Congressman Ron Paul has been making waves and gaining supporters lately. Articles about him regularly appear on popular social networking sites, and he actually seems like more of a viable candidate than some Democratic fringe candidates. Of course, he is still polling below the margin of error in most states, but he’s got a large base of involved Internet supporters, and he brings a really interesting angle to the typically awful Republican debates.

So, how did Paul pull off the success he’s been able to achieve so far? And why do I think he will be in this race for a while yet? Simply put, he is a Libertarian candidate running as a Republican, and that gives him the opportunity to tap into the independent political spirit in America while retaining the money and publicity that comes by running within one of the main parties. He gets the best of both worlds.

Despite popular belief, there is a large swath of this country that identifies as Independent. As of 2000, almost 50% of American voters identified themselves as Independent. More importantly for this discussion, only 14% of voters said they would support party candidates no matter what, indicating significant flexibility on the part of the electorate to support the candidate, not the party. Surely, people’s actual views are all over the map. While most would describe themselves as centrist, there is no way we can assume that even the majority of independent voters support the same issues or candidates. Still, they are willing to overlook party lines to vote for people they believe in.

Third parties in America divide up the independent electorate according to political ideology. Groups such as the America First Party and the Constitution Party play off the nationalistic rhetoric on the right, while the Communist Party and the Green Party take up various pet issues on the left. Of course, many of these parties throw their support towards candidates of the major parties in big elections, and so the independent electorate votes along various party lines fairly often.

That is not to say that Independent political parties don’t have power in America. There have been some notable Independent successes over the years, including the election of Jesse Ventura in Minnesota. On top of that, strong third party candidates can swing elections (free registration required), as illustrated by Ross Perot (who got 22% of the popular vote) who helped defeat President H.W. Bush and Ralph Nader who contributed to the extremely close vote against Al Gore in 2000.

However, it remains the fact that third party candidates are extremely long shots in national elections. Major political parties have an immense advantage. They have a network of millions of voters with whom they can contact directly, they have connections with major donors, businesses, and lobbying groups, they are well funded and can bring the their capital to bear in the media and direct communication, and they enjoy the perception in America that we are a two party nation, and that a vote for a third party is akin to throwing your vote away.

That is why Ron Paul’s strategy is so smart. Ron Paul is a Libertarian candidate. He ran as a Libertarian presidential candidate in 1988, and his main campaign points in 2008 adhere closely to core Libertarian values. For example:

• Ron Paul is against taxes and the Federal Reserve system. The Libertarian party feels much the same way.
• Ron Paul is against foreign aid, as are the Libertarians.
• Ron Paul favors drastically limiting government and protecting privacy. Of course, the Libertarians do too.

In short, Ron Paul believes that less government is better government, and so his ideology hews very closely to more traditional conservative values, and makes his platform appealing to many conservative voters. However, Ron Paul is not running as a Libertarian, and that is why he is getting taken seriously. Though many mainstream conservatives believe in a lot of the Libertarian platform, and indeed they may believe in Ron Paul, they are loathe to vote for a third party. Without the support base of the Republican party, Ron Paul would likely be little more than a footnote, and there is no way that without much more significant support than he currently has he would be able to participate in nationally televised presidential debates, thus losing the exposure he now enjoys. By running as a Republican, Ron Paul can appeal to conservative voters with whom his Libertarian platform resonates, and he can take advantage of the infrastructure that the Republican party gives him.

Honestly, it is a great strategy, and one that so far seems to be paying off. I have no problem with a politician who switches party allegiance to gain access to voters. I vote for candidates, not parties, like most of the electorate, and so party allegiance means little to me. If Ron Paul’s Republican affiliate lets him get out his message to a wider audience, that to me is an example of a system that is working. He hasn’t compromised his principles to be more acceptable to the Republican mainstream, and so he’s playing politics as opposed to allowing politics to play him.

For those on the left, here’s something to think about. What if Ralph Nader ran as a Democrat in 2000? I bet a lot more of you would have voted for him, and he may have succeeded in making environmental issues a bigger part of the campaign. The reality is, running as a third party candidate has distinct disadvantages, and though I support a multi-party system, smart politicians can run far more effective campaigns within the major parties than outside of them. Instead of marginalizing themselves, they expand the debate, and that is a goal that I believe in.

Politics aside, would you be more willing to vote for someone like Ron Paul, running as a third party candidate within the two party system, or for someone like Michael Bloomberg who may run as an Independent? How much do party lines play into your voting decisions?

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::     ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: