All the way to November
02-15-2008
Let's go for it!
All the way to November!
By David FrankeEditor
UltimateRonPaul.com
[I strongly urge you to read my previous posting, "Why bother to vote? The evolution of a frustrated voter," first, in order to fully understand the context for this article.]
To recapitulate, I want to make my dissident political voice heard, but I’ve learned that voting for the Libertarian Party presidential candidate is a one-way ticket to Nowhere. First, all the rules are rigged against third parties by the Republican-Democratic duopoly, making a successful third party venture a billionaire’s game at best. Second, the media impose a blackout on third party efforts, making it virtually impossible to merely find out how many votes their candidates get.
With both major parties equally corrupted and culpable for our welfare/warfare state, I have decided to vote strategically rather than ideologically. Since there are no “good guys” to vote for who can have an impact, I now find myself voting for one or both of these strategic goals:
- (1) To ensure divided government, by splitting the federal spoils (the White House, the Senate, the House) between the two parties. Recent history shows that this can at least slow down the growth of the federal government, as the imbecile donkey and the imbecile elephant concentrate their energies on slitting each other’s throats.
- (2) To drive the Republicans out of every vestige of power in Washington as punishment for Iraq, the implementation of torture as national policy, the dismantling of the Bill of Rights, and so much more. Only total exile will do the job. They’ve already lost the Senate and the House, but if they hold on to the White House they will convince themselves that it’s still politics as usual and that they can come back to power in Congress without mending their ways. I’m not sure that even total exile will teach anything to the Republicans—they’re pretty dense—but I suspect the Democrats would then think twice about getting America into an unnecessary war.
So, here it is 2008, and my dilemma is that I cannot hope to see both goals accomplished. The Democrats are sure to hold on to the Senate and the House, and will most probably increase their margins in both. Give them the White House and we’ve succeeded in driving the Republicans out of power, but we do have the risk of one-party government again. We’ve seen what that gets us under all-Republican government and under all-Democratic government.
Then, to compound the strategic confusion, we’ve got the Ron Paul phenomenon. Sure, he has no reasonable expectation of being able to get the GOP’s nomination, but the Internet has given him the volunteers and the money to create a new movement that can have an impact in the future—the near future.
I say let’s go for it!
We should devote our efforts to convincing Ron Paul to run for both the Libertarian and Republican nominations, so he’ll be on the ballot in November no matter what happens at the Republican convention in September (and we know it won’t be his nomination taking place in Minneapolis-St. Paul). With the money he has already raised, and the money he can continue to raise, he could mount a Libertarian campaign the likes of which we haven’t seen before. One that would actually get noticed and have an impact.
A Ron Paul campaign through November would have another good effect. He represents a fusion of both libertarian and (small government) conservative principles. That has a lot more chance of attracting a national audience than a purist libertarian approach. In fact, it’s very close to the coalition that formed the conservative movement at its inception—only better and smarter.
The original conservative movement was a fusion of (a) small-government constitutionalists, (b) libertarians or classical liberals, and (c) anti-communists. There certainly wasn’t anything wrong with being an anti-communist; they represented a real threat to people around the world and even at home in the U.S. (There was no threat that they would ever win at the ballot box, but loyalty to a foreign power hostile to the very idea of constitutional government, and the use of subversion to undermine our government, was a real threat.) The problem was that, over the decades, conservatives got so used to subordinating their other beliefs to a psychic need for perpetual war against a foreign enemy, they morphed into Bush-Cheney.
Understanding this, the new movement resulting from the Ron Paul phenomenon of 2008 would still consist of (a) and (b) above, but the new (c) would be proponents of the Old Right tradition of nonintervention in foreign policy. Defense (literally), not empire.
Another way in which this would be a smarter movement than the original conservative movement: It wouldn’t get bogged down trying to “take over” the Republican Party. Instead it would seek to change and dominate the nation’s policy agenda, no matter which party is in power, the way the Fabian Socialists did it in the 20th century.
Don’t I worry about all-Democratic government?
Sure, but I worry just as much about having another Republican as President—it’s a comedy act, the way the “electable” GOP candidates are trying to out-macho each other, except that I’m crying, not laughing.
I don’t think the Billary team can get elected. They are so nasty, even a sizeable chunk of the Democratic constituency has had its fill with them, and enough Independents would hold their noses and vote for yet another Republican as the lesser evil. And if by hook or crook (literally) they did get elected, the vast right wing conspiracy would make their second tenure in the White House miserable. It’s all bread and circuses, smoke and mirrors, nothing’s changed except the location of the Colosseum with this Republican-Democrat crowd that’s consumed with power rather than principle.
The only person who can save us from this bleak reprise for the next four years is Barack Obama. I wish him well. In fact, I’ll vote for him if he gets the Democratic nomination and Ron Paul isn’t on the ballot in November. He really does understand the difference between politics as usual and being a transitional President—that’s why he honors Ronald Reagan’s achievement. And if there is any chance of transcending race, it is with this brilliant, inspiring orator.
Of course I disagree with Obama on virtually every policy issue, but with his relative inexperience he would make even more mistakes than most new Presidents and his more extreme policy initiatives would get mired down in the Washington muck. Meanwhile, there would be time for the new Ron Paul coalition to get about the serious business of creating a new movement without being hampered by an incumbent Republican administration.
All of which leads me to this course of action for 2008:
√ Work for Ron Paul to get the Republican nomination, all the way to Minneapolis-St. Paul.
√ Convince Ron Paul to seek the Libertarian Party nomination as well.
√ Convince the Libertarian Party to nominate Ron Paul as its candidate for President.
√ Make effective use of Paul’s money chest to make the libertarian choice visible to the American people, to an extent that’s never been done before. The ideal would be for the Libertarian Party/Ron Paul vote in November to represent the balance of power between the Democrats and the Republicans. Accomplish that and you could be sure we’d be listened to in the future.
√ Then, after a couple of days’ rest, get to work creating the new Ron Paul coalition as a permanent policy force in American politics.
We’ve got our work cut out for us!
| Add This Article To: | |||
 Del.icio.us |
 Digg |
 Google |
 Spurl |
 Blink |
 Furl |
 Simpy |
 Y! MyWeb |
Comments:
