 |
Ron Paul’s Choice: 3rd Party or Movement Builder |
 |
Ron Paul is facing a difficult decision.
On the one hand, he’s raised the most money of any Republican candidate this quarter, blowing his field away with an almost $20 million haul. He’s sitting on a ton of cash, contributed by extremely enthusiastic, grassroots supporters, and he has a duty to them to use that money to win the presidency.
One the other hand, New Hampshire, the “Live Free Or Die” state, where he was polling highest out of any state in the nation, was his firewall. After finishing a decisive 4th behind Rudy Giuliani, who didn’t even really contest the state, the Paul campaign is in trouble.
At this point, realistically, I cannot imagine a situation where Paul would win the nomination, or even break into the top 3. Most strategies laid out by supporters had Paul at least placing in New Hampshire. With the GOP race increasingly looking like a three way showdown between McCain, Huckabee, and Romney, there just isn’t room for Paul to build the momentum he needs.
But what does Paul do with all that cash? And all that grassroots support? As I see it, he’s got one of two options:
Option 1: A 3rd Party Run
After disappointing finishes in Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina (where he is polling in 6th place in all three states), Paul can drop out and run as an independent or Libertarian candidate. This would be a grave mistake.
The deck is stacked against 3rd party candidates in the United States. Our system of winner-takes-all elections virtually guarantees two party politics. The best a 3rd party candidate can do is hope to play spoiler.
Though Paul tends to pull in independents, it is hard to believe a 3rd party Paul run would pull heavy support away from Democrats, especially a more change oriented candidate like Barack Obama or John Edwards. Paul supporters seem to be people who would never vote for a Democrat on ideological grounds. Ron Paul could certainly run as a spoiler, but in all likelihood he would hand the presidency to Democrats in the process.
If Ron Paul ran as a 3rd party and lost - especially if he was a spoiler - his days of political relevancy would be over. Republicans would hate him and he would no longer be welcome in the party. Paul has been very effective working within the Republican party and not outside of it. Stripped of that party affiliation, it is doubtful he would see this kind of support for his political career, and therefore his policies, ever again.
Option 2: Build a Movement
Paul has another option; to drop out. Sure, maybe he would stay in the race until his money ran out. (As a progressive, I’d like to see him do just that, and continue pushing the conversation.) However, once his run was up, he could drop out - and begin organizing.
A passage in Crashing The Gate - the manifesto by Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of DailyKos and Jerome Armstrong of MyDD which laid out the ideas behind the surging progressive movement within the Democratic party - seems particularly applicable to Paul’s current moment:
[Howard] Dean’s campaign was an altogether new kind of campaign - it wasn’t about offering a list of “policy fixes”; it was more about creating a broad-based populism that energized the base by giving it voice in a national forum, and it was about boldly fighting Republicans, not imitating them. Using tools like Meetup.com, his merry band of bloggers, and the relatively new service unions like SEIU and AFCSME Dean built an army of foot soldiers that far out-numbered anything his opponents could muster.
Money talks loud and clear in electoral campaigns, and by June 2003 the party establishment was reeling from Dean’s second quarter financial windfall - he had raised $7.6 million.
…
That money was all the more remarkable because it was mostly internet-generated small-dollar donations. The Democratic Party had never seen anything like it before. The party, which was struggling to survive because of its gross inability to compete with Republicans on the hard-dollar front (because of McCain-Feingold), was watching a little-known candidate being flooded with exactly the kind of donations needed to build the party.
Replace Dean’s name with Paul’s, and the Democratic Party’s with the GOP’s, and it seems remarkably familiar, right?
After Howard Dean dropped out of the 2004 race, he was elected head of the DNC. Those that supported him, heartened by his election, continued to organize, build, and campaign. Today, they (we) are having a real effect on the presidential race. The progressive wing of the Democratic party grew from a groundswell of support around an insurgent candidate into a full-fledged, politically potent movement - one that will be around for a long time.
Ron Paul may be sitting on the beginnings of a very similar libertarian movement within the Republican party. Libertarians have become more and more disenfranchised as the GOP moved to court the religious right and embraced neo-conservatism. As those two main supports of the Republican party start collapsing in this election cycle, libertarians are well positioned to become a potent force within electoral politics again.
Therefore, if Ron Paul is smart - and I think he is - he drops out and starts to build a movement. He shies away from flash-in-the-pan politics in favor of building something lasting.
————————–
As a progressive, and someone who’s been fairly critical of Paul in the past, why do I want to see Paul take this route? Simply put, I’d rather be up against libertarians than neo-cons.
