The Ron Paul Third-Party Scenario
A few months ago, the chattering classes were all a-tizzy over the prospect of a Michael Bloomberg third-party bid for the White House. Nothing much came of it, but we all had fun pontificating about the possibility (yours truly included -- 7/11/07). Since it was such an enjoyable exercise, I'd like to be the first to roll out another third-party scenario to provide fodder for the punditocracy (in case this turns out to be a slow news week).
After taking several recent announcements into consideration, I have gazed into my crystal ball and foreseen Ron Paul as the nominee of the Libertarian Party for 2008. Paul will be supported by droves of "family values" voters and will actually gain a respectable percentage of the popular vote. The Democratic nominee then waltzes into the White House, spikes the ball, and does an end-zone dance in the Oval Office.
Now, I realize I should have saved this for my Hallowe'en column (where I present nightmarish scenarios for both parties), since it would be absolutely disastrous for the Republican Party as a whole. But recent events forced my hand.
The first was Ron Paul's third-quarter fundraising total, a whopping five million dollars plus. That is nothing to be sneezed at, considering he outraised many candidates from both parties, and (going solely by fundraising) has effectively risen from "third-tier longshot" to "second tier" candidate within his own party. Of course, the mainstream media hasn't noticed this yet, but with five million bucks to spend Ron Paul's name is going to be on some airwaves soon -- as paid ads if not in the actual news.
The second thing which happened last week was James Dobson (president of Focus on the Family) announcing after a secretive meeting of right-wing Christian bigwigs that the Christian Right may very well back a third-party candidate if they deem the Republican nominee insufficiently zealous on their favorite issues. This is a shot across the bow to Rudy Giuliani, the current Republican frontrunner.
Some dismiss this talk as bluster. The soul-killing question reverberating around Washington is no doubt that old chestnut: "Who else are they going to vote for?" This question is often used by both parties when one of their constituent groups threatens to go off the reservation. Anti-war types enraged by Democrats? Who else are they going to vote for? Blacks annoyed that their votes are taken for granted by Democrats? Who else are they going to vote for? On the Democratic side, this is often followed in ominous tones with: "Look what happened with Ralph Nader." But this time, the question is coming from the Republican side of the aisle, with the same sneering little chuckle of laughter -- The religious right isn't happy with the presidential nominee? Who else are they going to vote for?
This is pure cynicism distilled from the entrenchment of the two-party system in American politics. The problem is, when you've identified yourself as a one-issue (or even handful-of-related-issues) voter, and the party doesn't nominate someone reliably on your side, what do you do? The evangelical right is terrified that Rudy Giuliani will win the nomination, because he's tolerant on almost all the things the religious right demands intolerance on: God, guns, and gays -- as well as the 800-pound gorilla in the room, abortion.
Time will tell whether (1) Giuliani even gets the nomination, and (2) whether the religious right will bolt the GOP en masse in the election or not. But assuming for the sake of argument that Rudy walks off with it in February, and the family values crowd isn't bluffing, it opens up another third-party scenario for the election.
Enter Ron Paul. Since if (1) is true and Paul loses to Giuliani, he will be free to be courted as a third-party candidate. This is about the point that everyone will realize the fact that Ron Paul has already run as a third-party candidate. In 1988, Ron Paul was the Libertarian Party's nominee for president. He's really a Libertarian in Republican clothing to begin with, so this wouldn't be an enormous philosophical political journey for him to make.
And while Ron Paul has been getting a lot of attention in the online world for his stance on the Iraq war (he's against it) and for other equally Libertarian viewpoints, something many people (especially on the left) haven't noticed is that Paul has unshakable bedrock-values anti-abortion views. These views will not change one iota, it should be noted. Ron Paul is a doctor -- an OB/GYN to be precise. Which means his views on the life of a fetus are not something he puts on as a cloak of convenience to get elected to office (like some Republicans I could mention), they are fundamental viewpoints he has held in his profession for his entire life.
If Ron Paul loses the nomination battle in the Republican Party, it is conceivable that the Libertarians would court him. Since he's already run as their nominee previously (and since he's got a better shot at it this time around due to the internet "buzz" which surrounds him), it is also conceivable that he would be open to the Libertarian Party's nomination.
Back to the religious right. Now, it's one thing to threaten to vote for a third party, but it actually takes a whopping amount of time, money, and effort to "create" a political party which gets on the ballot in all 50 states. Ross Perot created a political party out of whole cloth (and a bottomless checkbook), but then he was a billionaire to begin with. It's also one thing to threaten to "just stay home" on election day, and quite another to actually vote for someone else.
But what if the evangelical right was presented with a strongly anti-abortion candidate as the nominee of a party that was already on the ballot in every state? That would be a tremendous shortcut -- one which might indeed fracture the base of the Republican Party. The question is whether the family-values crowd can put up with Ron Paul's other policy stances, some of which may be a little unpalatable for such voters -- his anti-war stance, for instance. Or the Libertarian Party's stance on the War on Drugs, for instance (they're for legalizing everything).
It's hard to even estimate exactly what the religious right's strength is within the Republican Party in the first place, and harder still to estimate how many of them would bolt Rudy's nomination. But it's a pretty safe bet that a Ron Paul Libertarian candidacy would hurt Republicans more than it would hurt Democrats. Paul could get a respectable percentage of the popular vote, perhaps even on the scale of Ross Perot (who got 19% in 1992), but it's doubtful he could win any electoral college votes (Perot got zero, even with one-fifth of the total votes). Which would turn him into a spoiler for the Republican Party. He might even precipitate a general and fundamental shakeup within the GOP itself, between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives -- something moderate Republicans have been hoping will happen for years.
