Posted under Election 2012 & Republican Party & Ron Paul & Third Party
Just as sure as one can be of the sun rising in the morning, one can be sure the political media will ask Ron Paul if he going to make a “third party” bid for the White House. Some media commentators seem obsessed with this possibility largely because he’s done it once before in his first bid for the White House as the Libertarian Party nominee.
Which is precisely he’s being sincere when he says he doesn’t want to do it again because he know how hard it it is to get on the ballot in all 50 states, (even with a mid-major party nomination) how hard it is to raise money and how hard it is to get media attention (you’ve think you’ve seen blackouts now?). Ron Paul knows all of this which is why he keep saying he has “no intention” nor plans of doing so. Apparently some journalists have forgotten the meaning of the word “no”.
So why not take no for an answer? My guess is many in the political media would love to see such a run if only to enliven a Obama-Romney snoozefest if that’s what it came down to and perhaps some sympathetically see an independent campaign as perhaps the best means of getting Paul’s message to the voters even if even if the facts show he’s gained for more attention for his views running for the GOP nomination than he ever would as an independent.
Still, this will be Ron Paul’s last campaign and while it is in a stronger position and far better organized than it was at this time four years ago, the fact his poll numbers remain consistent but stagnant while charlatans, fools, and the “Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time-Players” that make up the GOP Presidential candidate field leap ahead of him the polls of likely Republican voters as the media’s “flavor-of-the-month” indicate an old truism about dogs and dogfood. If they don’t like it, for whatever reason, they will not eat it no matter how much money you put into advertising, product marketing and development. And an independent campaign is also tempting when the first poll of such a match-up (Obama-Romney-Paul) showed Paul at 18 percent to start off with. Not bad.
But if Paul were to make such a jump it cannot be an “independent campaign”. It cannot be a vanity run or the act of a spoiler. It can’t be something forgotten about years later like John Anderson in 1980 or Ross Perot in 1992. For his last campaign Ron Paul has to leave something substantial behind, especially for the many young persons who support him. It has to be an actual campaign of a third party, meaning that Ron Paul will have to create a new major party as his legacy, not just another minor one.
For this to happen several standards (and very high standards) have to be achieved to make this new party both feasible and credible. They are as follows:
1). Paul has to average 15 percent of the vote in GOP primaries and caucuses and probably win a state or two. Anything less will not cut it for voters outside the party with the base first and foremost. Gaining eight percent in Iowa for example in the caucuses would make such a bid pointless.
2). Such a party must included elected officials, which means Sen. Rand Paul has to be a member along with Congressmen like Walter Jones Jr. or Justin Amash or Mike Lee. Any non-major party bid puts Rand’s political future at risk and if he’s not a part of the new party, it doesn’t work.
3). It has to include more persons than just disgruntled Republicans. Bringing along Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich for example would give it more credibility to a broader swath of voters and encourage others who aren’t cultural Republicans to join. U.S. political parties are not parliamentary parties and never were intended to be. They were meant to be factions of voters to be brought together by a few uniting issues.
4). It needs at least three or four guiding principals all of its members can agree with. And these can be ideological or cultural or what have you. But it needs a centrifugal force to keep the party together. The Reform Party, the last attempt at building a third major party, failed because no one could figure out what those principals which united a quite diverse group ranging from Pat Buchanan to Lenora Fulani. Instead the divisiveness within the party became a battle for power and with it control a huge pot of Federal matching funds which turned a lot of people away from it.
What those principals would be I’m not going to speculate too much on. Certainly a broad belief in civil liberties, decentralization, End the Fed, localism, changing U.S. foreign policy and reducing the military-industrial complex would be a start. I think a such party could stand on a platform which reduces the size of the federal government and allows for power to the people where they live to determine their own lives is one a party like this could stand upright on. A party which respects the regional and cultural differences within the country instead of the “BE LIKE US OR ELSE!” mentality of modern liberals and conservatives might entice voters who have said time and time again in polls they want another major party to vote for.
Such a party probably wouldn’t win in 2012 but if it could emerge with a good stable of public office holders and spend the next four years organizing and increasing its strength, making itself ready for 2014 and 2016, then such a party could establish itself with a significant section of voters not strongly tied to either party. These are big “coulds” but given the current upheaval in world and the U.S., voters would certainly be more attentive to such a message than they were in the more placid mid and late 90s when the Reform Party floundered.
If you don’t believe Ron Paul completely closed on a third party campaign, maybe it’s because he’s of a similar mind: No more vanity campaigns, no more campaigns with pure ideologically based parties. The only third party run for the White House worth making is a run that actually goes somewhere.
Kirt Higdon on 11 Nov 2011 at 8:34 pm #
This is a very good analysis and shows how difficult it would be for Ron Paul to make a 3rd party run that would be considered a long term success. Would it help or hurt if the Paulistas took over an existing 3rd party rather than trying to create a new one from scratch? I believe the Libertarian party is already ballot qualified in most states and the Constitution Party (under one name or another) in many states.