I’ve been fascinated by Ron Paul’s run this cycle. The support is there, the money is there, and the potent ideology is there, too. More importantly, libertarians and progressives agree on some core issues; we both feel the war in Iraq was a mistake, we are both against torture, we both uphold the rule of law and the Constitution as bedrocks of our nation. Granted, we disagree on many important issues, but I look forward to the day progressives are battling libertarians for presidential victories or congressional seats.
It’s way better than watching corporate Democrats duke it out with evangelical Republicans.
Did this article have any point? Honestly?
Did you read it? The point was, if libertarians want to see their ideas really get play on a national stage, they should be focused on movement building.
“Paul supporters seem to be people who would never vote for a Democrat on ideological grounds.”
Honestly, as a Paul supporter, I’m so embitterred with the GOP at this point I’d consider it, whereas I never would have before. At least the Democrats briefly enjoyed having two honest politicians running (Dodd and Kucinich, who is all but out). Policy takes a backseat if I get to have a president who will abide by the Constitution and bring integrity to the White House.
The corporate government/media axis of power would actively oppose it, but a Paul/Kucinich independent ticket could make some noise, as both sides have fervent support that is underrepresented in polls (if the stories we’re hearing from NH about the suppression of the Paul vote are true, perhaps at the ballot box as well). Yes, there are policy differences, but these are two genuine men whom we could trust to be honest stewards of our democracy, and also would get us out of Iraq and stop threatening everyone with more wars…something I think would resonate with people.
“I look forward to the day progressives are battling libertarians for presidential victories or congressional seats.”
What a wonderful dream it is.
I have supported Ron Paul and I still absolutely believe he has it 100% right on foreign policy and civil liberties, but these newsletters mark the end for Ron Paul. He can’t escape it. I will not be outspoken for a man who had a newsletter that spouted some really nasty racist stuff. I think a lot of supporters feel the same way. It is true that he has never said anything remotely like what is in those newsletters, but that is no excuse.
Joey is right, what is the point of this article? Paul has no chance, so he shouldn’t run as an independent, because that’ll guarantee he has no chance? He’s beating Thompson, the “savior” of the party that they all begged to run until he ran and… well, “walked” into 6th place.
As well, you and I both know that New Hampshire was quite possibly rigged. No mention of how 31 votes were “forgotten” in Sutton, NH? Nothing about Obama’s big lead in non-Diebold towns? You say he was behind Guiliani (barely) so he’s got no chance, which is not necessarily true. Maybe Diebold, when rigging, realized that Ron has to have support or otherwise his followers might “catch on”, and thought that it would be logical that in a place where he was polling way in front of Giuliani that he could lose to Giuliani by a small fraction and it could be “believable”?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no conspiracy theorist (I hate “Loose Change” and all who worship it), but past testimony and evidence, along with current discrepancies, point toward a good chance that something foul is afoot here.
Plus, what’s Paul to do with that money if he drops out? Why not fight it? Even though sure, I don’t think it’ll switch him to first in New Hampshire, a recount would be helpful for all parties involved. Can he sponsor a recount on the Dem side too? I think many would be happy with proof that Obama was the real winner, because there’s no real explanation for why the polls and the results were so off. “People lied to the pollsters”, what a joke. Why lie, it’s not like the pollster is gonna say “oh gosh boss, he said he wanted a white woman instead of the black man he’s supposed to want, I’m gonna tell his employer he’s a racist and he’ll get fired!”.
Sorry to write such a long and boring comment, but really. Just because you want Paul to lose doesn’t mean you have to want him to lose to Giuliani.
Well, look. I’m not going to dismiss the conspiracy theory out of hand, but being realistic, voter fraud can only swing things a couple of percentage points. Either way, Paul still doesn’t have the votes he needs to build momentum.
The point is, that’s ok. He can be defeated in this election and still have a real effect. The world does not end if Paul doesn’t get elected today. His criticisms and ideas will be just as potent next time around. Which is why I’m saying go out there and build for the long term.
Building a movement won’t help anything. This is it, the dollar won’t make it to the next election (the hyper inflation is already beginning). The most important thing the Ron Paul campaign can do is spread the message, so that America doesn’t fall right back into the same trap when the bankers swoop in with the Amero at the bottom of the recession. And once we are using the Amero with the same busted fractional reserve system it’s game over for America. Period.
I liked your article, particularly the last sentence. However, there’s no chance in hell the GOP is going to give Paul any position in the future. Anyone who goes up against the irs and the federal reserve should use some of the campaign contributions for secret service protection. Dean and the progressives don’t threaten such big intimidating institutions.
