often seemed to translate into an effort to follow the third.
Much of the “Ron Paul cured my apathy” vote came from the same well that feeds Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy. And indeed, some Paul supporters saw themselves competing with Obama for votes more than with Huckabee or Romney—not a winning strategy in Republican primaries. Paul appealed to young progressives who suspected—rightly, as it turned out—that the Democrats are not serious about ending the war or substantially changing the country’s foreign policy. They make good allies on an ad hoc basis; occasionally they might make good converts to a more principled conservatism. But failing the latter, they don’t make promising recruits for an intellectually coherent movement.
Some of these young progressives have become interested in fiscal and monetary policy; a few of them have had their minds opened to the Old Right. But not enough of them have entered the Republican electoral process to make Paul a stronger contender. It is doubtful the influence of recent former Obama supporters will make itself felt in other identifiably conservative ways.
This is all new territory for paleos. Bill Maher didn’t praise Pat Buchanan during his Republican presidential bids. Neither “The Daily Show” nor “The Colbert Report” existed in 1992 or 1996, but if they did, it is hard to imagine they would have welcomed Buchanan with open arms back when he was at the peak of his influence among conservatives. Paul did much better at winning favorable coverage from smart liberal hipsters, but Buchanan enjoyed far more success in the primaries because his ties to populist conservatives in the pro-life, pro-gun, and anti-tax movements (and even talk radio) were stronger. Even if there is no such thing as bad publicity, not all publicity translates into an equal number of votes.
Yet there remains one area where Paul’s revolution can eclipse the Buchanan brigades. Between Buchanan’s three presidential campaigns, relatively little effort went into movement-building. Few like-minded Republicans entered primaries and ran for office. No Buchanan caucus, however small, was built in Congress. The millions shouting “Go Pat Go!” were not taking their pitchforks and storming state legislatures or city halls. If the Paul movement can persevere and cohere—neither of which is certain—it can go beyond a cult of personality and be a beginning rather than an ending.
This could be true even if Paul doesn’t run as a third-party candidate. Let’s face it: While it would give us all someone to vote for, Paul probably hasn’t done well enough in the Republican primaries to have much impact if he fought to November. We can hope that his vote totals will improve once he can reach beyond members of George W. Bush’s party, and we can certainly point to some encouraging poll numbers.
But the early polling was encouraging when Buchanan bolted the GOP in the fall of 1999. In November 2000, he won just 0.4 percent of the vote, barely beating Harry Browne. The antiwar liberals, burned by Ralph Nader, will be reluctant to vote third-party. Especially if Obama is the Democratic nominee, few of them will want to feel responsible for electing President McCain. And although large numbers of conservatives are now insisting they can’t vote for McCain, if the presidential election is close most of them will be unable to resist the temptation.
Most of Paul’s media attention, even from liberals, has come from the fact that he is a Republican saying things about the Iraq war that Republicans are not supposed to say. Take away the GOP affiliation, and most of that attention will vanish. The Libertarian Party or Constitution Party nominee will not appear on “The View.” A third-party candidate probably won’t be invited on “Meet the Press” and certainly won’t be included in the debates.
Paul would probably do just well enough to be blamed for whatever happens—if McCain is elected he will be criticized for splitting the antiwar vote; if a Democrat is elected he will be attacked for splitting the conservative vote—without changing the country’s political dynamics. The kind of change we’re looking for can’t be achieved in one election—it will take many elections, for many offices, and an intellectual movement outside electoral politics entirely. Keeping Ron Paul in Congress and electing more people like him, even as the GOP keeps trying to recruit more Chris Pedens, will contribute more to these goals than breaking Ed Clarke’s record as top Libertarian Party vote-getter.
The challenge that awaits the thousands of activists who have been inspired by Dr. Paul isn’t to run and register under a new third party as the number of dedicated constitutionalists in Congress is reduced to zero. It is expanding the ranks of Ron Paul Republicans—and small-government supporters of all stripes—in a hostile political climate. That takes more than one man. It requires a real movement.
W. James Antle III is associate editor of The American Spectator.
Comments
“A third-party candidate probably won’t be invited on “Meet the Press” and certainly won’t be included in the debates.”