So while there are many caveats to my prediction, the following outcome should be seen as predestined. If Rudy is the GOP nominee, if Ron Paul is the Libertarian nominee, and if the evangelical leaders start supporting Paul -- then the result is an absolute lock on the White House for whoever the Democratic nominee happens to be (who will doubtlessly begin practicing end-zone dances the day after Ron Paul announces as the Libertarian candidate).
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
-- Chris Weigant
Well its good to hear a bit about Ron Paul. I've been wondering what his deal is, and haven't spent much time researching. I did notice that alot of people at the DC protest in Sept, were supporters of Ron Paul, and I thought, how could these lefties support a righty? What made it a bit more mysterious was that alot of radicals, 9/11 truthers, Alex Jones, etc support him as well. I wasn't sure if it was his stance on issues, or the fact that the dem front runner, Hillary, may be more than meets the eye. CW, I emailed you that link about Hillary, and her connection to blackwater, and i forget what else, but thats a big deal, especially to some radical lefties who pay alot of attention to the influence of big business on govt, and are against it, because with Hillary, her connection to blackwater and there were a few others, it makes you wonder how it will influence her decision making. I think most will agree that big business has had a massive influence on the current administration, and there lack of concern for popular opinion, and for myself, I definately do NOT want to see that again. That, in my eyes, is exactly why we are not participating in the Kyoto agreement on global warming, why we are not spending money on alternative energy etc etc. In the next administration, we need a leader that is not afraid of big business, nor influenced by them. I wonder where Ron Paul stands in that sector. And as far as legalizing drugs, I think thats a terrible idea. Maybe medical marijuana, although that will certainly create plenty of fraudulent doctors, but the hard stuff, plain and simple ruins lives. Bad issue to support. However he would steal away many of the college age democratic voters, and all the hippies out there that may have voted for Bud Green many years ago. Oh and keep in mind with Giuliani, he's been divorced many times, and I'm not sure if it was you CW who posted an article about his riding in a city parade while mayor, with a publically known mistress. I think he will definately lose the religious right. I attended a church around the last midterm elections, and they passed out leaflets about the candidates, and the only info on it was their stance on abortion and same sex marriage, nothing else. I never returned:) anyway if that goes on at church's around the country, Giuliani will be hurtin.
It is very difficult to find a candidate that is a clone of myself on all the issues in this two-party system. So I am very happy whenever a third-party candidate appears. However, it is not enough. The US needs multiple national parties (not just presidential candidates) that are on the ballot on all 50 states. Then things would get really interesting in Congress!
...Stan
I hope your analysis is correct. Ron Paul is a bigger whack job than Perrot ever thought about being.
The religious right doesn’t have a prayer of maintaining power this election cycle. I just hope they pick-up their snakes and stay home.
Stan - The country need Instant Run-off voting
chris found your huff post googling Ron Paul News. i am very disappointed in your article. Dr. No aka Dr Ron Paul is adamant about not going third party. Done that, been there SIC. please don't obfuscate a simple man's desire to end the warfare state. it is very strange that a pro choice person like me would stand with Dobson's phychos, but if it'll end war, then that's the sacrifice i'll make.
Ron Paul is a whack job? Why?
Ive wondered weather multi party would make things better. I have 'heard' that it complicates things in uk system. I imagine at least have 3 or 4 could be good. Less one side against the other, vote against everything 'they' want to pass BS. Maybe we can bring back the Whig party.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Rep.+Ron+Paul%3A+I+advocate+the+same+foreign+policy+the+Founding+Fathers+would&articleId=cc287b0f-941c-4b07-88e9-9e992810f700
Pretty cool take on foreign policy. Questionable, but better approach than lil bush.
The BEST thing that could happen to this country is a third party candidate being elected president...
Actually, that's the SECOND best thing..
The BEST thing is to do away with political parties completely.. And vote for the best PERSON..
Not the best Party..
Because, frankly.. There IS no "best" party.. You partisan types that herald the Democrats but castigate the Republicans.. Yer just mindless lemmings, parroting the party dogma...
God, wouldn't it be nice if people actually thought for themselves... What a great country this would be...
But no... We have these parrots screeching, "REPUBLICANS are EVIL!!! DEMOCRATS are PURE!!!" and "DEMOCRATS are EVIL!!! REPUBLICANS are PURE!!!"
Reminds me of that Star Trek episode, "LET THAT BE YOUR LAST BATTLEFIELD" where there was this planet that had "racial" prejudice because some of the inhabitants were black on the LEFT side and white on the right and others were black on the RIGHT side and white on the left..
Partisanship is bigotry, pure and simple...
And anyone who indulges in partisan attacks are bigots...
Pure and simple..
Chew on that....
Michale...
>Because, frankly.. There IS no "best" party.. You partisan types that herald >the Democrats but castigate the Republicans.. Yer just mindless lemmings, ?>parroting the party dogma…
>And anyone who indulges in partisan attacks are bigots…
>Pure and simple..
>Chew on that….
And those that herald the repubs and castigate the dems are? ......................
THere was an article on Huff from USAtoday, says that right wingers hate Ron Paul above any other righty. Figures, the most sane af the repubs, gets blasted by his own.
Chris,
You must be asleep at the wheel. Ron has asserted many times he will NOT become a third party candidate.
People should vote for him NOW if they want to beat Hillary. We can't win with Rudy or Mitt.
Ron is a man of his word...so you're prediction looks foolish, especially where his assertion is in print in many many places.
benskull wrote:
>Because, frankly.. There IS no "best" party.. You partisan types that herald >the Democrats but castigate the Republicans.. Yer just mindless lemmings, ?>parroting the party dogma…
>And anyone who indulges in partisan attacks are bigots…
>Pure and simple..
>Chew on that….
And those that herald the repubs and castigate the dems are? ………………….
~~~~~
Um, dogging the party parrotma?