Live Free or Don’t. I care because even though I’m a “Paulite”, I want the real winner to be revealed. I know Paul won’t end up with the winner, but those couple of percentage points might swap Giuliani and Paul, or Huckabee and Giuliani and Paul, but most importantly, Obama and Clinton.
I may be an idealist, but I’d love to see if a recount changes things since optical scan was used (according to blackboxvoting).
Here’s the best refutation of the conspiracy theory I’ve seen yet:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/10/02623/2264/85/434176
Basically, the point is that there is a paper trail for every NH vote. I’m all for a hand recount, don’t get me wrong. But I don’t think we’re going to come up with a major difference. I mean, if I were going to throw an election, I wouldn’t throw an early primary in a small state. I would go for the real deal in November.
As I said, I’m all for the hand count, but I’ll need a better source than an unattributed Ron Paul website…
First off, Rudy campaigned and spent more money in NH than any candidate save Romney. I didn’t even read past your second paragraph. If you made an error that early, there was no point in reading the rest of your factually inaccurate piece.
I was thinking that made sense, as in he did better in NH because he focused on it. But I expected a McCain win because… that’s what happened in 2000.
Not only would I do I support Paul but I will vote for Obama if he is the Demoractic alternative to Huckabee or Romney (If it’s Clinton versus either of those two then I’m moving to Canada).
The Republican party is nothing like it use to be. It’s every bit as evil and corrupt as people claim (The same for the Democrats of course). The only remotely honest politicians I’ve seen in the election so far are Paul, Kucinich, Gravel and Dodd. I’m a Libertarian to the end but I would rather vote for an honest man I disagree with than a dishonest man I agree with. The ends do not always justify the means.
I like some of Ron Paul: He can’t be bought.
I like some of Dennis Kucinich. He’s a populist.
What I don’t like about Ron Paul, and it is a show-stopper, is that he is a delusional psychotic in that he is a religious nut-case.
What I don’t like about Dennis Kucinich, and it is a show-stopper, is that he is an unabashed communist, socialist, soak the rich, tax and spend democrat.
I don’t like any of the other Democrat nor Republican candidates because they are all in the pockets of big business, big media. All, without exception, of the Republicans are delusional psychotic religious nut-cases.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
If he was a religious nut case he’d be doing better, like Huck is. The problem for the religious nut case populous that while Romney and Huckabee are “religious fanatics, just like you” and their policies reflect it. Paul’s policies do not. Which is good. But not good enough for you.
One nation, under God, for the saved…
You have to look at Pauls record. While he is religious he doesn’t push his religion onto others. You might think wanting to stop federal support of abortion is a religious thing, but its really a States rights thing for him.
You’re forgetting one important point, at this point literally all the other Republican’s are out of money except Romney. Their fundraising in the final quarter was lackluster at best. Ron Paul will most likely never run out of money as long as he is building support (which is happening at a slow but steady pace). People don’t actually drop out of races because they are losing, they drop out because they ran out of money. Sure whomever is currently on top will get money from the GOP and top supporters, but not until its obvious they are winning. If this gets dragged well past Feb 5th into a brokered convention Ron Paul will be the ONLY one with any money whatsoever. Not sure what he will do with it, but it will be interesting to ponder, can he buy himself the nomination? It depends upon how greedy the GOP is (very), can he buy himself a seat like Gore has?
I’m of the opinion that Paul’s money won’t go as far as someone else’s money. As we all know, Paul doesn’t get a lot of media attention, and his name recognition is low. That means $20 million for him doesn’t go as far as $20 million for Romney.
Now, he will be able to make a splash with his load of cash. And he probably shouldn’t drop out until he’s broke. But I don’t think it’s going to buy as much as it might in the hands of a more well known candidate.
What keeps tumbling over in my mind is the possibility of building a new mainstream movement out of the current libertarians and progressives. I know it doesn’t make perfect sense on the face of it, but neither does having a Democratic party that is led by pro-war pro-PATRIOT act politicians while fully reliant on anti-war pro-civil liberties voters.
The lynchpin that could hold together a libertarian-progressive coalition is federalism: The simple notion of letting each state set its own social policy and focusing on the role of the federal government as a protector of civil liberties, security, and legal equality.
I know it sounds far fetched, but look at the corner the mainstream parties have backed us into. The votes are being dominated by a group of like-minded insiders whose opinions fall outside of mainstream American voters’ values. These fringe politicians call themselves “moderates” and “centrists” - its time for us, the freedom loving majority, to push them to the fringe edges.
Just remember, its possible to be a federal libertarian and support state socialism. It works in Europe, after all.