Augustinian on 11 Nov 2011 at 8:36 pm #
Patroon,
This was very interesting and I agree almost completely. Will it happen? Maybe if the GOP ticket becomes Romney-Santorum (ugh), which is my prediction …
By the way, “principals” should be “principles.”
Patroon on 11 Nov 2011 at 8:40 pm #
Most state election require new parties to start from scratch and trying to take over another party’s ballot line would be divisive and time-wasting. It would akin to taking over someone’s clubhouse.
If said parties wish to merge with the new entity that’s fine but I don’t think they automatically inherit their ballot status.
Kirt Higdon on 11 Nov 2011 at 11:47 pm #
The problem as I see it with starting from scratch to build a new party as a vehicle for the candidate of an existing party is that there is not much time to do it. You’re right about potential divisiveness; Buchanan’s attempt to take over the Reform party was disastrous both for him and the party. On the other hand, Ron Paul was the LP candidate once in the past. In any event, aside from some wishful thinking speculation, I see no real indication that RP will make a 3rd party or independent run.
Brock Townsend on 11 Nov 2011 at 11:50 pm #
Well said and posted.
Bruce on 12 Nov 2011 at 5:30 pm #
Good article, but what are we supposed to do now ?
I will never vote for Mitt !
Looking back I am glad I never voted for McCain or George Bush, either one of them.
I did vote for for Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford but I was young then and thought Republicans were conservative .
No more RINOs or Democrat lite candidates !
Not Libertarian on 13 Nov 2011 at 8:19 pm #
Write in Hitler. That is my plan at the moment.
C Bowen on 14 Nov 2011 at 1:05 am #
I guess I am missing the opportunity of running on both the Libertarian and Constitution Party tickets and using both parties as a future check on the GOP.
Further, there could easily be situations where House Reps are forced to identify with Ron Paul over a nominee like Romney. DeMint’s calculus to not endorse a candidate speaks volumes to this point.
If Nader could some how convince the Green Party to vote up ticket Paul–or at least tell pollsters as much–the numbers will be there to get into the debates.
While I lean Ventura as VP choice to personify rightwing America First in our day and time, I suppose that should be of discussion.
New Party talk is a bit premature when getting the CP and LP to talk to one another is more practical.
Savrola on 14 Nov 2011 at 3:27 pm #
Libertarians and Constitution Party rank and file work together all the time.
The Executive Committees of both parties fulll of babyboomer who are too busy playing games for their own amusement.
They both subscribe to the fallacy that winning the presidency somehow matters.
Also they both draw from the same constituency of about one million.
And Ron Paul is about worn out, right now.
Kirt Higdon on 14 Nov 2011 at 4:47 pm #
I agree with Savrola. A merger of the LP and CP would probably be a good idea and since Ron Paul has shown no interest in a last hurrah 3rd party run, it’s probably pointless to try to push him into that. Whether or not he runs, we’ll most likely have either Obama or Romney as president for the next four years after 2012. That’s unpleasant, but not the end of the world.
Marcus on 23 Nov 2011 at 10:58 am #
Conservative Party USA claims to support real conservative principles such as The Principle of Subsidiarity. Government works best at the local level. The closer the control of government is to the people, the more interest and control citizens hold in political proceedings and operations.
And Project Mayberry® sure seems great compaired to the normal nationalism espoused by the Grand Old Party. What Is Project Mayberry®?
Project Mayberry® is a coordinated, national effort to break the Democrat-Republican elite stranglehold on Lady Liberty by uniting America’s diverse, conservative, traditional family-value Patriots at the local level.
CP-USA and its strategic partners will identify, train, groom, support and campaign for “down-ticket” conservative candidates for local elected offices for the 2012 election cycle and beyond. The targeted offices include: Small-town mayors and city council members; Local school and education Boards; Water and Utility Commissions; Local sheriffs; Judges and District Attorneys; State Legislators.
Project Mayberry® will build the conservative movement from the ground-up by creating the solid political foundation needed to gain state ballot access and to elect experienced conservative candidates for future state-wide and national offices.
Unfortunately CP-USA is not incorporated in many states, and their conservative stace is certainly offensive to Greens. Plus they have listed in their Circle of Friends: Center for Military Readiness, State Constutions, The American Spectator, The Heritage Foundation, and American Enterprise Institute. I thought the last three were neoconservative? But since they are very small and new it might be possible for enough real conservatives to direct the party to add conservative media, so The Heritage Foundation, and AEI don’t take over. CP-USA is certainly too small for a 2012 presidential campain, but maybe enough citizens could be elected at the local levels to nullify Bush, Obama, etc. policies, and maybe get the federal gov. to a sane size.
Conservative Party USA was started in Baton Rouge, LA in January 2009. It might help a little that they are not in Washington, D.C.
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an engaged, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds” … Samuel Adams