Uh, Ralph Nader announced his candidacy on MTP, I believe.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I respect the argument, but it has one fatal flaw; the Republican Party is at this point officially the party of war. I do not mean to say that the Democrats are better on foreign policy in any meaningful way, or that Republicans only care about war, but rather that the defining issue that defines the modern GOP is whether or not one is a hawk in the “war on terror”. Ron Pauls campaign most certainly proved this, as the most conservative person to ever run for the office of the Presidency was rejected by the allegedly “conservative” party, entirely because of his stance on war, while pro-amnesty, anti-gun, pro-welfare statist dominated the primary season.
It is fine and dandy to cheerlead a wave of “Ron Paul Republicans” and I will vote for any that appear on a ballot in my state. But it is hard to forsee how the GOP can be “taken back”, when its media, candidates and if we are being honest, its base are dominated by people who view adherence to a doctrine of perpetual war as the primary litmus test for office.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“The challenge that awaits the thousands of activists who have been inspired by Dr. Paul isn’t to run and register under a new third party as the number of dedicated constitutionalists in Congress is reduced to zero. It is expanding the ranks of Ron Paul Republicans—and small-government supporters of all stripes—in a hostile political climate. That takes more than one man. It requires a real movement.”
This prescription is absolutely the most fanciful of the three proposed and the least, if at all, principled. It was the anti-war impulse and to a lesser extent the anti-interventionism that propelled Paul, not the conservative economics, most people have little attraction to that. And, sadly, it’s this very anti-war impulse that will render the “movement”, or “revolution”, or what ever other misnomer might be assign to it, impotent as Obama will likely pre-empt most of its force in the coming months. Paul, a Libertarian, has had the good fortune to be obscure enough to escape the attentions of the Republican Party hierarchy, having used as he has their banner in such a way as to advance both his ideas and his personal political fortune for many years. In point of fact, Paul has been, at best, the worst sort of poseur. Now nascently Nazi with its ReichsChurch base and its Thiessen-like corporate financiers cheering on its neo-con Himmlers, the Republican Party can never be a home to people of good will. The utter naivete informing the notion that paleo-conservatives and Libertarians can at some time in the future take commanding direction of the Republican Party leaves one just reeling. Did von Papen turn Hitler into the employee he said that he would? No, you can forget a future for an imagined Ron Paul Republican project unless, perhaps, you’d want to enroll its adolescents into a kind of Kristol Jugen. By failing to opt for an independent candidacy, Ron Paul has deep sixed any near term hope for right side peace and anti-interventionism. I only hope we’ve seen the last of him.
John Lowell
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Libertarians don’t embrace Paul and he’s certainly no republican.
We have a responsibility to mankind and our own safety to deal with evil in the world when no one else lifts a finger for that same evil will surely arrive on our shores emboldened by this isolationist nonsense.
There was a time before global travel made attacks that were virtually impossible but, that time is long gone.
For this reason alone Paul disqualifies himself.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Isolationist nonsense? My blood rushes to hear this phrase. Isolationism has been the U.S. government’s favorite word of propaganda perhaps since the Spanish American war. But let us consider the word itself and free it from these imperialist trappings. What can possibly be wrong with ISOLATING one’s country from the murder and mayhem inflicted on the people of Iraq?
Dr. Paul understands these things in his heart. His great contribution is to encourage the hearts of others so they know they are not alone in resisting the evil that resides in Washington D.C.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Winghunter,
I posit that the US is one of the most evil forces operating in the world today. The day approaches when the world will lift a finger against it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“...it is hard to forsee how the GOP can be “taken back”, when its media, candidates and if we are being honest, its base are dominated by people who view adherence to a doctrine of perpetual war as the primary litmus test for office.”
Precisely. The Republican Party today is essentially an evil organization, its membership made up largely of ignorant fools (much like the Democrats). A military coup is a more plausible path to national salvation than expecting a bunch of stupid jokers, like the majority of the present-day American people, to actually vote in the best interests of themselves and their nation as a whole.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ John Lowell
“The utter naivete informing the notion that paleo-conservatives and Libertarians can at some time in the future take commanding direction of the Republican Party leaves one just reeling.”