I believe you are incorrect about Paul supporters never voting Democrat on ideological grounds. I believe in many of Paul’s positions (especially foreign policy), but not all of them. I believe he is the best candidate for our country now, but if he doesn’t get the GOP nomination I’m voting Blue.
I like your thought process but I think you are forgetting to take a few things into consideration. First, the man is a libertarian, plain and simple. During his first presidential campaign, he ran as a libertarian while remaining a registered republican, therefore he does not really need to develop a movement not leave the republican party. The Paulites are all basically libertarians, true conservative republicans, extremely conservative democrats or people who just like an honest man. Also, Paul is 72 years old and in 5 years will be 77 years old and who knows what kind of condition he will be in. Hopefully, great condition but anything can happen. If he does run as a libertarian, I don’t think he will have any more problems with the republicans than he already does. and think about this: If your choice is a bush-league republican or an evangelical preacher on one side and Hillary a political insider female who voted for the war and the constant funding of the war or Obama an untested black male on the other, you could feasibly gain the votes of: anyone who is tired of the war mongering status quo (lots of people), people who are against anyone trying to marry religion and our government (lots of people), people who like a man of good character, Racists (lots of people) and sexists(lots of people). These demographics would of course have to intersect but would still give you lots of votes in your corner. People also seem to like the man for his honesty, some will like him for his being religious, you have states righters, etc. And once the field is narrowed down, you will notice that the republicans who like Romney or Giuliani will probably hate Huckabee. The democrats will have a likewise cross-section of voters. I predict in a race like this if any of the big six dems and repubs are nominated, you will have large scale crossing of party lines for a viable third party candidate. I personally would like to see Kucinich/Gravel(prez)with Paul (vice prez)(I’m progressive that way). That way you get a quality white house with checks and balances built right in(and I do believe Kucinich and Paul would work very well together.
The point about Paul being 72 is well taken. However, I would argue that this isn’t about him. If Paul builds a movement it will outlast him, and that’s a good thing. Real movements aren’t built around one person.
Not that I approve of Dr. Paul pulling away from a third party bid, but one thing I would like to see is him take a couple million of those dollars and have one, or a couple, clips of explanations of the source of inflation and the origin of the FED during commercial breaks. –just to educate people. I think that may even be more important.
Ron Paul has given a voice to those who know about how the Jewish lobby has corrupted the federal government. “Affirmative action”, “Martin Luther King Day”, “Civil Rights Act”. All of this is to support the Jewish lobby and their allies, black communists.
We need to restore states’ rights to put an end to the blacks and hispanics who are stealing our property, and our jobs!
Ron Paul 08!
And they say Ron Paul doesn’t have a race problem….
Anon-troll “RonPaulRules” shows how easy it is to post hateful nonsense in someone else’s name…
Look, if you’re in the Ron Paul camp because of Ron Paul, stick with your 72-year-old, used-to-publish-racist-propaganda candidate. If you’re in the Ron Paul camp because of his libertarian issue positions, this is a sad and humiliating moment but it’s time to find a new home for your political passion: The Libertarian party, the Democratic party, or the Republican party. (Or, as Jason suggests, in a new movement — though that seems like a tactical step backward to me.)
That’s not just a practical observation. Listen: The longer libertarian-minded voters stick with Ron Paul, the harder it will be to shake off the suspicions next time (and yes, it’s time to focus on next time; it’s not going to happen this time). If you want to have discussions about freedom next time, ditch Paul now. If you want to have discussions about racism and the Trilateral Commission, well . . . I don’t, but you know what to do.
Ron Paul is no racist and has already accepted moral responsibility for not paying more attention to what went out in his name in the past. But, hey, as long as we’re parroting old talking points, Al Gore said he invented the internet! Ha Ha!
Friend, you can spend the next decade defending Ron Paul against the evidence of bigotry in the newsletters he published, or you can spend the next decade championing libertarian ideals of individual freedom and limited government in an effort to change the course of this country.
When the pain and betrayal of this week begin to fade, what is going to feel more important to you?
Ah, so you think there will still be a constitution in 10 years?
Toby, I’m worried about the Constitution, and I’m worried about you. I believe you have ideals beyond hero worship for an old man presently running away from his history as a racist publisher.
Forgive Ron Paul, let him go, and regroup to fight for your ideals.
Peace. I’m not trying to score points on you or condescend to you. I’m just suggesting that you have better things to do with your political future than making it an endless loop of revisiting why you went down with Ron Paul’s sinking ship way back in 2008.
Ok, smart guy, who are YOU voting for?