Well, let us remind ourselves that naivete is in the eye of the beholder; The only other long term option is a third party and those who see any hope of a third party movement achieving meaningful success fly in the face of a record of historic ineptitude that defines the word naivete.
A Paul “movement” may be a long shot but if it is to have any chance for success it need take place within the Republican Party. And, it need not “take over” the party. It can survive and have great influence by electing as few as a handful of “Paul Republicans”. Ten or twelve in the House and three or four in the Senate and the direction of this nation would change dramatically.
With the RepubliCrats effectively in control of ballot access and election law, it ain’t gonna happen any other way. Third parties have too many cards stacked against them.
I agree that the verdict is out on Pauls ability to lead this “movement”. It will be the great test of his leadership abilities. So far, his instincts have been good even when organization and performance have been lacking. We shall see...and hope for the best.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
dbris,
Now I understand why it is that we’ve never asked you to take over the Sales Department, dbris. We’ve bannished Ron Paul to Accounts Payable and dressed him appropriately in an eyeshade. Now, it seems, we’ll need to pack you off to State College for a history lesson. :-)
You say, most unfortunately:
“...those who see any hope of a third party movement acheiving meaningful success fly in the face of a record of historic ineptitude that defies the word naivete.”
And that’s why we’ve asked William Jennings Bryan, Teddy Roosevelt, Eugene Debs, Robert La Follette, George Wallace and Ross Perot to join us on today’s program.
You say further:
“It can survive and have great influence by electing as few as a handful of “Paul Republicans”. Ten or twelve in the House and three or four in the Senate and the direction of this nation change dramatically.”
Will they be wearing brown shirts and red, black and white armbands with a strange looking symbol in the middle?. Ron Paul has had zero infuence as a Republican and twelve times zero is still zero if my math holds up.
Supporting this corrupt system by making a common presentation with any of its principal institutions is to support and encourage it in its worst aspects. We need a new constitution, not the weak, malleable reed that serves as the present one. And we’ll never get anything even approaching that kind of thing with ineffectual clowns like Ron Paul leading us, believe me.
John Lowell
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Wingnut said,
We have a responsibility to mankind and our own safety to deal with evil in the world when no one else lifts a finger for that same evil
Wow. How many errors can you make in one brief statement?
We have a responsibility to fight evil in the world? Ok, then let’s get rid of the Fed and the IRS for starters. Does this mean we have to attack China and Israel? There are many who call these countries evil but we have been able to have more than peaceful relations with both of them.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
This a good essay that helps explain the odd disjoint between dollars raised by the Paul Campaign and the disappointing election results themselves.
Any notion of a re-birth in Republican Party Philosophy must wait for this bloated Bureaucracy to finally reveal its dangerously consumptive ways. People must come to clearly understand that the amount of money tied up in the Bureaucracy is counter-productive, despite any best intentions that may still exist. The Bureaucracy spends the vast majority of it’s funds on perpetuating the bureaucracy, not pursuing the expressed aims of individual departments of the bureaucracy. Petty Bureaucrats have entrenched a petty government. A similar cycle prevails in modern bureaucratic corporatism. What began as an effort at efficiency has resulted in something quite the opposite. Business and Governmental bureaucracies have grown up together and are now inflicting their dysfunctions on a people who have habituated themselves to the idea that the bureaucracies are helping.
The elevation of the office of the Executive has virtually destroyed the Separation of Powers and its attending conversation and so the unelected bureaucracy simply seethes and grows....increasing the disparity between money spent upon expressed individual programs and money simply wasted on perpetuating the bureaucracy.
If traditional Republican philosophy is to gain any traction , it must reinvigorate the base, the local towns and State Governments that came under attack when the Republican party was just beginning. The Republican Party and its northern industrialists may have won the Civil War, but it lost the Republic, drove it out and now participates in the ongoing charade that is the lapsed Republic. Copperheads and Carpetbaggers have united. The Federalists have created a defacto monarchy. The citizen has no more role to play in this current government than did the colonists of 18th century North America.
The Ron Paul effort was a lost cause from the beginning because it had the temerity to attack the beast in his lair. What it did do with spectacular success is identify and focus the problem for a growing number of people and now it is up to those people to build at the local level so that the beast is drawn from his lair, exposed and gutted.
The Washington Side Show is the greatest threat to the nation that we have. It needs terrorism to survive and so one can be assured that terrorism it will have. The Paul Campaign clearly exposed the K Street-Media- Establishment hammerlock of Conventional Wisdom (an entrenched counter-intuition) and so now we must simply begin to ignore it , in favor of operating at the local and State Level.
It reminds me of a local Town Meeting several years ago during which two of the matters before the public involved some decree by the state that was either unnecessary or came with too many strings attached. One was a State Highway Grant that only the State could identify the stretch of road to be straightened or “improved” while putting the onus of executing imminent domain against several homeowners on the Town. The Town had other more important road work to tackle, that did not include putting residents out of their homes but the State insisted on their own pet project with little local benefit. The other issue involved a state decree that we needed to add another probate judge even though there appeared no pressing need for one. Both State Proposals were considered mandatory and were to be simply rubber stamped. Over a hundred residents showed up and told the State “no” ....in a resounding way.....on both accounts and I have rarely seen a happier group of citizens. Over 10 years later, the road is still un-straightened and we have one probate judge. Life, as it was known, did not come to an end.
It could be remarkably easy, ignore the beast until it is forced to expose itself and once exposed, the work will be easy. This is bottoms up work, distinctly unsexy but wildly fulfilling nonetheless. Mr. Paul gave the beast a few good shots but he did it where there was little chance of lasting effect. We need to take his good effort and turn it into the strategic guerilla war at the local level that cannot help but ultimately succeed. Big Government Conservatism vs. Big Government Liberalism is destroying us.
Federal “Isolationism” seems somewhat beside the point when States Rights are re-elevated to the status envisioned and promulgated by the Framers. I’ll gladly accept the raucous free-for-all that may come with a return to States Rights if that is what it takes to kill this Federal Bureaucratic Dragon that is destroying the lapsed Republic.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
John Lowell:
“And that’s why we’ve asked William Jennings Bryan, Teddy Roosevelt, Eugene Debs, Robert La Follette, George Wallace and Ross Perot to join us on today’s program.”
Impressive. Great third party successes...right.
TR’s “success” was foisting the abominably arrogent Woodrow Wilson on an unsuspecting nation, LaFollette’s lasting accomplishment is one of the worst of our Constitutional amendments, while the others are historical footnotes. Poor Debs was the most honest of the bunch and he got prison for it.
“Supporting this corrupt system by making a common presentation with any of its principal institutions is to support and encourage it in its worst aspects. We need a new constitution, not the weak, malleable reed that serves as the present one.”
Oh, our present consttution is a de facto dead letter no doubt. As to a “new constitution”, what was that about naivete? Good luck on that one.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Lowell writes: “We need a new constitution...”
The very idea of having the scoundrels, rogues, liars, thieves, and perverts running (ruining) the country today write a new constitution is enough to give me nightmares.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
dbriz,
“Impressive. Great third party successes .... right.”
The criteria you posed for this category was “meaningful success”, I believe. The question was whether third party efforts could impact the system meaningfully, not in some way as simply to satisfy your private interpretations, which may or my not be valid. You’re engaged in a retreat with that kind of reasoning.
“As to a ‘new constitution’, what was that about naivete?”
I suspect we’ll manage while we leave you and others to the system and to your exquisitely well developed sense of the real, dbriz.
John Lowell
Click to flag this comment as abusive
MAP,
It won’t be those that give you the nightmares writing it, MAP. There’ll be showtrials for them, then the constitutional convention.
John Lowell
Click to flag this comment as abusive
MR. ANTLE NOTES THAT RON PAUL IS VIEWED MORE FAVORABLY THAN PAT BUCHANAN AMONG THE “SMART LIBERAL HIPSTERS” IN THE MEDIA. NO MYSTERY HERE. IT IS TABOO FOR A SOCIAL-CLIMBING MEDIA PERSONALITY TO PRAISE PAT BUCHANAN BECAUSE BUCHANAN HAS THE COURAGE TO CRITICIZE ISRAEL.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The Ron Paul phenomenon is no revolution, he’s a counter-reformation. He doesn’t want to help the common man, he wants to roll back all of the reforms that prevent things like slavery, segregation, and child labor.
I find it highly amusing that Paulsies sex up their platform with socialist words like “revolution”. The only people to be helped by Paul’s “Revolution” are the obscenely wealthy. He’s no better than the other Republicans.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The calculus changes considerably if Paul (and/or Walter Jones) loses his House primary. There will then be exactly zero Constitutional Republicans in power nationally. The system has already won; however the Ron Paul candidacy was “worth” the expense, in that
a. it messed up the script for the primary charade only being open to pre-approved candidates.
b. completely exposed the corruption of the MSM being in on the charade
c. re-introduced the concept of the Constitution as law that applies directly to our biggest problems, war and the economy, a concept that may prove useful in the near future.
d. took out Rudy, although he was able to lateral the 911 whistle to McCain
e. gave the Republicans the last possible benefit-of-doubt: they blew it.
f. showed how a gentleman conducts himself.
Best. Candidate. Ever.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@Jeff Albert,
great post Jeff. The MSM are so invested in the candidates other than Ron Paul that they have actually been willing to cost their sponsors money as well as their stockholders by banning Ron Paul from the discussion. Gives you an idea who is pulling the strings on all the other candidates. I couldn’t get over the fact that in the run up to Iowa in New Hampshire that candidates with a fraction of Ron Paul’s support were getting huge air time.
Then of course there is the constant carping on polls by the mainstream media. What need is there for polls when people are going to actually vote other than to tell people how they should vote? How is it that Giulliani is leading in the polls and then suddenly is out of the race? He never had any support except in a rigged poll. When it came to voting it actually was impossible to even rig the Diebold machines to help him out.
See hilarious video on the Onion.com titled Diebold mistakenly reveals winner of election beforehand.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Revulsion,
Why do you read the commentaries on this site? You can’t possibly have much in common with those of us who see that we are not free of slavery at all. We work half of our lives to pay our taxes and you suggest that government has eliminated slavery? Must I come right out and call you a f--l? Surely you are vexed by the majority of Taki readers.
Save yourself and us much incensing.
MAP, I love your concise posts…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
So Ron Paul is not going to be President. Does anyone realistically expect that someone like him or Pat Buchanan will ever penetrate the protective duopoly of national political power within current system. A managed “democracy” is the perfect system to benignly control while deflecting attention from real threats to the country. Time is running out, gents. The demographic changes will determine the future, and Libertarians and Paleos will have no place. I bid Adios as I seek out a warm cave.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I am grateful for the many thoughtful comments and thought I’d offer a few quick responses. First, I’m not as interested in the Republican Party per se as I am in the entire of a movement based on more than one candidacy. I would rather have some influence through even just a handful of congressmen—Ron Paul, Walter Jones, Jimmy Duncan—than having no elected officials but an exciting protest candidacy. If Paul is going to be a Republican congressman, I would rather he have at least some influence in his party than have none as a protest candidate. I do, however, agree with Jeff Albert that a Paul or Jones primary defeat changes the calculus.
Second, I don’t think a third party based on the defection of a single political leader can only be effective if it has influence on one of the major parties. It would require a mass defection supported by multiple political leaders. Ron Paul can’t do it by himself.
Third, Joe Allen is right about Ralph Nader and Meet the Press. I wrote this piece before Nader’s appearance. I also believe Nader and Pat Buchanan got to debate on one of the Sunday shows before the 2000 election. As a sitting member of Congress and former Republican presidential candidate, Paul as a third-party presidential hopeful would probably get more media coverage than, say, Michael Peroutka. But he’d get much less than the major-party candidates.
Finally, I am still not clear on what benefit we would get out of a Paul third-party candidacy other than someone for whom we could cast a protest vote. But aren’t there other people we could support as a protest candidate without losing a congressman?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Good Lord, I should read and edit my comments before I post them. Here is a slightly more coherent version:
I am grateful for the many thoughtful comments and thought I’d offer a few quick responses. First, I’m not as interested in the Republican Party per se as I am in the idea of a movement based on more than one candidacy. I would rather have some influence through even just a handful of congressmen—Ron Paul, Walter Jones, Jimmy Duncan—than having no elected officials but an exciting protest candidacy. If Paul is going to be a Republican congressman, I would rather he have at least some influence in his party than have none as a protest candidate. I do, however, agree with Jeff Albert that a Paul or Jones primary defeat changes the calculus.
Second, I think a third party based on the defection of a single political leader can only be effective if it does well enough for an election cycle or two to have influence on one of the major parties. Building an effective new party would require a mass defection supported by multiple political leaders. Ron Paul can’t do it by himself.
Third, Joe Allen is right about Ralph Nader and Meet the Press. I wrote this piece before Nader’s appearance. I also believe Nader and Pat Buchanan got to debate on one of the Sunday shows before the 2000 election. As a sitting member of Congress and former Republican presidential candidate, Paul as a third-party presidential hopeful would probably get more media coverage than, say, Michael Peroutka. But he’d get much less than the major-party candidates.
Finally, I am still not clear on what benefit we would get out of a Paul third-party candidacy other than someone for whom we could cast a protest vote. But aren’t there other people we could support as a protest candidate without losing a congressman?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Well, we’re just going to have war, excessive government spending, continued government growth, illegal immigration, inflation, more taxes, a loss of jobs, legislation against our freedom, and a foreign policy that make the rest of the world hate us so, get used to it.
The part that doesn’t make sense is letting a group of private bankers print our money and loan it to us at an interest rate that only they determine. Why would a country do this?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“The part that doesn’t make sense is letting a group of private bankers print our money and loan it to us at an interest rate that only they determine. Why would a country do this?”
Because the pandering slugs in congress are able to finance, momentarily, the extravagant “free lunch” that the voters don’t have enough sense to refuse?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Had the Mafia understood that there was more power and wealth in controlling the MSM, than organized labor, they would rule. What has happened is that the Federal Government destroyed the Mafia so they could replace them!.....Criminology 101!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I wonder how these folks feel today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pMYlyxI_44
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Paul did much better at winning favorable coverage from smart liberal hipsters...”
Yes he did, and that says all you need to know about the Ron Paul “old-right” movement. This article is one more disingenuous effort to characterize Paulies as small-government conservatives. They’re anti-neocon liberaltarians. That’s as deep as their conservatism runs, and that ain’t deep. Being anti-(neocon)war doesn’t put you on the right. Yes, youngsters and Bill Maher will sing your praises, but the rest of us aren’t so easily duped. The last installment in this “symposium” quoted Paul quoting Trostsky. Maher and his band of hipsters liked that too no doubt.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The money changers are not going to
leave peacfully.
Look at the recent collapse of middle
class capital in the housing market
and you get an idea of what they are
doing to us.
Andrew Jackson broke the bank, Ron Paul
would have done it again.
There is an economics of freedom and
that means real money in our pockets
not the debt instruments that indenture
us to greedy bankers.
It is the economists who are making the
biggest fuss in this election pro and
con, Iraq is only a consequence of the
bigger farce.
Get ready for REAL socialism in America.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It’s very likely that Paul did so poorly in state primaries thus far because the vote tallies were falsified.
There’s a widespread suspicion among the majority of Americans who don’t support W that he is the beneficiary of two stolen elections in a row. Primaries are much easier to rig than a general election. Does this occur to anyone other than me?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“It’s very likely that Paul did so poorly in state primaries thus far because the vote tallies were falsified.”
and, because he didn’t take a stand in NH, his supporters felt betrayed. For them, it was about freedom which means free and fair elections and RP didn’t live up to his hype.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Oh wake up, Ravis! We true conservatives know Leviathian when we see her. She thrives on war. And whether people label themselves liberal or conservative is altogether irrelevant IF they hate the monster that lives in D.C. (and God knows where else)
You seem to teeter on the fence. That may not always be an option. Leviathan seems to force submission in the end.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Good article. This is exactly the plan Paul supporters should follow
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The following is an excerpt from an article at NolanChart titled: “The Evolution of the Ron Paul Movement”.
...
No one person, nor group of people, will be able to convince ALL Ron Paul supporters to join the Republican party, nor the Libertarian party, nor any other political organization. We may as well accept this, get over it, and push on. No one, not even Ron Paul, will be able to convince ALL Ron Paul supporters to walk the same path to the goal. But it seems a simple fact is being over-looked: we all have basically the same goal! Do we all have to walk the same path to get to that goal? No! Besides, it is simply not going to happen.
Ron Paul supporters initially came from a wide spectrum of political thought: Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, etc. It is more natural for each of us, after having been seeded with “Pauleolibertarianism”, to take this seed back into the political group from which we came. In this way the Message of Liberty and Constitutionalism will have the broadest effect over time.
...
We must continue to support each other, regardless of political affiliation, because this Movement is more than a mere political movement.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
WillB sed: “There is an economics of freedom and that means real money in our pockets
not the debt instruments that indenture us to greedy bankers.”
You can blame the end of the “gold standard” on the Chicago School, and Milton Friedman, who got the NObble Prize for “proving” that the Depression was caused by a contraction in the money supply.
Frankly, I’d rather go back to Lincoln’s “Greenbacks” which was real “fiat money” instead fo fthe Federal REserver Notes, which is---despite the denials of the Ron Paul wing of the Libertarians---the “privatized money” that they claim to support.
Ron Paul’s message was really about the fallacy of using long term debt to fund short term economic stimulus, and he would have been better off not mentioning the Gold Standard, which is not even supported by the mainstream economic conservatives anymore.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I agree with the gentleman from NH. Ron needed to attack more, especially the last debate he was in which he was totally ignored and cut off constantly. He has the truth o his side so why not attack. His campaign was too “nice”. On another note, I don’t see a purely grass roots political movement making it in the long term since they can easily be diffused and disjointed over a number of issues. A new movement needs a core group of die hard believers that are totally in sync and have a strong, centralized leadership cadre to keep party discipline. This is why I think the prospects of the Revolution are at best 50-50.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
During Paul’s u tube speach on about March 7 he has clearly stopped his activity while instucting supporters to continue the delegate fight.
What I had hoped was to see a conviction by the candidate to rally his troops, conserve a few million in funds, and make a stand at the Convention. This is where all supporters- whether inside or outside- could make a visable showing. Instead he wants us to go to Washington on the 21st and will not even say he will attend, or even help in any way. With a few million in the bank this could be a presidential race rally which could give the thing a boost. I think Devey Kidd has it right- Washington is not the place.
The reality is he never speaks of the convention or has hinted at any activity at the convention. He gave up.
I did my part. Writing letters for him which got published. Gave him money. Other. But, his campaign is over- he is not working for it.
Given his age he will likely retire soon.
So it is up to us, the people to continue on. But how?
For me--
1. Support via subscription alternate news groups.
2. Pick at least two groups to join which have members which actually do something and which caters to the doers and not the joiners.
3. Leave the Republican Party which I joined so I could vote in the primary and be listed as a an alternate delegate for Paul in case he actually won the winner take all primary. Why? The NY party is a pathogenic source which has helped corrupt the entire national party. It and the Democratic Party are the cause of NY’s perpetual recesssion and loss of status to the other states in the union. It is the home of Rockeffeler Republicans, the Trilateral Commission, the UN, and Wall Street which along with the banks has written off America and Americans for money and power. It is better I stand outside and not help this party. What is needed is destabilizing efforts to marginalize both major parties. It is better to register no party and show independence. This takes away registration numbers and marginalizes those in power. The idea of guilt by association is true.
3. Support the idea of a new third party which is open enough to include pro constitution, pro america, pro freedom, pro truth, pro holding politicians and bureaucracts accountable for their actions, and a few other things.
4. Support independents.
5. Support the 9/11 truth movement and the aim for a real investigation and real justice. ( If anyone thinks that two planes took out three skyscrappers with a limited amount of low burn temperaure jet fuel they need help in critical thinking and need stop protecting “official” accounts and “official” propaganda and “officials”. The pancake theory is a real joke given the construction of the towers.)
6. I will not be supporting free trade foolishness which has been used to gut out the jobs and industries created by hard working Ameicians. I support Americans first. That is the job of politicians- represent us.
Ron Paul did have bad press- he did have opportunities on prime time. For example - twice with Leno- and both times just blew it. The firt time he failed to relate to the crowd and the second he appeared weak at a time when Leno wanted to help him. That is not to say he is bad- he is just human-not perfect.
I am now going forward. I will not be supporting the RNC or DNC national conventions.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.